You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
never had a proper camera.
I'd lovee to start taking more photos of nature, animals and landscapes.
i don't want to spend too much, budget up to 200, so probably a used dslr
plus i don't want to spunk a load of money on a hobby i may not be good at.
I've seen a few posters here put up some great pics so hoping there's some advice out there please.
a good starter body and what lenses etc? pitfalls and things to look out for
You can't really beat a mobile phone for landscapes, their quality is so good now. I have pro tog bodies and lenses and for anything which doesn't need a massive telephoto lens, I just use an iPhone. Minor compromise on quality, but such a massive gain on convenience...
For animals you really need big glass and that costs big $$.
For wildlife you want something like a 70-200 telephoto. No idea if you can get an old manual one for under £200 - maybe....
As footflaps.
It's only if I want really good quality I'll pick up my camera bag. That or really creative (I'm trying to get into macro)
Loon at mpb.com or the used section on wex photo, Wilkinson cameras etc. any camera shops in town.
As for phones. Learn about composition, I did a Colin prior workshop years ago and he put up two photos at the start. The good one had been taken on a phone with some thought to the composition, the poor one was taken with a top flight camera as a 'snap'.
Left field, but I'd look at something like this.
I have a couple of old Panasonic micro 4/3 bodies and love them. Throw in some cheap vintage M42 lenses and an adapter and you have a fun way of getting into 'serious' photography.
Having said that, a lot of my photography at the minute is done with grungy old phone cameras bought off the 'bay or my modded Fuji compact rather than my 'good' gear or my Pixel 6...
I’m no expert but if you look at the old dslr route and prefer Nikon, start looking from d3100 onwards, that one was a big step up from the d40 series. D3200 gets the movable screen for using at odd angles.
Voigtlander Bessa 1.
Some HP5.
I've been looking at the d3200 so far but from what I'm hearing using my phone would be better?
Better in the sense of what? There’s a lot to be said for putting one eye to a real viewfinder and looking at what pictures can be made from what is there, and maybe about stuff that is there that will detract from the picture you are trying to make. From there you either hoof it to a better viewpoint, or start with the wide or telephoto lenses to-get what you want. Then how much light do you want, where from, and how much motion blur is best?
Every photo I’ve posted on the Today’s Photo thread has been taken with an iPhone, and I think every photo I’ve posted on the Gigs thread as well. I honestly can’t remember when I last used a camera.
This was taken with my iPhone…
i don’t want to spend too much, budget up to 200, so probably a used dslr
You could pick up a used Dslr for £50 that would do a perfectly good job. It's the lenses that cost the money. And the flashes, tripods, filters, and all the rest of it. It's easily more expensive than mountain biking if you get deep enough into it.
animals
What is animals? Wildlife will often require big telephoto lenses (£££) to get close from a distance. Taking photos of the dogs around the house is something different entirely.
Better in the sense of what?
I think for many people a phone is a fraction of the effort for better results.
You really have to ask yourself what you want from it. If you want to spend the time learning every aspect of it, and absorbing yourself into the process, get a proper camera.
I have 3 DSLRs and a point and shoot all sat in cupboards collecting dust because what takes me hours in photoshop my phone does in seconds. In fact my phone often does it better... Which is the point you start to question all the time and money spent. There's a tradeoff in optical quality but it only really applies if you're blowing up images to a decent size. You can't tell if you're just posting them to Facebook. In short, if you're just wanting to produce some half decent looking results, you're probably more likely to do it with a phone than you are a camera.
Ive got a very good fuji compact, dslr sized sensor and good lens. It can take exquisite photos, but isn't always the easiset. This summer I went to the Pyrenees and got a whole raft of lovely, well exposed photos, all on my pixel 6a. Left the fuji at home.
Downside of course is no view finder. Personally i find that annoying as i need reading specs. But for landscape and portrait work generally, it's fantastic.
CEX would be a good place to start looking for a decent camera. IMO a DSLR is the way to go (but I grew up using SLRs) - I recently got a Canon with an IS (Image Stabilisation) lens and it’s amazing - very forgiving for at least a couple of stops down. We are saving up for a telephoto IS lens now.
