[Closed] recommend me a budget DLSR

Go on ebay

The Panasonic Lumix I've found to be a fairly accomplished tool...

I am not sure u will get a new dslr for £300.

But you would probably get something like a D80 for that.

Lens will depend on budget & what you want to photograph.

I got a Canon 450D with 18-55 kit lens for around that figure; second hand at mates rates though.

With a budget of £300, I'd suggest the lens range you should be looking at is "whatever you can get." You'll struggle to get anything other than a kit lens, you can always add another lens later.

Is a dSLR your best option? I think if I were you I'd either hang on till I can get a little more cash together (another £100 will get you a lot more camera), or look at something smaller like the Lumix or Canon S90.

Something like this:

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.co.uk/viewitem?itemId=180742646812&cmd=VIDESC&title=Description&index=18&nav=SEARCH&nid=73318737351

[url= http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EOS-400D-camera-kit-18-55mm-lens-/130589979903 ]400D + kit lens[/url] on fleabay, £250, leaves you some budget for a memory card and a bag to put it in.

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-D3000-Digital-Camera-18-55/dp/B002J9GIAQ/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1319655952&sr=1-2 ]Nikon D3000 - £299 at Amazon[/url]

I'd be interested in similar findings but I'd be happy with second hand kit for a bit less cash...

I got a Sony A-200 for well under £300 including basic all-round lens. Was 2-3 years ago but I'm sure their latest cheapest model will be in your budget

There's a nikon d80 in the STW for 210 i think, should easily be able to pick up a decent do most things lense for under 90. job done.

I've got a Nikon D70s body only you can have for £130.

I love my d3100

three_fish - interested in swapping the d70s for a rear wheel? Chris king ISO disc black on mavic tubeless rim

long shot but worth a try!

Not wanting to hijack the op's post but what do people think of the Sony nex-5n camera? This is the latest version of the nex range. I know it doesn't have a viewfinder but does it have any other limitations. I've not had a "proper" camera before and like the idea of this camera because of its compact size.

I can't really see the point of Compact System Cameras - when you strap any sort of lens on the front. Add to that Sony's range of direct mount Nex lenses is small and expensive. You can add an adaptor to take Alpha/Minolta lenses, but then more bulk.

I've just bought a Sony A55 SLT, which to all intents and purposes is a DSLR, but a fair bit smaller due to having a translucent mirror, rather than a flip-up one. The Nex 5N does get good reviews though.

I have recently found that I really prefer handling light weight cameras. I like using the compact system ones because they are small and light. You can shoot with one hand and carry them with a wrist strap. Plus a compact system with a pancake prime on it is pocketable.

Doesn't using a pancake as a walkaround lens seriously restrict shooting options though mol?

Doesn't using a pancake as a walkaround lens seriously restrict shooting options though mol?

Mebbe - it can also make you think a bit more and be more creative though.

Doesn't using a pancake as a walkaround lens seriously restrict shooting options though mol?

Another vote for the bottom of the range Sony which is less than £300, its a fantastic camera, does every thing you could want. OK the lense isnt mega good quality or that fast (but no cheap lense is) but unless you want to spend £100's more then its more than adequate.

IMO its more about whether you can take good photos rather than having the most expensive kit.

Leftfield option.........

Film?

Pentax ME Super + 28mm and 50mm lenses for under £60 on ebay. Remember there's no crop factor, depending on how old/cheep the camera is it'll be arround 1.5, so my 50mm lense is the same apparent focal length as a 80mm lense on most mid range SLR's.

Advantages;
*Much shallower depth of field as its a proper 35mm film/sensor.
*Much faster lenses. Find me an SLR lense that goes down to F1.8 for under £300?
*Film is cheep, £1/roll + £5 developing from truprint, if you want to spend more there are plenty of options. Bear in mind a DSLR has a finite lifetime of it's shutter, and the bodies depreciate in value so the cost/photo is actualy pretty similar.
*Forces you to think about shots as there's an imediate cost involved.

