More camera buying advice

cat_with_no_tail

Talk to me.

I've seen this one at the local Jessops and had a feel of it and took a couple of snaps in the shop.

Nikon P510

I like the simplicity, and it seems to be pretty well kitted out.

Was wondering if the resident photographers can cast an eye over the specs and let me know what their opinion is. Sensor size and all that guff that I really know nuffink about.

estampida

I have a sony, and would recommend alpha's

ok they have some short comings but sony bought minolta, and use the minolta lens fitting

therefore ebay has plenty of lenses, although some of the early slr lenses are compatible they are not geared for dslr use

but the lenses you get in consumer packs tend not to be that useful and new 1's cost......

snowjho

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Talk to me.

I've seen this one at the local Jessops and had a feel of it and took a couple of snaps in the shop.

Nikon P510

I like the simplicity, and it seems to be pretty well kitted out.

Was wondering if the resident photographers can cast an eye over the specs and let me know what their opinion is. Sensor size and all that guff that I really know nuffink about.

IMO as an keen amateur, having owned a similar bridge camera (Lumix FZ100), if you are intending to use it in good light and not print images greater than A4 in size then it should be great. It is cramming a lot of megapixels onto the sensor so it does all depend on the on board processing, which you will have a bit of control over. You can't match it for amount of Zoom. If you don't exceed ISO 400 on it I'm sure it will be fine.

Another great tip is to take an SD card into the shop and save some photos on there and take them home to zoom in on and scrutinise.

Alternatives are the FZ150 by Lumix and Fuji HS30. There is a Canon as well. I would be going for the lumix purely because it has a LEICA lens.

For the record I upgraded to a Nikon DSLR after my bridge camera, primarily for its low light capability but I do miss that zoom!

I have used the forums on dpreview for tips on my cameras, its very good.

YeehaaMcgee

depends what you want it for. That's getting towards the entry price for an SLR, and it's too bulky to stick in most pockets for a walkabout camera.

pauljoes

I had one for my birthday was thinking of getting a dlsr but then with my compulsive buying I thought I would be buying lenses every month to get the zoom I got with the p510. Got loads of feature on it that would surely keep a keen learning photographer happy. panoramic Is Cool and 3D filming.....all I need now is a 3D tv tho lol

supersonic

For that money I would get a DSLR unless you really must need that big zoom on the cheap.

.blitz

Try not to be misled by epic zooming the image sensor will be very small to support 42x zoom so although you have 16.1 mp the image will be nowhere near as clear as 16.1 mp on an SLR. VR/IS have problems of their own.

As above providing you don't take it out of its comfort zone it will take satisfactory pictures. The problems start when (if) you start to get creative - low light, macros, long distance, wide angle, fast moving etc

My money would be on an SLR body and some lenses you won't regret it once you get going.

YeehaaMcgee

.blitz wrote:

Try not to be misled by epic zooming the image sensor will be very small to support 42x zoom so although you have 16.1 mp the image will be nowhere near as clear as 16.1 mp on an SLR. VR/IS have problems of their own.

BUT!!!!
If the zoom is what you're after, you'll never get that amount of zoom on a DSLR. And if you did, the lens would be about the size of a double decker bus.

Giraffoto

Don't get hung up on "zoom", it's just a number so that people who don't know anything about cameras can point to it and say larger=better. Think about speed of focusing, shutter lag, how good the viewfinder is and how intuitive the controls are - try a few in the shop to see what's best for you. What's far more important is to have what you need for taking pictures. So . . .

• Buy the camera. There aren't any rubbish ones about
• Get a decent bag or pouch so that it's always close at hand. It's no use in a drawer
• Take lots and lots of pictures of what you want to take pictures of
• Choose your favourites, and make a note of the focal length you used
• Consider getting a dSLR in a couple of years time if you've really enjoyed photography.

If you get as far as the dSLR, just get two lenses to take you from about 16mm to 300mm (if it's an APS-C sensor) and you'll probably be happy with it. And don't think about "zoom" too much

Giraffoto

Also, Nikon P510 - perfectly good. Get one and have fun

YeehaaMcgee

Giraffoto wrote:

If you get as far as the dSLR, just get two lenses to take you from about 16mm to 300mm (if it's an APS-C sensor) and you'll probably be happy with it. And don't think about "zoom" too much

Unless you actually need incredible zoom.
He's not said what he wants it for. He may want to take pictures of the moon and such.

supersonic

Yep, I like the zoom on mine.

cat_with_no_tail

It'll be used for a bit of everything, from static shots of the bikes, to family pics, landscapes and MTB races.