And , if you are serious, get a camera that can shoot RAW and invest in Photoshop - what you can do post-shot is amazing
animals being birds mainly, I've found my phone doesn't do well with zooming in for better images of hovering birds of prey.
^^^ what you need is a telephoto lens and a quick one at that. They aren’t cheap (a really quick one go well into the thousands) but a few hundred will get something good enough as a starter.
Something like a Nikon d90 (or maybe a d7000) with a half decent zoom will get you started.
I've got a d80 (very old) with the Nikon 70-300vr lens and it is just about long enough for bird pics if you can get quite close.
The stabilisation is a god send.
I was actually considering getting rid of all my camera kit, as it wasn't getting used. Then my daughter started playing football for a local team and all the pics on the WhatsApp group were either tiny coloured dots or a grainy splurge of digital zoom horror.
I took my SLR along with the long lens and am now unofficial photographer 🤣
Blows any phone shots out of the water.
Don't get me wrong, I love my Pixel 4a and the pics it takes still amaze me. But, it's not the right tool for the job when any distance is involved and you need to get in close.
A used compact zoom?
the things that make photos good are skill, opportunity, having a camera with you, and some way down the list is fancy equipment. Sure, a monster zoom and a mega camera can make some things possible that wouldn’t be with a phone camera but IRL skill and practice trump fancy ‘glass’.
Child #2 got a great photo of a cheetah on a termite hill while we were in Tanzania in 2016. Beat all others with fancier equipment. Camera was some Panasonic compact with a fairly long optical zoom.
These were probably on a canon 450D with a 70-300mm zoom. <br />
<br /><br />
My son bought a Nikon D7100, 50mm prime, a Sigma (something around) 30-80mm, and a 70-300 zoom. He bought for a college course. MBP who we bought it off were superb and I would recommend them.
It's great as a proper bit of kit to play with. The instant shutter, the light you can actually play with, the zoom ability is great. I do enjoy taking it on occasion and playing to see what I can wrangle out of it. The zoom is barely enough for birds - I would suggest you need a really meaty zoom and tripod or stick to mount it on.
I'm comfortable with the majority of pictures being from my phone though.
prettygreenparrot
Sure, a monster zoom and a mega camera can make some things possible that wouldn’t be with a phone camera but IRL skill and practice trump fancy ‘glass’.
True for most things, but if you want to get close-up images of small things you need a long lens.
All example pics you show have been with long zoom lenses. With a phone camera they would have probably been a small dot in the distance, or a blurred mess of digital zoom.
There's a reason that child #2's cheetah pic wouldn't have been worth posting had it been taken with a 2016 smart phone 😉.
Agreed though that timing, composition, experience, luck and practice are required.
A compact camera (or bridge cameras) with decent zoom lens would also be a potentially good option, rather than an SLR; especially as most have optical stabilisation built-in. My first digital camera was a Konica Minolta Dimage Z2 that had a 10 or maybe 12x optical zoom. That was a great camera.
I know that they are not popular but a used Pentax dslr can use any Pentax lens as any image stabilisation etc. is done in the body rather than the lens and so you can buy quite reasonable telephoto lenses cheaply.
second hand bodies also tend to be cheaper than equivalent Nikon and Canon equipment. The more modern ones also quite well weatherproofed. The downsides are that the cameras tend not to be as well specced as some others, but as a cheap starting point might be worth a look at
f you want to learn about photography there is a lot to be said for buying a small compact mirrorless Fuji. Why Fuji?
Well, it’s easier to learn shutter speed, aperture and focus zones using proper dials and manual focus - plus mirrorless Fuji work very very well with older manual focus lenses which can be picked up for almost nothing on eBay etc. There are also plenty of interesting new Chinese manufacturers like 7artisans which make cheap lenses to fit Fuji - stuff with 8mm focal lengths etc which cost less than 100 quid v ten x that for a Nikon Dslr.
That’s why second hand ‘very expensive when new’ Dslrs are so cheap - because to get good results you need a lens costing several hundred pounds or more - good photographers never sell good lenses only bodies.