Disadvantages
*Forces you to think about shots as there's an imediate cost involved.
*Only appeture priotity (with exposure compensation) and manual modes.
*No auto flash systems, so requires some thought and the use of a ready reckoner to get it right.
*You're tied into the pentax system unless you sell it again, which isn't as extensive as some.
*Manual focus is a PITA when working with children or animals, for everything else it's brilliant.

[edit] plenty of modern SLR's going cheep too, but they're as bulky as DSLR's, the ME fits in my (big) pocket and is barely larger than a compact with the lense off.

Find me an SLR lense that goes down to F1.8 for under £300?

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-50-1-8-Lens/dp/B00005K47X ]Nifty fifty[/url], 72 quid to you squire.

I stand corrected, bragain!

I was thining more allong the lines of the zoom lenses most people fit to DSLR's, and that's still more than you'd pay for an old SLR and 2 lenses.

I have looked around and have found the base Sony alpha model (A290L) available for £250. but have also found a Panasonic Lumix FZ45 available for £215.

To my untrained eye this (and other similar super zoom cameras) has all the function of the DSLR cameras (e.g. Aperture/shutter priority/manual modes, focal length adjustments) but has the additional telephoto zoom that I wouldn't get with an 18-55 lens on a DSLR. An ability to have good zoom would be nice to have from my point of view.

I'm guessing the sensor in the super zooms wont be quite as good as that on a DSLR but apart from that will there be any differences i.e. any modes that wont be on the super zooms that will be on the DSLRs?

I can't really see the point of Compact System Cameras - when you strap any sort of lens on the front.

They are still waaaay smaller than a full DSLR. I carry my nex-5 up big mountains, when riding, and other similar weight/space conscious activities where I'd never consider lugging a full dslr around, even if it would fit in my bag.

The image quality is as good as low end dslr (actually it's as good a my old Cannon 5D) and as a wise man once said, the best camera is the one you have with you.

I was thining more allong the lines of the zoom lenses most people fit to DSLR's

To be fair, that 50mm prime is a bit of a steal. Fast zoom lenses go for silly money.

Oh, and if you use the 'pancake' prime lens, it's no bigger than a standard compact.

Find me an SLR lense that goes down to F1.8 for under £300?

I have a nice 50mm f1.7 minolta prime that I use with my nex-5 that I got on ebay for £15 🙂

I got a lovely Sigma 30mm f1.4 for about £200 off eBay. Mint it is too.

Doesn't using a pancake as a walkaround lens seriously restrict shooting options though mol?

I have found that it does, yes, depending on what you are doing. I walked around London with family with the 30mm on, and it was great for snapping the people I was with, but found myself giving up on taking scenery or wildlife shots and a load of others, because it just wasn't working.

Still got some really nice pics overall mind.

Find me an SLR lense that goes down to F1.8 for under £300?

I'd have a look at a [url= http://www.jacobsdigital.co.uk/p-49827-jacobs-digital-sony-alpha-a35-18-55mm-kit.aspx?affiliateid=10052&awc=3099_1319722676_344fe8e5698db34ca46ff00e129b2818 ]Sony a35 and 18-55 lens[/url]

Sony and Pentax are the only full-size DSLR makers to have in body anti-shake so all lenses will be stabilised (not just stabilised lenses if avaialable). That opens up a whole back catalogue of used lenses (Minolta in the case of Sony). Makes things a whole lot cheaper when you can make good use of old lenses.

[url=www.dxomark.com/index.php]DXO is very good for comparing camera specs...[/url]

Something like that Panasonic that you mention could be a sound buy.

Why did you initially request info on a DSLR? Are you intending on taking photography up as a hobby? Or do you want a decent camera for holiday shots?

