Digital SLR help

Originally Posted by flymo

I have a 550D, its one hell of a camera but I wouldnt have put it in the cheap bracket at nearly £600. The only issue that I found really quickly, and its not a fault of the camera, is that the kit lense is limited for distance shots. A cheaper bridge camera can give you a better range of shots in general that a DSLR with only one small lense but the quality and controlability of the SLR far exceeds the bridge.

I'm adding a telephoto zoom lense at christmas but theres another £350 already!

Great camera though, no doubt about that.

that is usefull to know. what sort of distance should i be able to do with the kit lens' without any real problems?

[anna]

Originally Posted by Jimmy2Feet

Cheers anna that is really helpfull. i will look at the D3100 as well, not seen anything about that yet. As far as my understanding goes 18-55mm lens kit will be good enough to get started yeah? i havn't yet even started looking into lens' and the differences between!!

i thin kit will still be in the new year that i will end up getting it, as the £12/15 increase in the cost doesn't boter me too much, and i am hopefull of being able to get some deals with more than the £15 off in the sales after xmas.....i hope anyway!!

The kit lens on either the Nikon or Canon will be ample to get you going.

When you first get the camera you really just want to get out there and shoot, learn how to frame and compose shots.

Then you can build up learning what the camera can do.

Flymo - Kit lens´s on the Canon are known to be okish but not the best out there, you quickly learn what the limitations of your lens´s are and discover what sort of photographer you are.

If you are someone who likes taking landscape photos then your kit will go towards the wider lens´s if you are like myself who likes taking up close photos of the pretty flowers then you will go more the macro lens route. First though you have to find out what sort you are and what you enjoy taking photos of.

Thom Hogan (pretty decent Nikon photographer ) said of the Sony that they make good electrical appliances not great cameras.

[dizzyblonde]

I'm after a Lumix G10, if I can save up the brass.


Although there was a nice Pentax in Currys, marketed at over 600 quid, its got a nice tag of 399 at the moment
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/pentax-...58320-pdt.html

I'm tempted by it, I've always love Pentax cameras got an old 1970s SLR kind of one with loads of lens, which might possibly fit. Plus with this one you get two lenses to play with rather than one.

I found the Sony ones felt rather fragile and cheap in comparison to both the G10 and the Pentax. We have a SOny Cybershot DSC-WX1 compact, and it takes some wonderful snaps, that are a lot better than average, but I feel I have grown out of it and want to delve into photography further

[keith_d]

I'll add another vote for getting a Nikon or a Canon. Both of the big manufacturers offer a huge selection of lenses which can be used on your starter camera and will work just as well when you upgrade to a mid-range camera in future.

The other advantage of Nikon or Canon is that there's lots of second-hand lenses around for them, which can save you quite a bit of money if you're not too worried about shiny and new.

Keith.

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

I'm after a Lumix G10, if I can save up the brass.


Although there was a nice Pentax in Currys, marketed at over 600 quid, its got a nice tag of 399 at the moment
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/pentax-...58320-pdt.html

I'm tempted by it, I've always love Pentax cameras got an old 1970s SLR kind of one with loads of lens, which might possibly fit. Plus with this one you get two lenses to play with rather than one.

I found the Sony ones felt rather fragile and cheap in comparison to both the G10 and the Pentax. We have a SOny Cybershot DSC-WX1 compact, and it takes some wonderful snaps, that are a lot better than average, but I feel I have grown out of it and want to delve into photography further

Lou, the manual pentax lenses from 35mm camera's do fix the digital version... my dad upgraded earlier this year and can use all his lenses along with the two new ones he got.

But to double check, take an old lenses to curry's and tell them you want to try it's fitments

For the original post I have a Nikon D3000 now for a year, haven't found anything that it can't do for me, and I am still very much learning all the functions of it.... another vote for nikon or canon

I would suggest if you go for the Nikon 3100 get the kit that has the 18-105 lens. I have this lens on my D90 and it is very good image quality for a kit lens. It gives you more zoom to play with and you could forget about a longer zoom lens till later down the line. I found the 18-105 a very good zoom range compared to 18-55 or so lens. Spend that lil more and I guarantee you will be pleased you did. Later on you could get more range with a zoom that goes to 300mm. The 18-105 is very versatile and has good performance.

I have a Canon EOS 400D, it was new about 4 years ago I guess, it's a fantastic camera. It came with a bog standard 18 - 55 lens which is OK. I have since added a few additional lenses, a 35 - 105 and a 100 - 300, both second hand from ebay. I usually use the 35 - 105 as it's so flexible.

Canon all the way And get a polarising filter

Edit - have just read TC3's post. Can't comment on Nikon, never owned one, but his comments on lenses are spot on,

cheers all, really good info. looks like a cannon or nikon then. also good help on the lens. i think i may go for a 18 - 105 if i can get a good deal. time for some more comps on different models!

cheers again

Originally Posted by Jimmy2Feet

cheers all, really good info. looks like a cannon or nikon then. also good help on the lens. i think i may go for a 18 - 105 if i can get a good deal. time for some more comps on different models!

cheers again

Be careful with the 18-105, its one of the worst lenses nikon make in terms of IQ but it does have more range,

I never really understood why canon use a 17-85 and nikon a 18-105 on their "prosumer" range of cameras as both these lenses get beaten hands down by the 18-55 IS from the entry level cameras

Dont take my word for it, check out the reviews

Originally Posted by grimey121uk

Be careful with the 18-105, its one of the worst lenses nikon make in terms of IQ but it does have more range,

I never really understood why canon use a 17-85 and nikon a 18-105 on their "prosumer" range of cameras as both these lenses get beaten hands down by the 18-55 IS from the entry level cameras

Dont take my word for it, check out the reviews

Are you sure you're not thinking about some other lens? The 18-105 is one of the best kit lenses Nikon has ever made, and it's not just me saying it. Quoting Thom Hogan, "the" guy to listen to on all things Nikon (and not just Nikon):

"For its price, this is actually quite a well rounded lens. The most visible fault for most will be the barrel distortion at 18mm and perhaps some softness in the corners at 18mm and f/3.5. Beyond that, it falls into what I'd call the "very good and no noticeable flaws" range on almost everything."

You can read the rest here.

Yes it's a weaker lens at 18 mm than at the rest of the range, maybe weaker than the 18-55 VR, and it does have more distortion throughout - which is expected from an almost 6x zoom that goes from reasonably wide to low-medium telephoto, but it's still a cracking sharp lens, and not very heavy. The plastic mount and lack of true AF override are the main negative points for me.

That said, I replaced both my 18-55 and 18-105 kit lenses with the 16-85, because of those extra 2 mm at the wide end (and the metal mount, VR II, true AF override, and better quality throughout)...

I believe Jambo might have something to say about the Canon 17-85 vs. the 18-55 IS, too...