Which SLR ?

[Saracen]

.... and at one point i'd want to do macro shots, so im guessing i'd need a dedicated lens for that. ....

Well, it kinda depends on what you mean by "macro".

My definition is 1:1 reproduction on the "image sensing surface". I hedge that phrase carefully, because it is the same for film as a CCD (or CMOS) sensor. If, having gone through the lens, the size of the image on that surface is the same size as the original, or larger, then it's what I'd call macro.

A lot of lens manufacturers, however, will refer to 1:2, 1:3 or 1:4 as "macro". I don't agree. I'd call that close-up.

As for how you get that, well, if you're talking about true macro then yes, almost certainly you'd need a dedicated lens. Again, there might be a non-dedicated lens that'll do that, but I can't think of one. You can also use close-up 'filters' that screw on the end of a standard lens, or you can use a reversing ring with something like a standard 50mm prime lens, or you can use bellows. Or you can use specially-constructed home-brew apparatus. I know one guy that uses a custom-built adjustable stand and enlarger lens. And, believe me, the results he gets are world-class, and award winning. But then, he's an expert.

In other words, there are some number of ways of skinning the macro cat. It might be that what you're after isn't actually macro, but that 'close-up' is enough. If so, it's certainly a far cheaper option.

You also need to bear in mind, both with respect to macro and to any other lens type and range, that you can't tell anything much about lens quality from basic specs. For a given spec (say, 24-70mm), you might pay £100 for one lens and £800 for another. The difference is likely to be partly built quality (such as waterproofing), but also optical quality.

That leads to a problem. If you want good photos, you need to be using good quality lenses. That's what Bobster was referring to (I assume). So you might get better images, though not as much magnification, from a good-quality lens with a close-up than from a cheap and poor quality dedicated macro.

Having said all that, "good" macros (probably of around the £300 mark, give or take) make a field that's actually quite challenging to do well easier. Because one thing you'll find with macro is that it's easy to get "okay" shots, and quite hard technically to get really good ones. It's a field that throws several technical challenges at you. First, typically very narrow depth of field. Secondly, getting sufficient light, and a good quality of light.

While things like reversing rings and so forth can be used for macro on the cheap, using a good quality dedicated lens reduces those technical challenges. But make no mistake - they don't make them go away. In my opinion, NO part of photography can be solved just by throwing money at it. It still takes skill and a good eye to get really good images. And that's every bit as true of macro as it is anything else .... perhaps more so.

[HSK]

^ thanks again Saracen, that's insightful for me as i still need to get to grips with it all.

what do you call midrange?
They pretty much all (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax/Samsung, Sony) make good ones with each having their own unique blend of features/benefits & potential drawbacks depending upon your own personal needs.

actually lol good question, I still need to look around at what's out there, not sure what the pricing to specs are like. i guess i just don't want something too budget but not something that would break the bank either, a good all rounder with reasonable flexibility.