A camera like that Panasonic will do the job; I had a Konica Minolta Z3, which was very similar with a 12x Optical zoom (biggest available at the time, with stabilisation).
It was fine for a couple of years, but then I started to notice it's limitations, compared to my brother -in-laws Canon DSLR.
Low light performance wasn't great, it was hard to get shallow depth of field to isolate the subject from the background and the AF & shutter speed were a bit slow.
I moved on from that to a Nikon D80 and you really notice the difference.

If you were looking to get something like the Panasonic that you mention, why not go for something like the Panasonic TZ20, which has similar features (I think), almost as much zoom but is a lot more compact?

I have looked around and have found the base Sony alpha model (A290L) available for £250. but have also found a Panasonic Lumix FZ45 available for £215.

To my untrained eye this (and other similar super zoom cameras) has all the function of the DSLR cameras (e.g. Aperture/shutter priority/manual modes, focal length adjustments) but has the additional telephoto zoom that I wouldn't get with an 18-55 lens on a DSLR. An ability to have good zoom would be nice to have from my point of view.

I'm guessing the sensor in the super zooms wont be quite as good as that on a DSLR but apart from that will there be any differences i.e. any modes that wont be on the super zooms that will be on the DSLRs?

The sensor is isn't so much 'not quite' as nowhere near as good. It'll show up in low light. In good light and for small prints/web you may not tell the difference though.

This is very true, my Fuji S9500 is useless in low light as anything beyond ISO 400 is grainy.

Couple that with a lense that isn't very fast (F3 to F4 ish), and you can forget MTB shots under tree cover unless you're using the flash. In the open its fine though.

It's been great for learning with though. Although it's rare to take photographs with it and think they're brilliant, at least one of it's limitations always seems to crop up.

Why did you initially request info on a DSLR? Are you intending on taking photography up as a hobby? Or do you want a decent camera for holiday shots?

I'm wanting to get a camera that will allow me to play about with settings a bit more and take some arty photos but also to enable me to take photography up as a part time hobby.

If you were looking to get something like the Panasonic that you mention, why not go for something like the Panasonic TZ20, which has similar features (I think), almost as much zoom but is a lot more compact?

Because that doesn't allow for manual mode, AP/SP mode, or change the depth of field so wouldn't really add much on top of my Samsung ST60 I currently have.

The sensor is isn't so much 'not quite' as nowhere near as good. It'll show up in low light. In good light and for small prints/web you may not tell the difference though.

I'm not going to start printing out huge canvases or enlarge them too much, just for viewing online, printing out smallish and sticking in a scrap book and also frame a few around the house to make me feel good.

I'm not going to start printing out huge canvases or enlarge them too much, just for viewing online, printing out smallish and sticking in a scrap book and also frame a few around the house to make me feel good.

You mention depth of field control too. Odd as it may sound but the size of the sensor heavily influences depth of field control - the panasonic sensor is so small you have very little control. Basically if you want a narrow depth of field you're out of luck. [url= http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html ]This is handy if you want to do some DOF comparisons with different cameras...[/url]

actually it's as good a my old Cannon 5D

swoosh - Member
Because that doesn't allow for manual mode, AP/SP mode, or change the depth of field so wouldn't really add much on top of my Samsung ST60 I currently have.

Yes it does.....I've been considering one as a 'carry everywhere' camera and wanted something that would work in auto, but would give me more control when I wanted it....

Taken from the spec page on the Panasonic website:

Mode dial/Mode button: Intelligent Auto, P, A, S, M, Custom, 3D Photo, SCN, My SCN 2, My SCN 1

As above - you would quickly learn to work around most limitations of something like the FZ45; things like shutter lag etc. BUT the sensor won't record as good images as an SLR in terms of noise, dynamic range etc. and you will struggle with depth of field.
To be honest, I was really pleased with my KM Z3 and as I say, used it for probably 3 years before wanting to change. When I bought the Z3 though, DSLRs were well out of my budget. My Dad now has the Z3 after his camera died, and I was showing him around it recently. I was still quite impressed at just how good it is......
Had DSLRs been around at the sort of budget I was looking at, I doubt I would have bothered with the Z3 though. I think I would have gone straight to a DSLR.....

