Should I buy a decent camera?

[GeorgeStorm]

As above really, I'm looking to buy a camera, and like the idea of getting a DSLR, just wondering whether it would be remotely?

Currently borrowing a friends 450D for a week or two so I can see if I think it would be worth it, so far I like it, obviously don't really know what I'm doing with it yet, need to spend more time with, but I was just wondering what you guys thought.

Should I just pick up a £50 point and shoot, or spend up to £400 on a nice DSLR?

In terms of what I want to shoot, will be various computery bits most likely, and then when I go on bike rides I'd probably take it, and family events/holidays

Thanks

[j.o.s.h.1408]

As above really, I'm looking to buy a camera, and like the idea of getting a DSLR, just wondering whether it would be remotely?

Currently borrowing a friends 450D for a week or two so I can see if I think it would be worth it, so far I like it, obviously don't really know what I'm doing with it yet, need to spend more time with, but I was just wondering what you guys thought.

Should I just pick up a £50 point and shoot, or spend up to £400 on a nice DSLR?

In terms of what I want to shoot, will be various computery bits most likely, and then when I go on bike rides I'd probably take it, and family events/holidays

Thanks

I was like you. diddnt know if it would be worth getting a dslr but since getting my 400d i fell in love with it instantly!

I'd say go for it but be careful as photography aint cheap

[GeorgeStorm]

Haha yeah, that is one worry, if I were to get into it, since I tend to have quite an obsessive personality, so knowing me I'd get massively into it for a couple of months, stop eating to fund the habit, then suddenly be no longer interested

What kinda stuff do you shoot?

And I forgot to mention, any recommendations as to what cameras to go for?
Been offered a D3100 and 500D both at decent prices. Have no problems buying 2nd hand, would prefer it so I can get more for my money/save money.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Make sure you want to have the bulk of a dSLR first and remember it is lenses which are the more expensive part. A decent prosumer compact actually might be more useful to have at times. A dSLR is only as good as the amount of times you can be bothered to take it with you and a compact is much smaller.

[kalniel]

If you want a camera for the final pictures, and those pictures will be taken in normal situations and used for normal viewing (ie not professional) then there's no way a DSLR can compete with the value for money of a compact point and shoot.

However if you want to take up photography as a hobby, and it's the process of taking the photos that you will enjoy rather than the final result, OR you are especially interested in tricky situations that compacts aren't designed to cope with, OR you have a special use for the output that justifies a DSLR.. then get a DSLR.

With that in mind, the key thing will be either a) how much you enjoy handling the camera and taking photos with it, b) how good the performance is in the particular situations you are after, c) how good the final image is when treated professionally. That will determine what DSLR you should go for.

[TheAnimus]

If you want something you can take cycling, thats small enough, yet interchangable lenses and allows you to do 'creative' effects, then you might want to look at a Pentax Q:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...2248/show.html

I've had mine a couple of days now and its great, its small and un-obtrusive enough to go most places with you.

Something which can't be said of my dSLR.

[g8ina]

Why not show us some of the pics you've taken so far...

You may find that your subjects and style *might* dictate one or another style of camera ?

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Something which can't be said of my dSLR.

Your not trying hard enough.





http://stillmotionblog.com/2011/02/0...he-helmet-cam/

http://www.videomaker.com/community/...met-camera-rig

[TheAnimus]

Hmm that addresses all the praticality concerns I had, thanks Cat, also where is the moose?

OP: http://www.camera-pentax.jp/q/en/simulator.php#00063 shows you the kind of things they've put in body, yet it still shoots RAW ('digital negatives') like a proper SLR does, and currently has 4 great lenses available (one of them is utter crap imho).

Its more about having fun, but still the sensor is good enough quality to get A3 sized prints from.

[GeorgeStorm]

Blimey, suddenly replies!

Make sure you want to have the bulk of a dSLR first and remember it is lenses which are the more expensive part. A decent prosumer compact actually might be more useful to have at times. A dSLR is only as good as the amount of times you can be bothered to take it with you and a compact is much smaller.

The size isn't an issue for me, infact I quite like it, and I'm not the type of person who just wants a camera to carry around with them at all times, take pictures here and there, only time I'll want to take pictures is when I know in advance/do something deliberately to take pitcures.

If you want a camera for the final pictures, and those pictures will be taken in normal situations and used for normal viewing (ie not professional) then there's no way a DSLR can compete with the value for money of a compact point and shoot.

However if you want to take up photography as a hobby, and it's the process of taking the photos that you will enjoy rather than the final result, OR you are especially interested in tricky situations that compacts aren't designed to cope with, OR you have a special use for the output that justifies a DSLR.. then get a DSLR.

With that in mind, the key thing will be either a) how much you enjoy handling the camera and taking photos with it, b) how good the performance is in the particular situations you are after, c) how good the final image is when treated professionally. That will determine what DSLR you should go for.