I'd also like to be able to get a few shots of mates racing up at Jurby and during TT, MGP and S100. You can't always get as close as I'd like to the action, especially at the best parts of the course.

I'm not saying I need the massive power-zoom, so long as the pics can be fairly heavily cropped without too much loss of quality.

YeehaaMcgee

if you don't actually need that level of crazy-zoom, then I'd have to say that an entry level DSLR would probably be a better bet.
Superzoom cameras tend to have lenses that don't go very "wide angle" - making it a pain in the arse to take pictures of family, or groups of people indoors.

Twelly

I have just bought a Panasonic Lumix GF3 and I am very impressed with it. I'm no camera nerd but it takes SLR quality snaps and videos and only cost £270.
I can send you links later if you want examples of pictures/videos taken by a bumbling photography novice.

YeehaaMcgee

Lumix are very very good - but "SLR quality" is a bit of a misnomer.

Twelly

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Lumix are very very good - but "SLR quality" is a bit of a misnomer.

As I said, I'm no photography expert, but to my uneducated eyes, my pictures look as good as my some of my photography-graduate-mates pictures do with his Canon 600D (think that's what he has).

It does all the adjustments like a DSLR as well - aperture, shutter speed, ISO blah blah.

Have a look: http://s302.photobucket.com/albums/nn15/benmoorey/

YeehaaMcgee

TwellySmat wrote:

As I said, I'm no photography expert

Yeah, I gathered.
There are things you can do with SLRs due to their construction.
The sensors are far larger than compact cameras, which mean you can have images with far narrower depth of field, isolating the subject better in the image.
Also, the larger sensor allows much higher sensitivity without sacrificing grainyness, making them far more adept at taking pictures in low lighting. Generally these bigges sensors also have a wider dynamic range, so they can capture darker shadows and brighter highlights simultaneously.
Then there's the off-camera flash systems you can get for DLSRs, for when there's nowhere near enough light, with endless creative possiblities.
And then there's the choice of lenses, so you get less lens distortion effects, or more, if you'd like.

So.. "SLR Quality" means nothing, ultimately.
SLRs have a huge potential for solving tricky photographic challenges, but they still need someone who knows how to use them.

And yes, I KNOW Panasonic lumix are awesome compacts/bridge cameras. I'm just explaining that saying "SLR quality" ultimately shows a lack of knowledge and respect for what SLRs can do both theoretically, and in practice.

Twelly

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

I'm just explaining that saying "SLR quality" ultimately shows a lack of knowledge and respect for what SLRs can do both theoretically, and in practice.

Apologies Mr Bailey.

TwellySmat wrote:

As I said, I'm no photography expert

When I say 'SLR quality' I mean that difference between dull, flat compact pictures and vibrant, sharp pictures with depth of field and the ability to isolate the subject with the focus. I think the Lumix does this very well. The video quality (frame rate, resolution, depth) is also very impressive. I'm sure you can do a host of fantastic and wonderous things with a full on SLR but for:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

It'll be used for a bit of everything, from static shots of the bikes, to family pics, landscapes and MTB races.

..I would say the one I bought is very very good.

supersonic

It'll be used for a bit of everything, from static shots of the bikes, to family pics, landscapes and MTB races.

In that case I'd take an entry level SLR. I do use my Zoom, but I do a bit of astro photography. Bridge/zoom cameras are good all rounders, but you do find the limits, especially low light as Yeehaa says. And wide angle (plus you get some barrel distortion with super zooms)

YeehaaMcgee

TwellySmat wrote:

for:

Cat With No Tail wrote:

It'll be used for a bit of everything, from static shots of the bikes, to family pics, landscapes and MTB races.

..I would say the one I bought is very very good.

Yes, very good, but not AS good. Here's another thing, SLRs autofocus far faster than any compact camera, making them better suited to action photography.
I'm not saying your Lumix is no good, I'm giving you real reasons why and where a DSLR exceeds it.

Twelly

Haha I know a DSLR will be better and I know the Lumix is good, we are agreed on both points!

I was just saying that to the untrained amateur photographer, my little camera is difficult to distinguish between the proper ones but is half the price. So I think it will be a good option for CWNT.

cat_with_no_tail

Nikon D3100?

Seems to get excellent reviews, and one can be had with the 18-55mm lens for around £300.

YeehaaMcgee

yep, neat little cameras.
There aren't really any "bad" DSLRs out there, so sticking to Canon or Nikon, and choosing a price range should suffice.
For £300, the Nikon D3100 WITH a 18-55mm lens is an absolute steal.