Find me an SLR lense that goes down to F1.8 for under £300?

http://tinyurl.com/6xgf4e8

http://tinyurl.com/5wknrrp

actually it's as good a my old Cannon 5D

It is in no way better than a 5D, that is a fact.

It is in no way better than a 5D, that is a fact.

You're right, and possibly battery life too.

Sony and Pentax are the only full-size DSLR makers to have in body anti-shake so all lenses will be stabilised (not just stabilised lenses if avaialable). That opens up a whole back catalogue of used lenses (Minolta in the case of Sony). Makes things a whole lot cheaper when you can make good use of old lenses.

olympus do as well

-------------------------

don't write off compact system cameras

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/2203223859/albums/oly-ep2#page=1

that one is now 250 quid for the body (olympus e-p2), I'm sure you will agree those pictures are good

there's others around that price too now

-------------------------

pentax k-x on ebay is quite a good value DSLR

olympus do as well

don't write off compact system cameras

A lot to be said for the e-p2, or any of the olympus or panasonic m4/3rd offerings. The older ones are great value.

The sony nex3/5 should get a mention too I suppose.

The only downside is that all of the above aren't great for action shots compared to dslrs.

Olympus SLRs are good, and a possible choice for certain reasons but I probably would not recommend one BUT there are some stupid bargains about if you can find them. And the lenses are excellent for cheap, but finding them isn't easy!

Very happy with mine but I'm me, and you aren't, neccesarily 🙂

hmmm, whats the drawbacks of the Olympus - been considering an E520 twin lens kit for £235 new...

Well. There's the old chestnut of low light performance, but I don't find it much of an issue.

The real thing is availability of stuff. You have to go online for lenses which is okay, but there's very little around second hand so you have to be on your toes on eBay to get a bargain. It can be done though, but I've been a bit lucky being able to go via the USA.

It's other stuff though like remote shutter release, or spare batteries that you can't just walk into a camera shop and buy. Mildly annoying.

There is a bit of a question mark over the future of the format. Many shops will tell you 4/3 is obselete, but I'm not entirely sure that's true (they are of course stocking Canon and Nikon etc). Olympus have gone on the record many times saying that 4/3 users will not be abandoned. Whether or not that means new cameras and lenses is anyone's guess. I don't care much though - I'll buy the range of lenses I want then spend my time taking pictures, that'll be good enough for me. If the body breaks I'll get a Pen 🙂

I got mine because it was £300 half price - that deal you suggest seems like bonkers value. It comes with in body IS too, which makes it uttelry ridiculously cheap esp with two lenses. You'd be mad not to 🙂 I *think* the 520 is the one with the best sensor configuration out of all of them, but I am not sure. The E series forums are full of people who can geek about this stuff.

OK, so I was not intending to buy any more lenses at the moment, and could order up a battery to start with and can cope with 'an old tool' if the image quality is there for a half-arsed amatuer to print up to A4 or so...

The quality is just fine at A4. Most of the whingeing about noise and stuff is purely academic if you are printing at home.

If you (like me) want a proper SLR whilst keeping costs way down then it's unbeatable I reckon. Much better features than other entry level stuff.

I assume the extra lens deal is the 40-150mm lens?

[img] [/img]

LOL @ PC

I'm a convert to m4/3 - I havunnt a ****ing clue about cameras but I fancied something qood quality, portable, bargaineous, and most of all, cool.

GF2 w/14mm for £250 @ Dixons airport did it for me...I can flog the 14mm for more than a 14-42 costs on scumbay if I don't use it.

Plenty m4/3 slrs around for similar £ too - see www.hotukdeals.com

hmmm, whats the drawbacks of the Olympus - been considering an E520 twin lens kit for £235 new...

