Thinking of buying a digital camera this Christmas?

Jamey

Then you might like to take a look at DPreview's round-up of budget cameras.

Here's the first page:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408budgetgroup/

And if you want to skip straight to the conclusions/ratings, go here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408bud ... page15.asp

For those unfamiliar with DPreview, it's the biggest/best camera review site on the web, although these days they tend to focus mainly of digital SLR cameras rather than point'n'shoot models.

pneumatic

I bought myself a DSLR in the Summer after spending a few years with a point and shoot digital.

The quality of the DSLR is so much better, I cannot believe I put up with the other kind for so long.

Jamey

To be fair, I think it comes down to cost. A massive, massive amount of people have bought DSLRs in the last few years since the 300D began the era of DSLR price drops.

Jamey

Following on from this, they've just posted a round-up of ultra compacts:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408slimgroup/

Conclusion (the only page that matters):
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408sli ... page15.asp

ColinJ

I've just ordered a refurbished Fujifilm F50D. It's small enough to carry in a pocket (it's roughly the size of a pack of playing cards) so I'll take it out on rides with me. I already have a decent Olympus camera but it's too big for the bike.

The Fuji is available with a 6 month warranty here, but I found an offer code on the net which gave me a further discount. I've paid about £93 total for the camera, a 2 GB memory card and the postage.

The code MFDEC is valid throughout December (2008!). Enter it in the box provided on the checkout page.

cakewalk

pneumatic wrote:

I bought myself a DSLR in the Summer after spending a few years with a point and shoot digital.

The quality of the DSLR is so much better, I cannot believe I put up with the other kind for so long.

DSLRS kits generally come with very poor lenses. Mose people seem to forget about lense quality. DLSRs are also sold on the basis that you'll be able to buy new lenses. Most people never do this. So think carefully before buying a DLSR - esp. a kit. You may well be alot better of buying something else.

A few pointers :-

(1) Lense quaility - avoid zoom lenses with massive ranges. They are not very good (esp. on compacts)

(2) do not get hung up on number of pixels. In fact in compact camera (with small sensors) more pixels may mean a worse picture. Manufacturers cram in loads of pixels because its a sells the camera - it's number and Jo public loves a number.

(3) Check shutter lag. - use to be a real issue - not so now

(4) Check focusing speed.

pintoo

cakewalk wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

I bought myself a DSLR in the Summer after spending a few years with a point and shoot digital.

The quality of the DSLR is so much better, I cannot believe I put up with the other kind for so long.

DSLRS kits generally come with very poor lenses. Mose people seem to forget about lense quality. DLSRs are also sold on the basis that you'll be able to buy new lenses. Most people never do this. So think carefully before buying a DLSR - esp. a kit. You may well be alot better of buying something else.

A few pointers :-

(1) Lense quaility - avoid zoom lenses with massive ranges. They are not very good (esp. on compacts)

(2) do not get hung up on number of pixels. In fact in compact camera (with small sensors) more pixels may mean a worse picture. Manufacturers cram in loads of pixels because its a sells the camera - it's number and Jo public loves a number.

(3) Check shutter lag. - use to be a real issue - not so now

(4) Check focusing speed.

Even entry level DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony have very decent lenses now (make sure it's an IS lens if you go for Canon). Pentax/Samsung are not quite as good, but still far better than most compacts.

I don't think shutter lag is an issue on any current DSLR, but I agree that pixel count is pretty irrelevant. Even the now rather old Nikon D40 with "only" 6mp produces fantastic images - actually helped by not cramming too many pixels onto the sensor and introducing noise at higher ISOs.

If size is important, then the Olympus E410 is small and very good for a fully fledged DSLR. The new Panasonic G10 (I think) is even smaller and meant to be good, but I don't know from personal experience.

For some people, though, size trumps all else and DSLRs will always be bigger than a pack of cards. That said, there are some very competent compacts about, too. Fuji and Panasonic make some great value products now.

cakewalk

pintoo wrote:

cakewalk wrote:

pneumatic wrote:

I bought myself a DSLR in the Summer after spending a few years with a point and shoot digital.

