Anyone who's in the know about this sort of thing help me out? Looking to spend about £300/350 on a camera, would love to be able to take professional-looking photos like the ones in this sub-forum (including macro pics). Not bothered about shooting videos with it though. Probably would prefer a Canon (generally considered to be the best make right?) Cheers folks.
you can probably get a cannon 5D mk II pretty cheaply now since the mk III is out. Haven't used the III but the II is a FANTASTIC camera. You can get 3rd party software that you can install into the camera to allow video recording. Quite a few recent films were shot with them actually.
http://www.jessops.com/directory/ca...DMKII-_-NULL&gclid=CK6Uo6nhqLQCFefMtAodDncAGg Probably a bit out of my price range to be honest.
Canon range generally works like this: xD>xxD>xxxD>xxxxD In your price ange you'll not afford anthing with 1 or 2 digits (see edit...), so take a look at the 550D or the 100xD range, You'll not get a 3 digit model new at that price, but second hand would be possible... http://www.gumtree.com/p/for-sale/c...kit-w-ef-s-is-18a-brand-new-in-box/1005348469 The 1000D and its variants are good value for money, but if you have large hands they'll cramp up with extended use. Go to jessops and ask to try a few models, then buy online or second hand. BTW I don't know much about the nikon range, but they are generally accepted to be on a par with canon when it comes to stills (canon has the upper hand with video), either brand will serve you well and both have plenty of lenses/accessories. EDIT, if you've absolutely no intention of shooting video, look for a canon 50D, they've been replaced by the 60D, but its still a great camera at a stupidly low price second hand. And remember that the lens is always more important than the body.
"Deal unavailable" - how much was it? The 18-55 kit lens is good value for money, though you'll eventually want something faster, the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, fast aperture makes it great for low light, takes stunning portraits as well, I've never used the kit telephoto, can't comment on it. What sort of photos will you be taking? You might not need the telephoto...
It was £500. Suppose I'll just be taking "normal" shots at first i.e. of people and sights when on holiday etc. However I'd love to be able to produce some of the stuff in this sub-forum myself so don't want to spend a lot of money on a camera only for it to not have the ability to do it
While not a DSLR, I'm weighing up getting a Nikon P7700. Essentially I don't want a DSLR because I don't want the bulk/weight of lugging one around, but I do want a higher image quality. I would also like something that doesn't struggle once the light dims, and with the f2 it offers, that a big plus compared to the f3.3 or so that most compact/bridge camera offer. It also has a 7.1x zoom, which is more than all the other high-end compacts offer. While committed DSLRers might be loathe to recommend anything but one, can anyone suggest a reason why I shouldn't buy it? Currently I'm waiting a few days to see if prices drop after Christmas. Currently it's at £389, or £299 for a grey import, which I'm not keen on.
I'm definitely a DSLR advocate, but there is no major reason why you shouldn't buy this camera; you just need to be aware of the limitations. Firstly, 7.1 x zoom is actually a comparative figure between the widest zoom level, and the tightest... It isn't a reflection of the magnification factor. Most photographers will tell you that the higher range a zoom lens offers you, especially at the wide end, the more distortion you will get in your photos. I try not to use anything over 5 x for that reason. f2 is a decent figure for low light photography, but given the sensor size on the camera won't actually offer much control in terms of depth of field... It will be very tricky to pop areas of the shot out of focus for artistic intent... On the flip side, it will be easy to ensure your subject is in sharp focus. Be wary of the low light capabilities though... Whilst it is very good for a compact, it doesn't hold up to a DSLR alternative, again because of sensor size. There are 12m pixels in a very small sensor, meaning a very high pixel density... This makes it difficult to control image quality at high ISO. Those are the limitations you are dealing with; if what you are trying to achieve is do-able inside those restrictions, go for it.
Thanks for the replies folks. Was looking at that Canon 550d with three lenses. My question is...what advantages do the lenses have over each other? For example I know the difference between the telephoto lens and the kit 18-55mm lens that comes with the camera but what about the 50mm? Do I really need it?
You don't need it, but its a much better lens than either of the kit lenses - at its given focal length. It'll give beautiful close-up portraits, the 1.8 aperture is much better than anything the kits offer (3.5?) for low light shooting, it'll also give you a much shallower depth of field. It's the cheapest lens canon make, but its a great little lens, I'd definitely recommend it.
I know I'm a few months late but I'd recommed any of the Canons or Nikons. Simply because the range of accessories etc is huge. About 6/7 years ago I bought a Konica Minolta 5D dSLR and then a few months later it was announced they were being taken over by Sony. I had about 7 or 8 Konica lenses but felt a year ago it was time to upgrade the body. I looked at all the Sonys (same lens mount and fully compatible) but just wasn't happy with them. Didn't like the digital eye-viewfinder and the range of accesories (not just Sony but 3rd party companies too) is small. So, I took the plunge and switched over to Canon. Not regretted it for a minute. I've been slowly selling off my Minolta lenses and have made little loss on them as they are still in demand. One I even made a slight profit on! I'm still keeping the KM body and 2 lenses (28mm prime and the famous 70-210 'beercan) as a back-up camera simply because I'd get about 2p for the KM 5D body!