The only problem with the system is if you buy lots of lenses. In a few years it's unlikely to be any new bodies to use them on and the resale value will plummet.

The plus side of the other systems is lens you buy now will almost certainly fit a new body a few years down the line.

High ISO performance is the new version of the megapixel war, marketing 🙂

nmdbase - Member
High ISO performance is the new version of the megapixel war, marketing

I'd agree to an extent.....'more megapixels' was an easy thing to sell to people and most people will think more = better.

I think though that improved performance at high ISO has much more benefits and in real life situations is a much more useful feature to 'improve', than megapixels......

More is better. Be it ISO or MP. It's not linear better though.

More MP is not better if the sensor is too small to cope with it - the new Sony SLT A77 is getting mixed reviews due to shoving 24mp on an APSC sensor

Personally I'd much rather better high ISO than more MP. Which is why I probably should have gone for Nikon. 🙂

More MP is not better if the sensor is too small to cope with it - the new Sony SLT A77 is getting mixed reviews due to shoving 24mp on an APSC sensor

But it's fair to say the benefits of high MP are only apparent under extreme circumstances. Much like high ISO.

Usable high ISO is definitely handy, I wouldn't call indoors extreme either.

TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR - Member
More MP is not better if the sensor is too small to cope with it - the new Sony SLT A77 is getting mixed reviews due to shoving 24mp on an APSC sensor

This.....
No point having more MP, if it means the sensor can't cope. Previous Panasomic Lumix cameras I have looked at suffered from this. Even at ISO 200 noise was readily apparent.

Obviously, if done properly more MP can be useful depending on your intended use of the pics you are taking.
My dad for example has a Samsung compact (now knackered due to inoperative flash) with 14Mp. Pointless for family snaps and such like that he has no intention of cropping or otherwise fiddling about with. Just wasted memory. He's now using my old Konica Minolta Z3 with it's mighty 4Mp and has he noticed the 10Mp deficit. Erm, nope.

Saying that, I'm more than willing to go with 5thElefant's take on things, rather than my own regurgitated internet reading and limited knowledge - he seems to know his stuff. Maybe the A77 is fine, although too many MP's on a small sensor is definitely a recognised problem. Most notable in something like a bridge cam with 16mp, 30x zoom and a pinhead sensor.

That will be because he hasn't printed anything out then.

The largest decent quality print at 4mp is roughly 11" x 14"

At 10mp you are looking at more like 20" x 30"

Usable high ISO is definitely handy, I wouldn't call indoors extreme either.

For me that's adequate. I'll have more if it's on offer though.

I do have several lenses that will outresolve the 24mp sensor though, so more MP would be nice.

although too many MP's on a small sensor is definitely a recognised problem. Most notable in something like a bridge cam with 16mp, 30x zoom and a pinhead sensor.

[url= http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml ]This article[/url] is interesting reading. "you can put 60 million of pixels into a 35mm sensor, but only a diffraction-limited lens at f/5.6 would take advantage of it." By chance, that's 26MP on aps-c so similar to the a77.

So... a 60mp (or 26mp aps-c) sensor would give more resolution than a lower MP sensor below f5.6. Even bigger sensors have merit at wider apertures.

Depends on your frame of reference. I've got an a900 which is (apparently) the 8th best high iso camera, with only the low-res Nikon FFs significantly better.

I was on about my 5D MK2, there is a comparison ISO section here.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page38.asp

A900 looks like the worst in its price range TBH, so I'm not sure where you pulled that from.

flow - Member
That will be because he hasn't printed anything out then.

The largest decent quality print at 4mp is roughly 11" x 14"

At 10mp you are looking at more like 20" x 30"

Exactly - that's my point. He has no requirements to print out larger than A4 at the most.
That is why I said it depends on your intended use.