The quality of the DSLR is so much better, I cannot believe I put up with the other kind for so long.

DSLRS kits generally come with very poor lenses. Mose people seem to forget about lense quality. DLSRs are also sold on the basis that you'll be able to buy new lenses. Most people never do this. So think carefully before buying a DLSR - esp. a kit. You may well be alot better of buying something else.

A few pointers :-

(1) Lense quaility - avoid zoom lenses with massive ranges. They are not very good (esp. on compacts)

(2) do not get hung up on number of pixels. In fact in compact camera (with small sensors) more pixels may mean a worse picture. Manufacturers cram in loads of pixels because its a sells the camera - it's number and Jo public loves a number.

(3) Check shutter lag. - use to be a real issue - not so now

(4) Check focusing speed.

Even entry level DSLRs from Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Sony have very decent lenses now (make sure it's an IS lens if you go for Canon). Pentax/Samsung are not quite as good, but still far better than most compacts.

I don't think shutter lag is an issue on any current DSLR, but I agree that pixel count is pretty irrelevant. Even the now rather old Nikon D40 with "only" 6mp produces fantastic images - actually helped by not cramming too many pixels onto the sensor and introducing noise at higher ISOs.

If size is important, then the Olympus E410 is small and very good for a fully fledged DSLR. The new Panasonic G10 (I think) is even smaller and meant to be good, but I don't know from personal experience.

For some people, though, size trumps all else and DSLRs will always be bigger than a pack of cards. That said, there are some very competent compacts about, too. Fuji and Panasonic make some great value products now.

I got a sony bridge camera (DSC-R1) for 400 quid. Numerous reviewers ave pointed out that the DLSR chaps would have to spend several thousand dollars to get lens quality as good as this. (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1A6.HTM).

fizz

I think it depends what you want to do with the camera.

I started on a little point and shoot Nikon CoolPix, it took fanastic pictures but only in certian circumstances.

I like taking sports photography, motorbiking is my other passion and the comapct was just no good for this. So I splashed out on a DSLR, I've got a Nikon D40 and I've been collecting lenses as I go. Yes its bigger and even I admit its a PIA to carry about sometimes but I always reach for it, rather than my missus little kodak when we go anywhere.

As others have said, its not about MP, its about the lens itself and also its about the person using the camera, if you have an eye for a photo and know how to frame a shot, then you'll take a good picture.

Jessops are doing a D40 for £244 for the body and the 18 - 55mm kit lens which isnt a bad lens to get started with, at that price unless you want a camera you can stick in your pocket, I fail to see why anybody wouldnt buy a DSLR...

cakewalk

fizz wrote:

I think it depends what you want to do with the camera.

I started on a little point and shoot Nikon CoolPix, it took fanastic pictures but only in certian circumstances.

I like taking sports photography, motorbiking is my other passion and the comapct was just no good for this. So I splashed out on a DSLR, I've got a Nikon D40 and I've been collecting lenses as I go. Yes its bigger and even I admit its a PIA to carry about sometimes but I always reach for it, rather than my missus little kodak when we go anywhere.

As others have said, its not about MP, its about the lens itself and also its about the person using the camera, if you have an eye for a photo and know how to frame a shot, then you'll take a good picture.

Jessops are doing a D40 for £244 for the body and the 18 - 55mm kit lens which isnt a bad lens to get started with, at that price unless you want a camera you can stick in your pocket, I fail to see why anybody wouldnt buy a DSLR...

Very good advise. However remember that the best camera in the world is the one that you have with you. Compacts have a place.