Some of the Sony stuff is a bit jumbled up features wise at that range, so I'd say give them a wide berth until you reach the £500-£800 odd-range.

Also, check out second hand Canon EOS 450/500/550 cameras on ebay or the like (same goes for Nikon, but I don;t know their range as well). All good cameras, and just because they're superseeded doesn't mean they won't still take cracking photos.
You may even be able to bag a bargain with an 18-55 and maybe even a 70-300mm lens for about £350 if you get a slightly older model.

jairaj

Cat With No Tail wrote:

Nikon D3100?

Seems to get excellent reviews, and one can be had with the 18-55mm lens for around £300.

Got a link please? I've thinking about getting an entry level DSLR camera. This was on the top of my list I can only find for around £360 with the lens kit.

cat_with_no_tail

They are indeed, I've also got a 20% discount at amazon through my employers.

snowjho

Cat With No Tail wrote:

They are indeed, I've also got a 20% discount at amazon through my employers.

With that kind of discount think about d5100 or d3200 both get great reviews. Ive got a d3100 and i love it.

Giraffoto

Cat With No Tail wrote:

It'll be used for a bit of everything, from static shots of the bikes, to family pics, landscapes and MTB races.

I'd also like to be able to get a few shots of mates racing up at Jurby and during TT, MGP and S100. You can't always get as close as I'd like to the action, especially at the best parts of the course.

So, you don't need the salesman's friend Zoom. If you can get a D5100, go for it. I've had one for around a year as my lightweight travelling body and it's just great. Take a bit of time to experiment with the picture controls in the menu to get the colour the way you want it and you'll get perfect shots up to ISO 1600. I'm also very impressed with its fold-out screen - very handy for macro shots. The D5100 brings with it features that aren't present on the D3200, and the difference in resolution is another case of numbers for salesmen.

As regards lenses, the 18-55mm (especially the VR version) is better than anyone has a right to expect at the price, so it's probably worth getting one of them in the kit too. Never mind the plastic lens mount, it's a camera and you'll be gentle with it. For your long lens, the popular first choice is one of the 55-200mm or 55-300mm, although if you can stretch to it and get a decent discount, Nikon's 70-300mm is exceptional. In good light you have to take a very close look to distinguish shots taken with the 70-300mm from those taken with the 70-200mm/f2.8 (or more often, look at the metadata). That said, the 55-200mm is good, and you can often find it in twin lens kit deals.

When you get to the MTB races, you'll be surprised what you can achieve with "only" 200mm at the top-end of your focal range: I've photographed some pretty small wildlife with a 70-200mm lens:


Atlantic gannets at Bass Rock


Arctic Tern at Inner Farne

These were taken a few years ago with "only" 12 megapixels, by the way. So don't worry about the difference between 24MP (D3100) and 16MP (D5100). Numbers aren't as important as the quality of the glass and how it feels in your hands

paul.skibum

I am looking at getting a reasonable digi SLR having decided not to spend the full whack on the top models by either Canon or Nikon I am considering the Canon Rebel and have seen some "kits" from on line sellers in US. Something like this http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T3i-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-75-300mm-III-Lens-Kit-USA-/360473020904?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item53edddc9e8 or http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T3-12-2MP-DSLR-Camera-Sigma-18-200mm-DC-Lens-16GB-Dlx-Kit-/360454752332?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item53ecc7084c

The two included lenses are the basic ones that would come froma more standard body lens combo as far as I can tell so is there any reason not to go for one of these kits to get some of the extra stuff? I am pretty sure most of the add ons will turn out to be pretty mediocre but if I can use them until they break at no real cost who cares?

Anyone any views on the Rebel? Any good? Easy to use? Enough features to make it worth having? What's the diff between the T3 and T4? Other options in a similar vein I should consider?

I want to be able to use it for decent summer/winter sport shots and general use.

YeehaaMcgee

The Rebel is what the yanks call the lowest end EOS model - which in this country would be the 350, 400, 450, 500 or 550, depending on year.

camerauk

The Nikon D5100 is a very good camera
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B004 ... nics&psc=1
also worth mentioning is that it has a crop factor of 1.5 (most DSLR cameras have this unless it says FULL FRAME) so if you fit the 18-55mm lens it becomes a 27-82mm and the 55-200 would be 82-300mm getting you closer to the action than you think it is not so good when at the wide end but 27mm should be fine for everything you would need indoors etc