First SLR

[Phrasikleia]

That is the type of photo where live view would be the least helpful. When you are using a tripod you have time to experiments with camera location and framing. You will allways get a better view with the optical view finder, no matter how good the LCD is the real thing is better.

Live view might be usful for the times when it is hard to get your eye to the camera, maybe if you are holding the camera over your head to get a photo over a crowd.

I beg to differ. When I'm doing tripod work, I use Live View a lot. I might do my initial framing with the viewfinder, but then I switch over to Live View for the rest of it, especially for manual focusing. There is just no substitute on a cropped sensor for being able to zoom in 10X to see just how well you are focused, especially in low light situations. Also, if the tripod is not set at standing height, which it rarely is for me, I'm very happy not to have to stoop over or squat down to look through the viewfinder.

 

[Sigur]

Sorry, I only read the first few posts, but I just wanted to say that I brought the Nikon D40x and I am totally satisfied. Just make sure you don't stick with the Kit lens too long.

If you want to see pictures I've taken visit my photos on ipernity. You can also see some HDR pictures, if you're interested.

 

[mattyb240]

I think I'll pipe in again on this thread.

The advice above about buying into a platform/investing in good glass - it's all true.

But search your feelings Luke.

Are you wanting to commit to all of this, or do you just want to get something entry level to see whether it's something you might want to take more seriously later on? If it's the latter, then get the cheapest body and lens kit you can (that has the features you desire). Forget platforms and forget expensive lenses. That can all change later if you keep it simple and don't over-invest.

For example, my walkaround lens costs over GBP900 quid. That's a commitment. I'm pretty much stuck with Canon now, unless I want to sell my camera bodies and lenses and accessories. Don't do it! Go cheap, and then you'll have options later.

I appreciate the advice after all I am a noob! Well I have been having a hunt around and went to Cardiff yesterday to look and feel the cameras. I was pretty set on the Canon 1000D before I got there, but to be honest, I didn't like the way it felt in my hand. I don't think it is a grip I would grow to love.

However the D60 felt perfectly sized and fit comfortably. It is something I want to try out, but not necessarily I want to commit to. My budget can't stretch to a 400D or a 450D and I didn't like the Sony range as to be honest it felt quite cheap and clunky, although its specification is impressive for the price.

So now I am deciding, form over functionality. Thanks for all the replies!

EDIT: I've been playng on my friends D40X and my friends Canon 400D, I prefer the hold of the Nikon, but the menu system and instant button access to features. I am just worried that I wont learn to love the grip on the canon! I hate decisions, I know deep down, that the Canon wouldn't be an over investment, and I could experiment more with lenses, as well as having a good feature list. Its just the Nikon feels so nice! And a bit better built.

 

[mattyb240]

Right,

I think im going for the canon!

So far I have picket out:
Canon 1000D
Lowerpro Case Rezo 160
Sandisk SDHC Extreme III 4GB

Is a 50mm 1.8 lens worth the £70? I will be taking a lot of low light pictures theatre and lighting projects. How does this cope? Can anybody show me some examples please? All my searches show that this lens is "invaluable" but I am struggling to find some pictures with it? Also how does a tamron 70-300mm cope with low light?

Can anyone recommend a good book to read through for techniques and a better understanding?

Thanks

 

[Phrasikleia]

Right,

I think im going for the canon!

So far I have picket out:
Canon 1000D
Lowerpro Case Rezo 160
Sandisk SDHC Extreme III 4GB

Is a 50mm 1.8 lens worth the £70? I will be taking a lot of low light pictures theatre and lighting projects. How does this cope? Can anybody show me some examples please? All my searches show that this lens is "invaluable" but I am struggling to find some pictures with it? Also how does a tamron 70-300mm cope with low light?

Can anyone recommend a good book to read through for techniques and a better understanding?

Thanks

The 50mm f/1.8, also known as the "nifty fifty" is terrific optically. It's really a great value. You can find samples from it on pixel-peeper and on flickr by doing searches on those sites.

 

[mattyb240]

Ive managed to find some stunning photos, i'm just concerned how close you have to be to the object or subject? I can pick up a Tamron AF 70-300mm for just under £80 and I am not sure if that will serve me better through my learning as a more all purpose? I quite like the idea of taking the zoom to track days and getting shots, although I don't know if it will be quick enough?

 

[jaseone]

Ive managed to find some stunning photos, i'm just concerned how close you have to be to the object or subject? I can pick up a Tamron AF 70-300mm for just under £80 and I am not sure if that will serve me better through my learning as a more all purpose? I quite like the idea of taking the zoom to track days and getting shots, although I don't know if it will be quick enough?