Also Fuji cameras are quite small so you can easily carry a body and 2 lenses without looking like David Bailey.
I use a Canon EOS 100D, which is/was the smallest SLR body Canon made at the time - there's an updated version now, can't remember the model name - with a fixed 24mm pancake lens. The combo is small enough, not much bulkier than a compact, that I can actually be bothered to carry it with me. Takes really sharp images and the lack of a zoom makes you think about what you're photographing ime. Something like that second hand might be a good starting point.
I find it far harder to compose shots without a viewfinder and the screen on my iphone is next to useless in bright sunlight in particular, so it becomes a bit of an exercise in point and guess.
I'm sure there are loads of options that'd work
animals being birds mainly,
Birds are small and far away so you will need a very nice lens if you want decent images of them (look at how rough the images of birds in post just above are - no offence to poster!)
You are realistically not going to get a DSLR and a decent enough lens for £200.
I still use a Sony A700 which is around 15 years old now and it still gets me better images (using a 50 1.4 lens) that any phone would and camera and lens is under £200. It is also far nicer to use than a phone as pretty much every function is on a button and using a viewfinder is just nicer for me.
I won't however be getting any good shots of birds...
What is animals?
You are Philomena Cunk aicmfp.
I think that phones do indeed capture a scene very well these days, but they don't really allow you the same level of manual control to be creative as a good DSLR will.
A great picture is far more than a scene captured faithfully. I think a DSLR can make you think differently about composition and allows a lot more experimentation beyond pre-designed filters in apps etc.
That being said, I almost always use my Pixel 6a these days, but the years I didn't use that but used my D40, D7000 and D7100 that I still have, really helped shape the way I frame/compose images now, even with the phone.
London Camera Exchange are another good dealer that have a lot of used options. Can't go too far wrong with a body from one of the big makers, and getting lenses as you go.
Very rewarding.
Birds are small and far away
Every photo I’ve posted on the Today’s Photo thread has been taken with an iPhone, and I think every photo I’ve posted on the Gigs thread as well. I honestly can’t remember when I last used a camera.
This was taken with my iPhone…
I think you have kind of disproved your point with your photos. A photo taken with a decent camera even an old one with a macro lense or even just a macro tube will walk all over that with detail.
Phone cameras are amazing "the best camera is the one you have with you" cameras but they don't stand up scrutiny compared to a reasonable quality digital camera. And you can't do the manual controls properly to get nice shots.
Anyone buying a flagship phone thinking they'll get a decent camera - make sure it's not Samsung. I have an S22 Ultra and the camera is gash. Yes, I've seen decent results, but you shouldn't have to work as hard as you do with the Samsung to get them. That's not the point of a phone cam
(I can use a full size camera btw)
I'm a keen wildlife photographer, and realistically I think that you would need to spend £700-£800 to get second-hand DSLR kit that would give you bird pictures that you would be happy with unfortunately. Canon 7d (£200) plus 400mm f5.6 prime or 100-400mm mk1 zoom (£550). The good news is that you would lose very little money on either of those lenses if you decided you didn't like photography after all.
Bridge cameras now give half-decent results, but older ones are poor for wildlife (slow to react, slow to use, poor image quality when zoomed in) - a Nikon P900 would be your best bet second-hand for maybe £400, but manual control is still clunky compared to a dslr.
For me, the main improvement with every generation of camera body is ISO performance - my 40d was tricky at over ISO 400, but my current body is ok at 25,600. As you pay more for lenses speed of focus and image quality improve. Ultimately it is those few simple things that cost the money.
Comapare the images from my first trip on safari in 2009 with a 40d and 100-400 with my most recent trip with modern gear, the difference is clear. (Don't get me wrong, old gear can still take amazing images, but modern gear vastly increases your chances of getting a great image in a much wider range of conditions).
For me, the main improvement with every generation of camera body is ISO performance
Yep, definitely. Because I shoot in daylight with a 50 1.4 the ISO improvements make no difference to me but clearly if you are using f5.6 lenses for moving objects then it makes a world of difference.