If you wish to do street photography - or just want to always have a top quaility camera on your person - the Ricoh GR is worth considering :-

http://www.urban75.org/photos/ricoh-gr- ... eview.html

Al_38

Out of interest can the lenses from a non-digital slr camera be used with a more modern dslr? It is my dad's 50th in 09 and I have been considering getting him a camera. He has an old minolta (I think, but it could be an olympus) slr, but quite a few decent quality lenses. Do you have to use the same manufacturers lenses with the camera body? and will an older lens work on a DSLR?

fizz

Yes you can, I've got a very old Tamron lens and it fits my Nikon fine, as long as your old lenses have the right mount on them for the DSLR you are buying they should work OK, but you might have to put the camera into full manual mode to use it...

pb21

So you have the lens quality and the number of pixels.

How does the 'quality' of the CCD and the software used make a difference and what are the good manufactures for these. Its just a have a camera that takes good day shots but use it at night and the noise in the image is terrible, I assume due to a poor CCD or software.

mhuk

can the lenses from a non-digital slr camera be used with a more modern dslr

Yes but depends on the lens and the camera. There are adapters available for less than a tenner (without the chip, £20 or so with the chip). A new focus screen with MF focus centre makes it easier to focus. I regularly use old M42 Pentax lenses with my Canon 20D and my favourite lens is a 1960's Takumar lens

pintoo

On the issue of sensors - in general, a MOS sensor is better than a CCD but of course there are exceptions and again, it depends on the size of the sensor, the mp, the processor etc. etc. Generally, stick with the established brands, and you're fine. MOS sensors are better for low-light/high ISO shooting all other factors being equal... which they often aren't.

I agree that the Sony R1 is a fantastic bridge camera, and one of its main pluses is the large sensor (compared to compacts). However, it's not all that small and although the lens is good, it's permamnently fixed which means you can't go ultra wide, or super tele if you want to. Not knocking the camera, but it's just a little limited in terms of expandibility. A lot of people who buy SLRs shoot only in full auto mode and only use the kit lens. For them, a bridge camera might have been an equally good option.

There's a lot of choice out there and you're sure to find a few things which suit. There are great compacts, bridge and DSLR options out there. They're not all equal, though. You cannot control depth of field on small sensors - they're basically all very deep (the focus extends to infinity rather than leaving a nice blur behind the main focal point) and noise is more pronounced the smaller the sensor. It all comes down to how seriously you want to be involved in the photography process. Snappers will get all they need from compacts; photographers will get more out of bridge and DSLRs.

I've seen a Nikon D40 for £210 - not much money for such a good piece of kit.

On the issue of lens compatibility - most systems are backwards compatible, but some older non-OEM lenses won't work on the latest DSLRs. Old Sigmas and Tamrons don't work on some newer Canons for instance. All old EF Canon lenses work on their DLSRs though. Again - no catch-all answer.

dave0992

i have to agree with some of the posts regarding the nikon D40. i started with a canon EOS 400D then sold up to concentrate more on using my old praktica with B+W film. i have since bought the nikon D40 and id have to say the images are quite a bit better than the more expensive 400D, possibly due to the better stock lens and smaller megapixel count on the same size sensor. punchier colours and a much nicer camera to hold. get a real bargain on the kit now too!

il_principe

I bought an EOS 450D a few months ago. Getting back into SLR's after a hiatus of 10 years. Very pleased with the Canon so far, bought a Prime lens as well as the kit one it came with. Have also invested in a Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM lens, Manfrotto MN 322RC2 BALL HEAD and MANFROTTO MN190XB tripod. Much cheaper than going for the IS version of the 70-200 lens! Very very pleased with the camera, it has a ridiculous amount of functions and is pretty easy to use - the old knowledge is slowly coming back as well. Looking forward to experimenting with some HDR now.

FSR_XC

dave0992 wrote:

i have to agree with some of the posts regarding the nikon D40. i started with a canon EOS 400D then sold up to concentrate more on using my old praktica with B+W film. i have since bought the nikon D40 and id have to say the images are quite a bit better than the more expensive 400D, possibly due to the better stock lens and smaller megapixel count on the same size sensor. punchier colours and a much nicer camera to hold. get a real bargain on the kit now too!