70mm is going to be way too wide for the majority of shots especially on a crop body, you definitely do not want a 70-300mm for your only lens.

The 50mm/1.8 (at least for Nikon) is frequently recommended as it can be picked up for <USD100 and is a decent multi purpose lens, although personally I am leaning towards the Sigma 30/1.4 as my first prime lens as looking at my shots I don't think 50mm is going to be wide enough for me.

For a true all purpose lens you would want something like the Nikon 18-200mm VR but that would set you back a lot more.

 

[leighonigar]

I assume that the 70-300 was meant as a second lens, in addition to the 18-55 or whatever Canon do for kit lenses nowadays. Get the kit lens. As for what next, I'd probably get the 50mm, just because, in my limited experience those 70-300s aren't particularly good and are therefore not all that tempting on trips out. The 50mm though is quite excellent optically and for the cash. Build is supposed to be dubious, if that's a concern there's an older version of the lens, the mark 1, which is just built much better. These might cost more used than a new mk2 though.

 

[andrew050703]

I was pretty set on the Canon 1000D before I got there, but to be honest, I didn't like the way it felt in my hand. I don't think it is a grip I would grow to love....

I know deep down, that the Canon wouldn't be an over investment, and I could experiment more with lenses, as well as having a good feature list. Its just the Nikon feels so nice! And a bit better built.

I was in the same boat as you recently - really wanted a canon as i could borrow lenses, but the 450Ds grip was titchy. I hated it so much I went for the 40D - I know its not in your budget but its amazing! (I had to use savings & birthday money to get it but its well worth it)

 

[mattyb240]

I am concerned about the depth of field with 50mm, as I would like to take night city scapes like in an around london and Cardiff and I don't know how well it would do. I might just save my money for a little bit and maybe try one in store when im more used to the SLR way.

And yes both the lenses were meant as a second lens just something else to experiment with!

Ive ended up getting the 1000D with an extreme III card. So thank you to everyone for their input! And hopefully in the not to distant future I will have some pictures up!

 

[leighonigar]

I am concerned about the depth of field with 50mm, as I would like to take night city scapes like in an around london and Cardiff and I don't know how well it would do.

You mean, shooting at f/1.8? If you it's a choice between no shot and one with shallow depth of field I know what I would choose. The alternative is a tripod.

 

[PCMacUser]

Right,

I think im going for the canon!

So far I have picket out:
Canon 1000D
Lowerpro Case Rezo 160
Sandisk SDHC Extreme III 4GB

Is a 50mm 1.8 lens worth the £70? I will be taking a lot of low light pictures theatre and lighting projects. How does this cope? Can anybody show me some examples please? All my searches show that this lens is "invaluable" but I am struggling to find some pictures with it? Also how does a tamron 70-300mm cope with low light?

Can anyone recommend a good book to read through for techniques and a better understanding?

Thanks

It sounds like you're making a sensible choice! As for the lenses, something you need to calculate into all lens decisions is 'crop factor'. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this concept. Basically it's all to do with the size of the camera's sensor.

Canon make two types of SLR sensor. The first is their 'crop sensor', which has a factor of 1.6x (1000D through to the 50D). The other is their 'full frame' 35mm sensor (5D and 1Ds series).

If you have a full frame body, a 50mm lens remains a 50mm lens. If you have a crop body, such as the 1000D, you have to multiply the lens focal length by the crop factor, eg, 50 x 1.6 = 80mm effective. So this means that a 50mm lens on a 1000D becomes a great portrait type lens, rather than a general purpose lens. The 70-300mm becomes 112-480mm effective.

I have the 50mm lens, and it's really great. Optical quality 'wide open' at f/1.8 is not amazing, but if you 'step it down' to about f/4, it gets really sharp, but you lose light. And you can't beat the price - it's less money than I used to spend on a Friday night out in Oxford.

Build quality is dubious, but hey, for the price...

 

[LittleCanonKid]

It sounds like you're making a sensible choice! As for the lenses, something you need to calculate into all lens decisions is 'crop factor'. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this concept. Basically it's all to do with the size of the camera's sensor.

Canon make two types of SLR sensor. The first is their 'crop sensor', which has a factor of 1.6x (1000D through to the 50D). The other is their 'full frame' 35mm sensor (5D and 1Ds series).

If you have a full frame body, a 50mm lens remains a 50mm lens. If you have a crop body, such as the 1000D, you have to multiply the lens focal length by the crop factor, eg, 50 x 1.6 = 80mm effective. So this means that a 50mm lens on a 1000D becomes a great portrait type lens, rather than a general purpose lens. The 70-300mm becomes 112-480mm effective.