I think you have kind of disproved your point with your photos.
Just what I was thinking. Show a fuzzy picture of a spider is not a good example. My £200 DSLR image of same subject would be many times better.
I use a camera phone a lot for eBay images and just take snaps when I am out as for general photos they are very good.
Child #2 got a great photo of a cheetah on a termite hill while we were in Tanzania in 2016. Beat all others with fancier equipment. Camera was some Panasonic compact with a fairly long optical zoom.
Here's a picture of a cheetah that I took with a DSLR (f5.6, 1/1600 at 300mm zoom).
Proves the point well. People are either kidding themselves or easily please if they think a phone or lower quality camera is up to wildlife photography. It is just basics lens physics and those massive lens with loads of elements are like that for a reason...
I forgot to add - that picture was taken in 2006 with an entry-level Canon (a 300D) and EF 75-300mm telephoto lens, so it wasn't even high-end stuff – you could get the exact camera and lens from CEX today for £125 (£30 for the body, £95 for the lens).
The old ' I want to get into photography so what DSLR do I need' is a really good way to fill one of your drawers with unused aging tech.
The flipside to that is - yes, phone cameras now can be superb, but they do have limitations because of the simple physics of the size of the glass, and fixed lenses - a few now have it, but its multiple fixed lenses, rather than true 'zooming'.
Most of what phones do is in the clever processing and software.
Personally I have found the ideal is - a really lovely, high end, cheap, old, but good quality compact. In my case a circa 10 year old Sony RX100 (Mk3, I think). Small enough to fit in my pocket, can wifi upload to my phone in seconds for the insta-bangers you might be tempted to use the phone for. Has a proper view finder.
The crucial part is - I have it with me. Unlike my bigger bridge camera and DSLR which is sat in the draw at home. This camera, since I bought it, has lived permanently at the door with my keys/in my pocket/in the glovebox.
Its flat, fits in a jeans pocket, light, you can grab it with one hand but its also a proper camera, with a viewfinder - which makes composition and the act of photography so different to grabbing snaps on a phone.
And it just takes lovely, lovely photos. The headlines resolution is actually lower than my phone - but the overall aesthetic is much, much higher. Photos seem to just be 'nicer'. And the ease of use of basic settings, exposure, depth of field etc makes you really think about what you are doing. I love it.
I've also got an RX100 (Mk4) and though its a lovely camera and really small, I don't find it that easy to use compared to the Fujifilms. Because its so small there are no dials and everything has to be accessed through the buttons/screen which can be a pain. Don't get me wrong, its a great camera (and my only non phone camera at the moment) but I miss my little XE-2 with proper shutter speed dials and aperture rings (yes I know the RX100 has a 'ring' on the lens but its not the same)
Don't get hung up on a DSLR, there is much more options on the market these days. Have seen people get amazing results with the latest compact cameras as it's all in the skill of the operator. I'd be tempted to have a session at a local photography class, try some kit out, talk to people who do what you want to do and see what they use. You'll then get a feel for whether you like it and what suits your budget.
You can’t really beat a mobile phone for landscapes, their quality is so good now.
Depends on your skill level and how much you value convenience. I've still got a Canon EOS 1000D kicking about that I could get some amazing results with but just lugging it around made it more faff and hassle than just using my phone. My current Pixel 6 is great for most situations so the Canon is sat in it's bag and has been for a few years now, probably with a knackered battery! Cost around £500 with lenses back in 2009ish and now worth £50-100 at most. Think it's been used for a total of 5-6 trips and maybe 1-200 pictures in that time so quite a waste really.
Have seen people get amazing results with the latest compact cameras as it’s all in the skill of the operator.
Absolutely, you can. But, factoring in the skill of the operator, they could take significantly better pictures with a good DSLR set-up than with a compact in many circumstances (ie, sport, wildlife photography, landscapes etc).