Well, at the moment I don't have a camera at all, so I can't fully answer this one really, although even from having a day or two with my friends camera, I can see myself really enjoying it. As I said, I can quite easily imagine myself taking it on bike rides, and going places with the intention to take pictures. Money wise, obviously a point and shoot will be less, hence why I wouldn't want to spend hundreds unless it was on a DSLR, and therefore would let me really get into photography if I fell in love with it.

If you want something you can take cycling, thats small enough, yet interchangable lenses and allows you to do 'creative' effects, then you might want to look at a Pentax Q:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/...2248/show.html

I've had mine a couple of days now and its great, its small and un-obtrusive enough to go most places with you.

Something which can't be said of my dSLR.

I've not seen that before, I'll have a bit of a look, but if I were to spend that kinda money, then I'd want a DSLR since that would let me get into photography as much as I want (to a certain extent) without having to buy another camera (merely more lenses )

Why not show us some of the pics you've taken so far...

You may find that your subjects and style *might* dictate one or another style of camera ?

Only picture I've really taken so far:
(been busy with uni stuff)


Was taken around midnight probably, with only my bedroom light on, which isn't great, so I played around a bit with the shutter speed to get something half decent. As I said, at the moment I know very little, but I'm happy to spend time learning my way around

Your not trying hard enough.





http://stillmotionblog.com/2011/02/0...he-helmet-cam/

http://www.videomaker.com/community/...met-camera-rig

Haha, love it.

[Saracen]

It all depends what you expect, and what you want it for.

You can go one of several ways these days.

1) Cheap compact. Shirt pocket size, priced form £50-£150 (approx) and, for most "normal" purposes, remarkably competent. Also, easy to use. I bought one for my techno-phobe mother-in-law recently, a Panasonic, Leica lens, about £70 and the results are quite impressive.

2) Semi-enthusiast compact. More expensive (I bought a £200 Panasonic). Again, Leica lens, damn fine image quality, heavy on features except no RAW ability.

3) Pro compact. Canon G12, etc. Price about £450. A bit heavy and bulky for shirt-pocket, but still, not by every much. Good alternative for a DSLR when the DSLR isn't appropriate, though if you don't need RAW, a category 2 might do, which is what I did.

4) "Bridge" camera. Looks like an SLR, usually super-zoom, but no interchangeable lenses. Often, high megapixel count. A decent alternative to an entry to mid-level DSLR, unless you need the versatility of interchangeable lenses, etc. Price £400-600-ish.

5) Four thirds type cameras. Look like an old range-finder camera, so a "retro" feel, but high quality, high features and some interchangeable lenses. Price ... £600 and up.

6) DSLR. Price = £450 to sky high. And the camera body is just the start. If you're serious, it can easily stretch to a couple of grand, and that's assuming you don;t go in for "pro" lenses, which tend to start at £500 or so, and there aren't many under £1000. Some are many thousands. Then, flashguns, battery grips, auxiliary lighting, hardware calibrators for you monitor, A3 printers, loads of paper and ink. Be aware, it can get right expensive, right quick. And it's like a virus out of control once you get bitten by the bug.


My advice, think about what you want to do, what you want to photograph. Some subjects pretty much scream DLSR ... and specialised lenses. The obvious example is macro, but high-speed stuff, low-light stuff, or indeed, stuff where you're selling your work and quality really matters, all hint in the direction of DSLRs too.


I'd suggest that if you gfo for a DSLR, it's almost certainly because you expect to expand the kit with lenses, flash and so on, in which case, the camera body is the start of the process, not the end. If you aren't expecting to expand the range, I'd suggest thinking HARD about whether a DSLR is the right option, because these days (and it's pretty recent) there are a lot of highly competent alternatives that might (and I say "might", not will) suit you better.

Don't just rule out those sub-£100 compacts. They are a lot more capable than you might expect, and are a cheap way to find out whether you're going to get the bug or not. And if you do, and then get a DSLR, then it's still very useful to have a small, shirt-pocket compact as well. Which is why, despite a collection of DSLRs and others, I just bought one.

For instance, if I go to a family gathering or a party, or even a wedding, so I want to be toting heavy camera bag around with a couple of bodies, several lenses and flash. Or do I want a 14MP shirt-pocket camera that still has a damn sharp lens? The latter, I promise you. Apart from anything else, if it gets lost or nicked, it's a couple of hundred quid at risk, not a few grand. And a £60 camera you can even leave in the car, without it either being obvious it's there, or too much of a loss if it gets nicked.

So .... as I said, it all depends what you want from a camera.



Note - all price ranges approx and general. And last time I looked.

[redddraggon]

I love my DSLR, best thing I've bought in the last 5 years. I've carried it all over the UK, and to many places in the world. I even carry it to the office most days.

[TheAnimus]

5) Four thirds type cameras. Look like an old range-finder camera, so a "retro" feel, but high quality, high features and some interchangeable lenses. Price ... £600 and up.

No see above, £320 and up! 12 mega pixel sensor with OKish low light performance, and a few lenses already available....

