Scottish Elises

I was thinking of a Canon Camera.

Would I be better buying a 2nd hand mid range camera that is a couple of years old (500d/550d/600d)
or buy a brand new entry level one ? (1100d)

Currently got a Compact - Panasonic TZ10 , so any SLR would be better.

Any input much appreciated.

Cheers
David

If you're sure it's a DSLR you want, then definitely go for older mid-range over newer 1100d.

Are you sure you want a DSLR? They're heavy and bulky and a total pain in the ass, and you can't take pictures if your camera is in the cupboard.

If you're keen to learn photography and planning to dedicate time to study and practice then there's no better tool than a DSLR. In fact I would say you can't really begin to learn photography without full manual control, which really means DSLR these days. But if you plan to leave it mostly on Auto or P mode don't be so sure that a DSLR is for you, especially with the stonking image quality coming out of the smaller, lighter micro 4/3 cameras these days.

So, what are your plans?

My friend & I are both wanting new cameras.

I take on board what you are saying - lot of faffing about - cleaning lens etc when changing.

He's going down the bridge camera route..... Canon SX40 or Sony hx200

I fancy a DSLR. Think i'll wait till he buys his bridge camera & i'll have a play about with it ......

David

What sort of things will you mostly take photos of?

For motorsport I would say DSLR is the way forward, due to super fast auto focus, tracking and very short lag between pressing the shutter and the image being taken (< 100ms)
For landscapes, DSLR is probably still the better option, as you can then use stuff like ND grad filters, polarising filters etc. for creative results with full manual control.
For general photography, then a decent bridge camera or even a good compact would be the better option as it's more discrete & transportable and you are more likely to take it with you than a 10Kg bag if kit with tripods etc.

Interested in this thread too. Also have an ideal of a DigitalSLR. We get professional photos of the kids a few times a year. My best photos tend to be outside shots due to the lighting. My thinking is if i take 1000 pictures outside with a digital SLR i may get a couple as good as our professional supplier

scott_e wrote:My thinking is if i take 1000 pictures outside with a digital SLR i may get a couple as good as our professional supplier

Not a frickin' chance.

Photographers who charge money do not use entry-level gear because it can't product results you can charge for. They use full-frame sensors, fast lenses and usually some soft strobe lighting too. They also spent many thousand hours studying and learning photography principals, how to use the gear they have and then you need to learn Photoshop skills (because pro photos never come straight from the camera). Once you've nailed the technical side, you'd better hope you have some artistic talent (which I lack) or your photos will STILL be sh*te. Oh, and none of that matters anyway because you missed that perfect moment because you had the wrong lens on or the flash was recycling...

I'm not saying you can't take great pics with a 500D and a £100 50mm lens, but you'd better be willing to study how to do it for years.

Entry level DSLRs are the best learning-tools out there. You can't learn photography effectively with anything else, IMO. As cameras though, they're usually disappointing. If you don't know how to use them, they won't help and you'll wonder why your £150 pocket camera is giving sharper jpegs. Once you do know how to use them you've already outgrown them and the £1000 upgrades begin...

Can i throw another option in the pot. if you look at Gumtree you'll find some Canon 40D's and 50Ds in the same sub £500 price bracket. If you want to know what a 40D is capable of... Look at some of Andrew Smith's (Smee) pictures

I just bought a 60D but I'm still a crap photographer so will no doubt blame it on my camera and buy a 1D next

Also worth noting that a 1100D is very similar in spec to a 400/450D and well priced. 550D and 600D's get excellent reviews

Good luck with whatever you choose...

Someone said to me once that a camera doesn't take pictures, a photographer does. The Camera just lets the photographer show their skill...

40/50/60D are great.

Discount the 1100D because the screen on the back is low-res and smaller than the others mentioned. In early days of DSLR ownership you're going to spend a lot of time reviewing the pics you just took for mistakes, and a better screen (bigger, higher res) makes it a lot easier to inspect focus, sharpness, and identify motion blur, camera shake and all the other mistakes. Many times I've got home with pics I thought looked great on the wee screen only to find not a single one was usable. The 500D with the bigger, hi-res screen helped a lot with that.

graeme wrote:40/50/60D are great.

In early days of DSLR ownership you're going to spend a lot of time reviewing the pics you just took for mistakes, and a better screen (bigger, higher res) makes it a lot easier to inspect focus, sharpness, and identify motion blur, camera shake and all the other mistakes......

One of the main reasons I sold my 400D.. Frustrated after looking at seemingly ok pics on the backscreen only to find them slightly out of focus when on the PC..

Guy selling the 50D on Gumtree at Dalgety Bay went to £420 but I got a 60D body new for £599 in the end..

You can pick up a good 40D for about £350 - it's what I used for several years before upgrading to a 2nd hand 1D. The back screen on the 40D is of the older style, so not as sharp and clear as the latest ones, but it's a very capable camera.

Having said that, the screen on my 1d Mk III (about £1200 2nd hand) is the same, and I can generally tell the keepers from the duffers.

Shug wrote:Someone said to me once that a camera doesn't take pictures, a photographer does. The Camera just lets the photographer show their skill...

Is that still true? You can take a picture and upload it to facebook without doing anything other than composition. The camera will do metering, focus, film speed choice, exposure, developing (or rather pre-programmed jpeg rendering, colouring, sharpening, contrast adjustments, highlight recovery, shadow lightening etc etc). Then your PC / facebook software will do the resizing and resharpening and have a fair stab at cropping too before taking care of the publishing and distribution. Even if the composition is fantastic, is that photography? It's a photograph, sure, but is the person who took it a photographer?

Next question, if a pro-photographer (who can do all those steps himself) and a complete amateur (who can't) takes the same photo with the same iPhone and they both upload it to Facebook, does one of those photos have more artistic merit because the pro chose to let the systems use defaults while the amateur merely accepted the defaults?

JohnStewart wrote:Having said that, the screen on my 1d Mk III (about £1200 2nd hand) is the same, and I can generally tell the keepers from the duffers.

I thought the 1D3 automatically fixed the duffers for you?

graeme wrote: without doing anything other than composition.

...which is a massive percentage of a good photo, to me It's the eye to see what to shoot and how to present it, which no amount of automatic trickery can do for you...

IMVHO, as someone who appreciates but can't do.

graeme wrote:

JohnStewart wrote:Having said that, the screen on my 1d Mk III (about £1200 2nd hand) is the same, and I can generally tell the keepers from the duffers.

I thought the 1D3 automatically fixed the duffers for you?

That's an optional £3000 Canon extra that doesn't stop you taking duffers, but sends 5,000 volts through your body if you do