I asked on here 6 months ago for camera advice, to take pics of my lad's various sporting endeavors*
I ended up with a Panasonic FZ80/82 bridge camera, (220 quid from CEX)
I blooming love it, both taking pics and the camera (although I feel as if I'm ready to move on from the camera)
Like yourself I wasn't sure whether it was something I'd properly get into, so didn't want to spend too much. I liked the thought of a bridge camera as it meant not having to mess about with lenses, carrying them, attachment them and keeping them safe etc. In that regard a bridge camera has served it purpose for me and with a FZ80 it has a very wide range of focal length, 28-1500 or something, that will allow you to have a go at any style of photography you want with same bit of kit. Sports for me and wildlife for you are pretty similar, so that's maybe why this camera might work for you.
The downside is the image quality isn't as good as expensive glass. But this camera is defo better than using a phone, imho. It's been like a "gateway drug" and has helped me learn loads while being faff friendly.
I'm looking into upgrading now, as I can see it's maybe holding me back a little, but I'll sell it back to CEX for 120.... (best 80 Ive spent in a long time)
Good luck, have fun.
* My post at the time was semi hi-jacked about not taking pics of kids. I'm happy to report that I have of course been super safe/respectable and have been met with nothing but acceptance, joy and thankfulness for the images I've captured of my son's team mates.
Phones are great for convenience but if you’re serious about landscapes for example, a semi decent mirrorless or DSLR camera is superior.
The controls they offer can’t really be replicated on a phone. For example, I might want to stick it on a tripod with an polarising filter (to reduce glare and increase saturation) and set it for a 5 second exposure (maybe to blur some water movement) at f/11 (to get sharpness throughout the image) at ISO100 (to eliminate noise). I’m not sure it’s possible to do that with a phone.
As for quality, a phone pic looks great if taken in good light but look at it on a big screen and it’s just a pile of mush and noise when zoomed in.
iPhone 13 (full resolution)
Canon 5d (reduced file size)
Do you want to "take better photos" or do you want to "learn photography"?
A high-end phone will tick the former box, point-and-shooting with everything set to Auto my Pixel phone outstrips my dSLR by a country mile. What a dSLR or equivalents thereof bring to the party isn't inherently "better" photos, it's creative control.
I have a mate who's a twitcher. He takes some astonishing pictures. But he has a pro-series lens costing four figures, a high-end tripod, and he will happily sit in a hide for hours on end tracking birds lobbing about. You want to be a photographer, the first thing you need to buy is patience.
the first thing you need to buy is patience
absolutely
but a big zoom ,low light capability and very quick reactions make a massive difference
I've learned about and how to use a few cameras for wildlife photography for work. I was shocked (as someone whos never used a camera before) how good the budget bridge cameras were. Crazy levels of zoomies that meant it could get shots that the phone couldnt even dream of. The werent objectively 'good' but i was thrilled with them:
This is with a canon sx70 ~500 new
Then i got lent a canon 7dmk2 + Tamron 200-600 lens, entry level 2nd hand DLSR
And finaly a top of the range mirrorless (sony A1 + 200-600)
yes, this is a wild gos 😉
So you can see that as you spend more money, you do get more image quality. That said, i loved the cheapest one. small and light so it went everywhere with me - dont feel self concious about it either like you do with the dork setups (which also do best with tripods). Quality was only an issue once id seen what the better one could do on the same subjects, and then i wasnt happy. Until then ignorance was bliss
@duakan - good demonstration of the differences that different levels of equipment give.
And I want your job!
I'm interested to learn about photography, this thread has already made me look at other features within my phone's camera.
i asked about dslrs which has only ended up displaying my ignorance really as I've only just started looking.
never heard of bridge cameras before and they do seem like a good choice.
Any thoughts for a first DSLR for A level photography? My niece is supposed to be sending me some ideas from her course which I'll post up when I have it, but up to say £400, would do second hand for the same budget if it made a great difference, etc. The course says:
The first year of the course starts with an Introduction to Photography. The introduction is designed to support students who are new to the subject and well as stretching and challenging those who have greater experience in the subject. We cover cameraless photography techniques, pinhole cameras, image analysis, manual camera settings and much more.