Although saying that.....I printed out a couple of prints at 16" x 20" from Photobox with images taken from the Z3 to see how they would come out and they weren't half bad.
I suspect that Photobox apply some kind of smoothing or something to the image before printing, because there was no visible pixelation and the images were pefectly fine for poster prints on a wall.

And my brother-in-law has a poster print of poppies in a field taken on his Canon 20d that also looks fine. It must be at least A3 and that's only a 6MP camera.

Obviously comparing the same image shot with a 'more megapixel' camera would reveal more detail, but for many applications you don't need masses of MP.

In a few years it's unlikely to be any new bodies to use them on

They'll work on m4/3. That's my backup plan.

And my brother-in-law has a poster print of poppies in a field taken on his Canon 20d that also looks fine. It must be at least A3 and that's only a 6MP camera.

A3 is pretty much 11" x 16"

Obviously comparing the same image shot with a 'more megapixel' camera would reveal more detail, but for many applications you don't need masses of MP.

They'll work on m4/3. That's my backup plan.

I've got a 50X70cms print from an EOS10d, again a rather pathetic 6MP, which is rather splendid.
Megapixels shouldn't be the most important factor when buying a camera.

flow - Member
And my brother-in-law has a poster print of poppies in a field taken on his Canon 20d that also looks fine. It must be at least A3 and that's only a 6MP camera.
A3 is pretty much 11" x 16"

Oh yeah.....it's bigger than that, then....
I've just held some A3 paper up on the wall.....
Must be more like A2 - it's above a fireplace & doesn't look 'small' as A3 would....

Just looked on Photobox and it must be either 16 x 20 or A2.....anyway, it looks fine to me printed at 6MP resolution.

Don't you think, when viewed at full size, high megapixel shots from aps-c look crap, compare say 7D to 5D2, 7D looks horrible in comparison. In real life it wouldn't notice maybe on print.

I was considering a 7D until I looked at the image quality...I'll keep my 5D thanks 🙂

I was on about my 5D MK2, there is a comparison ISO section here.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page38.asp

A900 looks like the worst in its price range TBH, so I'm not sure where you pulled that from.

[url= http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_sports ]DXO comparison...[/url] which compares raw sensor data so it is a level playing field.

They rate the Nikon D3S as good up to iso3253 (at no.1)
5Dmk2 at iso1816 (at no.4)
a900 at iso1431 (at no.7)

So I don't think it's not unreasonable to say only the nikon is significantly better. The 5dmk2 is very slightly better at high iso.

The flip side is slightly more MP than the canon and twice as many as the nikon.

I was considering a 7D until I looked at the image quality...I'll keep my 5D thanks

I have a 7D and a 5D MK I - much prefer the images from the 5D.

I have a 7D and a 5D MK I - much prefer the images from the 5D.

I wouldn't pay any attention to dpreview they don't use optimised raw converters so you're not comparing like with like, but rather the vagaries of unconfigured raw converters.

They are comparing like with like, and photos not graphs.

The D800 is only very slightly better than the 5D & 5D2, the A900 is way behind all three.

They are comparing like with like, and photos not graphs.

You can only compare results of raw converters when the most appropriate converters (like the newer version of lightroom in the case of the a900) and profiles optimised for each camera is used.

Otherwise you can only use raw data comparisons.

Which is completely irrelevant on a camera thread with a 300GBP budget.

Oh, are we trying to stay on topic? That would be novel. 🙂

Oh and DXO mark seems like a 'measurebators' paradise - I'd rather look at pictures than stats tables.

I also find that strange, because the feedback I have is that the colour reproduction from the 5d Mk1 was pretty poor, although much improved on the Mk 11, but I didn't think it was too bad from the 7d when I used it.

wrong lol

Oh and DXO mark seems like a 'measurebators' paradise - I'd rather look at pictures than stats tables.

wrong

Fact or just your opinion?

It's my opinion based on owning and using both cameras extensively. What was your opinion based on again?