I have heard the 400D was not as good (pic quality wise) as the 350D. 450D is much better though.

I quite fancy a 1000D at the moment. Looks very good for the price.

However the wife would prefer me to get a Canon G9/G10 or SX110. (She says 1 DSLR is enough!)

chill123

i have a canon 450D.

as someone up above mentioned do not get carried away by the number of megapixels - it is all about the glass.

an altrnative to the kit lense (the new canon one is much more highly rated than the old one) might be the canon 50mm f1.8 prime lense. this is a fixed focal length lense (you zoom with your feet!) that produces amazing results, especially when you look at how little it costs (about £60!).

il_principe

chill123 wrote:

i have a canon 450D.

as someone up above mentioned do not get carried away by the number of megapixels - it is all about the glass.

an altrnative to the kit lense (the new canon one is much more highly rated than the old one) might be the canon 50mm f1.8 prime lense. this is a fixed focal length lense (you zoom with your feet!) that produces amazing results, especially when you look at how little it costs (about £60!).

+1 that's the prime lens I went for.

roger_merriman

chill123 wrote:

i have a canon 450D.

as someone up above mentioned do not get carried away by the number of megapixels - it is all about the glass.

an altrnative to the kit lense (the new canon one is much more highly rated than the old one) might be the canon 50mm f1.8 prime lense. this is a fixed focal length lense (you zoom with your feet!) that produces amazing results, especially when you look at how little it costs (about £60!).

indeed my old DSLR has lower specs than most camera phones, in pratice it is far from outclassed, i also tend to shoot in low light where camera phones tend to be at their worse.

turbodog

I still have my Canon 300D and I have flashed the firmware to Russian version which enable my camera to be 10D without any physical modification:-)

If I have to buy one now, I would get:

* Panasonic LX 3 - nice solid compact
* Cannon 450D - decent budget SLR
* Nikon D90 - nice SLR with alot of features

FSR_XC

My DSLR has 8mp

That will allow me to print photos up to A3 without any issues. I had a magzine covershot last year. They cropped the pic without any problems.

Now why do we need 20mp cameras?

. . . answers on a really small sensor please . . .

pintoo

I have an EOS 400D and 40D. The 400D is very very good with the right lens and apart from the weaker ergonomics, is hardly distinguishable from the 40D - I defy anyone to tell me which images come off a 400D vs 40D in the same conditions. I just prefer the feel of the 40D. The original 18-55 kit lens is not great, but the newer IS versions are superb. However, I'm not partisan - all the major brands make good kit. Best thing to do is try them out in-hand and see which you like best.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with budget compacts. Whoops.

turbodog

FSR_XC wrote:

My DSLR has 8mp

Now why do we need 20mp cameras?

. . . answers on a really small sensor please . . .

the problem is customers want more mega pixels for money... lens and functions are not important these days *sigh*

pintoo

turbodog wrote:

FSR_XC wrote:

My DSLR has 8mp

Now why do we need 20mp cameras?

. . . answers on a really small sensor please . . .

the problem is customers want more mega pixels for money... lens and functions are not important these days *sigh*

Yep - and the staff in Currys/Dixons and Jessops aren't exactly helpful. "This one's better because it has more megapixels!".

FSR_XC

If all you do is post on the web, 3mp gives an image bigger than 99% of monitors!

I know of only a handful of people that ever print above A4, so those people need something above 6mp.

Mark Alexander

FSR_XC wrote:

If all you do is post on the web, 3mp gives an image bigger than 99% of monitors!

I know of only a handful of people that ever print above A4, so those people need something above 6mp.

Well said.
I'm upgrading from my 4 year old Fuli S2 Pro
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujiS2Pro/

to a D300
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD300

6 MP is enough. the Fuji sensor gives fantastic skin tone but the 2 types of batteries and the fact that you replace them every time you leave the house!!

it was the dogs b**** 4 years ago. £1200. the equivalent the S5 is £450 ish!!!