After the Introduction, you will move into a module programme exploring the three key areas of the subject. Darkroom Photography, Digital Photography and Studio Photography. The aim of exploring these areas is to give you a range of opportunities and skills that you can use when you move into your second year on the course. This includes black and white film processing and printing, studio lighting, Photoshop and InDesign skills.
During your first year you will also study, Photography and Communication, Professional Futures (Jobs and Photography) and photographing The Henley Royal Regatta
so I assume a general purpose set up.
Then - where's good to go to look at a few and see what you like? Is there a London area with a few shops, or any mega shops that have a selection, etc.
So has she done any photography before A levels? It seems odd that she needs a camera now.
We have an older Finepix that looks like a midget SLR but with a fixed (non-interchangeable) lens (forget the term for these). The good bit with it is it's light, easy to use, allows a little more creative fiddling about than a camera phone and has an optical zoom.
It is responsible for the 1.2m X 1m canvas that has adorned our dining room wall for over a decade. It's not even got that many MP.
My son has a Canon DSLR and takes some beautiful pictures especially when with grandad who has a serious camera habit. Weighs a ton and my heart sinks a bit when he wants (me) to carry it on the hills 😐
Phone is my usual go to and some of the modes produce good results. This was a night mode shot in very low light.
I like the format of the old Finepix we have for a little more flexibility without the bulk.
All that said once you get to photographing things that are far away the DSLR knocks socks off the others but at a cost and I cannot deny my son's better pictures are lovely.
Wish I hadn't re-read north of the border 's post and zoomed in on my picture 😭
oh couple of things i missed:
* bridge camera only works well for wildlife in good conditions, good light, not too uncooperative subject etc
* DLSR very very heavy and bulky
* fancy mirrorless worse than DSLR in some important ways - focus is slow, and the focus points are very large. This is a problem when the subject is obscured (eg bird in a bush) - the DSLR (on spot focus mode) would focus on eaxctly what it was pointing at, so you could pick out the subject. Mirrorless will stubbornly focus on the leaf or whatever
* you only get the good shots out of the fancy kit by pressing all the buttons and using all the settings, bloody hard work and takes ages to learn
focus is slow, and the focus points are very large
Mirrorless will stubbornly focus on the leaf or whatever
That's not true
Learn how to make light work for you (studio photographers tend to set a 1/125 and f5.6 on the camera/lens and then do everything else with the lighting rig).
In the past I have seen articles where the likes of Lichfield and Bailey achieved astounding results in a photo-me booth by playing with the light sources.
After that it's down to your eye and how many images that you take.
i loved the cheapest one. small and light so it went everywhere with me
The best camera is the one you have with you. I adored my IXUS, it lived in a coat pocket during pre-cameraphone days.
That third shot you've got there is ace, nice shooting Tex.
Any thoughts for a first DSLR for A level photography?
From the blurb there, perhaps what you really want is a 35mm SLR without the 'd' bit?
Generally, glass is more important than the camera body. Consider, you're buying into an ecosystem, the Big Two have their strengths and weaknesses but really it boils down to UI. Coming from an IXUS I found a Canon dSLR to be intuitive, a similar Nikon made no sense whatsoever to me. Someone else may say the opposite. A third person may say "what about Sony / Pentax / a host of others?" There's little substitute for going to a camera shop and frobbing about with a few to see (excuse me) what clicks.
Oh yeah, and,
This is one of the single best purchases you can make for/as a budding photomatographer, it's the bible:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Understanding-Exposure-Fourth-Photographs-Camera/dp/1607748509
but really it boils down to UI.
Or not, as the case may be. I don't really care about the UI of a DSLR as it is all just settings menu's which are not much different from each other but then I use Windows at work and either Mac at home in one room and Chromebook in another room so maybe I am not a good use case...
One real benefit of a DSLR is that the UI is not really needed much after initial setup as there should be a button or wheel for 99% of the most used functions. I don't even have the rear screen turned on.
I’d love to start taking more photos of nature, animals and landscapes.
i don’t want to spend too much, budget up to 200, so probably a used dslr
Going back to the original brief my recommendation would be to buy a used compact and see how you get on. It will cover nature and landscapes but not animals and will give you a good idea on the basic concepts of aperture, shutter speed and ISO. You can then trade up if you take to it but hold onto the compact as it comes in handy for things like street photography, holidays etc where you don't mind if anything happens to it.