[Saracen]

No see above, £320 and up! 12 mega pixel sensor with OKish low light performance, and a few lenses already available....

Fair enough. I've added the caveat I meant to add, and forgot. I'll also say "most" are in that price range, though as the range and market sector changes, it expands a bit.

[g8ina]

If you like DSLRs but are still not *too* sure, why not grab a Nikon D70 off ebay, less than £150 inc a lens. It's what my son did and he's never looked back.

Ive converted my D70 to infrared now and use the D200 as GP, plus I have a couple of smaller compacts that live in the car.

[GeorgeStorm]

It all depends what you expect, and what you want it for.

You can go one of several ways these days.

1) Cheap compact. Shirt pocket size, priced form £50-£150 (approx) and, for most "normal" purposes, remarkably competent. Also, easy to use. I bought one for my techno-phobe mother-in-law recently, a Panasonic, Leica lens, about £70 and the results are quite impressive.

2) Semi-enthusiast compact. More expensive (I bought a £200 Panasonic). Again, Leica lens, damn fine image quality, heavy on features except no RAW ability.

3) Pro compact. Canon G12, etc. Price about £450. A bit heavy and bulky for shirt-pocket, but still, not by every much. Good alternative for a DSLR when the DSLR isn't appropriate, though if you don't need RAW, a category 2 might do, which is what I did.

4) "Bridge" camera. Looks like an SLR, usually super-zoom, but no interchangeable lenses. Often, high megapixel count. A decent alternative to an entry to mid-level DSLR, unless you need the versatility of interchangeable lenses, etc. Price £400-600-ish.

5) Four thirds type cameras. Look like an old range-finder camera, so a "retro" feel, but high quality, high features and some interchangeable lenses. Price ... £600 and up.

6) DSLR. Price = £450 to sky high. And the camera body is just the start. If you're serious, it can easily stretch to a couple of grand, and that's assuming you don;t go in for "pro" lenses, which tend to start at £500 or so, and there aren't many under £1000. Some are many thousands. Then, flashguns, battery grips, auxiliary lighting, hardware calibrators for you monitor, A3 printers, loads of paper and ink. Be aware, it can get right expensive, right quick. And it's like a virus out of control once you get bitten by the bug.

My advice, think about what you want to do, what you want to photograph. Some subjects pretty much scream DLSR ... and specialised lenses. The obvious example is macro, but high-speed stuff, low-light stuff, or indeed, stuff where you're selling your work and quality really matters, all hint in the direction of DSLRs too.

I'd suggest that if you gfo for a DSLR, it's almost certainly because you expect to expand the kit with lenses, flash and so on, in which case, the camera body is the start of the process, not the end. If you aren't expecting to expand the range, I'd suggest thinking HARD about whether a DSLR is the right option, because these days (and it's pretty recent) there are a lot of highly competent alternatives that might (and I say "might", not will) suit you better.

Don't just rule out those sub-£100 compacts. They are a lot more capable than you might expect, and are a cheap way to find out whether you're going to get the bug or not. And if you do, and then get a DSLR, then it's still very useful to have a small, shirt-pocket compact as well. Which is why, despite a collection of DSLRs and others, I just bought one.

For instance, if I go to a family gathering or a party, or even a wedding, so I want to be toting heavy camera bag around with a couple of bodies, several lenses and flash. Or do I want a 14MP shirt-pocket camera that still has a damn sharp lens? The latter, I promise you. Apart from anything else, if it gets lost or nicked, it's a couple of hundred quid at risk, not a few grand. And a £60 camera you can even leave in the car, without it either being obvious it's there, or too much of a loss if it gets nicked.

So .... as I said, it all depends what you want from a camera.

Note - all price ranges approx and general. And last time I looked.

Thanks for the detailed post
When it comes to what I want to spend etc, I think I'd rather go all out (within budget ) or go for the cheap end.
I'm happy to spend £300+ (since having looked around, I can get a half decent DSLR including a lens for that), but if I were to get a point and shoot, I'd be looking to spend <£100. May not be the most sensible mentality, but it's mine

You mention about the more specific uses, such as macro, high speed etc
Well, that's another reason I'm thinking of one, is for it's ability to, when paired with different lenses, be soooo versatile. Macro stuff is certainly something that I like the look/sound of, and low light stuff aswell.
For me, if I were to go to a family event, chances are I'd be taking a bag regardless (always tend to whereever I go) and so taking a camera and a lens wouldn't be any trouble at all, especially considering if I know what event I'm going to, I would only take stuff I know I'd use (this is presuming by then I've got a variety of stuff )

I've been offered:
nikon d3100 with a nikon 18-105mm VR lens for £370
and
Canon EOS 500d, in near mint condition, probably taken about 4000 ish photos, kit lens (the lens itself has a small scratch that does not seem to make a difference in photos) and a Tamron AF70-300mm F/4.56 for £400

So that's the kinda direction I'm thinking of going if I were to get a DSLR.