So has she done any photography before A levels? It seems odd that she needs a camera now.
Some as part of GCSE Art but always on school cameras. Never had a proper one of her own.
Ahh okay - I’d suggest she gets the same manufacturer as the ones she’s used in school then - she’ll be familiar with the controls.
The best camera is the one you have with you
Is a half truth. I always have my phone with me but rarely reach for it if I have a camera I want to have with me.
One way or another these have all taken a "better" photo than any phone I have used.
Forgive the reflection... 
This was taken on the first camera it's an image captured and the moment was gone. No checking, no safety shots. Just a happy moment of a happy dog captured.
The focussing issue was an accident due to a bodged film roll the wrong size for the camera. Still love it though.
Ahh okay – I’d suggest she gets the same manufacturer as the ones she’s used in school then – she’ll be familiar with the controls.
Thanks for taking time to give advice and at the risk of 'Give me some advice - no not that advice' - but really?
On the basis of half a term's experience x 2-3 hours per week, and that being just about the only proper camera ever handled you'd suggest sticking to that brand and dropping up to £400 on it?
Surely some advice on what's good for around that mark either new or secondhand and if that means learning a new set of controls, so be it?
What do others think?
I’m interested to learn about photography, this thread has already made me look at other features within my phone’s camera.
Check out one of the specialist photography apps, particularly Halide. They give you a much wider range of controls, much like you’d find on an SLR. There are others, but Halide is one that’s most often mentioned.
Surely some advice on what’s good for around that mark either new or secondhand and if that means learning a new set of controls, so be it?
Agree. Learning a new set of controls may be hard for the aged people on this forum, for a kid it will takes a few minutes. I am aged and it only takes me a few minutes as I was a serial camera swapper a few years ago (workman/tools)
As mentioned previously the main advancements over the last 15 years have been better ISO performance (less grainy low light photos or ability to use faster shutter speeds in less than ideal daylight) and video (along with live view - not having to look through viewfinder).
The mirrorless aspect is nether here nor there for picture quality or how the camera is to use but it will make the camera smaller/lighter.
So you need to decide which of those are the priority.
Will they be interested in video, do they want a light camera, do they need good high ISO performance and are they actually going to do wildlife photography (sitting around for hours and waiting for that shot)
Presumably can buy used? Browse through MPB and get a DSLR body for around 150 (i.e. D7000 for £130) and then a 70-300 less and maybe a 35 or 50 lens. Would be a good usable set of equipment for around £300. It won't be up to date and it won't be the best lenses but it will be £300.
Surely some advice on what’s good for around that mark either new or secondhand and if that means learning a new set of controls, so be it?
But the school will undoubtedly be using decent-enough cameras though - nobody is going to go wrong by choosing to use the same camera/brand they have some experience of. The difference in quality between any of the main players' DSLRs is next to nothing until you get to the higher end.
nobody is going to go wrong by choosing to use the same camera/brand they have some experience of.
This is clearly a struggle for you, fair enough, but many people are not going to care. How you control various things on a DSLR is mainly on buttons so if the button is in a different place why is that should a big deal.
The camera I have enjoyed using the most is an X100 which is nothing like a DSLR in controls but I could switch between the two without any issues.
This is clearly a struggle for you, fair enough, but many people are not going to care. How you control various things on a DSLR is mainly on buttons so if the button is in a different place why is that should a big deal.
It's not a big deal at all. Conversely, it's not a big deal to choose a, say, Nikon over a Canon because the person has experience (albeit limited) of using Nikon so doesn't have to learn new controls just because someone on the interweb says that a Canon is a better choice than a Nikon.
But having to learn new controls is not a big deal so not really seeing your point here but fine, don't want to take the thread off in a stupid direction. You clearly do care about the control placement otherwise you wouldn't even mention it but others don't. Maybe ask the person who is going to be using the camera and leave it at that.
Are you having a bad day Kerley?