I keep hearing this, but I don't really think it applies to me, personally. I've been trained on crop cameras, so when I think 18mm I apparently think what is technically 27.2mm. If this is OP's first SLR, he'll probably fall into the same category as me.

My father, however, still thinks in full-frame focal lengths. Silly him.

 

[PCMacUser]

I keep hearing this, but I don't really think it applies to me, personally. I've been trained on crop cameras, so when I think 18mm I apparently think what is technically 27.2mm. If this is OP's first SLR, he'll probably fall into the same category as me.

My father, however, still thinks in full-frame focal lengths. Silly him.

Ha ha hah... I'm with your dad... Since I still shoot in 35mm film on my EOS 1V, and then use the same lenses on my crop-body 40D, I have to do the maths constantly. Hopefully I'll get a 5D MkII in the not-too-distant future (although I'm still a little disgusted that it shoots video), and then it will all be full frame.

 

[toxic]

I am concerned about the depth of field with 50mm, as I would like to take night city scapes like in an around london and Cardiff and I don't know how well it would do. I might just save my money for a little bit and maybe try one in store when im more used to the SLR way.

an alternative to the 50 is the 35 f/2. costs more, $230 new i think, but just as good optically (if not better). first it has larger DoF because of its wider focal length, and on a crop sensor it's close to the 50mm "standard" lens, so you have more flexibility. the 50 on a crop body is more limited because its FoV is relatively narrow. i rarely used my 50 when i had a 30D, now its my go-to lens when i don't want to use a zoom.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'm coming to this discussion late, I know but here is my .02:

My first camera was a Pentax K1000, which I'm sure means nothing to anyone under 40. It was THE "learners" camera for a couple decades. It was solid, but 100% no frills. Manual all the way. You even had to calculate the flash distance. No programs, no auto-focus. It was just you and your brain and creativity.

I mention this because I honestly believe if I was able to buy a "pro" camera of the day with all the bells and whistles I wouldn't have learned what it means to be a photographer. Of course I did outgrow the K1000 after a couple of years and bought another camera, but here is my point: do sweat the details of this body or that body. Buy an entry level model like a D40 (Personally I like the D40 over the D40x) or the Canon Rebel XS. They both will serve you well. Buy for now, not the future. Concentrate on learning the basics first. Your best investment in the glass.

 

[mattyb240]

I'm coming to this discussion late, I know but here is my .02:

My first camera was a Pentax K1000, which I'm sure means nothing to anyone under 40. It was THE "learners" camera for a couple decades. It was solid, but 100% no frills. Manual all the way. You even had to calculate the flash distance. No programs, no auto-focus. It was just you and your brain and creativity.

I mention this because I honestly believe if I was able to buy a "pro" camera of the day with all the bells and whistles I wouldn't have learned what it means to be a photographer. Of course I did outgrow the K1000 after a couple of years and bought another camera, but here is my point: do sweat the details of this body or that body. Buy an entry level model like a D40 (Personally I like the D40 over the D40x) or the Canon Rebel XS. They both will serve you well. Buy for now, not the future. Concentrate on learning the basics first. Your best investment in the glass.

Thanks for the advice!

I have taken the plunge on the canon. I have based this on the fact there are a few lenses in the canon range that I like the look of, and it has enough to keep me going for a while to try and experiment with and develop my skills. I think this offers me the best option as a learner and a bit of future proofing.

All I need to choose in time, is a second lens, I'm leaning towards a general zoom, as I don't need major long range, but I will need fast and sharp images.

Also I am just reading into all of the crop factors and I had no idea! So thanks for that!

 

[MacJenn]

I think the consumer Canon's look and feel cheap compared to the Nikons. That is a big reason I bought a Nikon D90 a week ago.

 

[PCMacUser]

I think the consumer Canon's look and feel cheap compared to the Nikons. That is a big reason I bought a Nikon D90 a week ago.

The D90's a great camera, I'm sure you'll love it. But at £800, it's about £500 more than the OP's budget...

The lower end Canons are actually remarkably robust. I've owned two entry level Canons over the years, and used them waaaay outside of their operating guidelines!

 

[mattyb240]

The D90's a great camera, I'm sure you'll love it. But at £800, it's about £500 more than the OP's budget...

The lower end Canons are actually remarkably robust. I've owned two entry level Canons over the years, and used them waaaay outside of their operating guidelines!

I would have loved a 450D but it was just to much! And again, I really liked the Nikon feel, but wanted the lenses and the features of the canon.

Could anybody recommend a cheap but still sharp telephoto lens please? I have been looking at used Canon 55-200mm USM AF. I just don't know how quick or sharp it would be. As I would like a cheap zoom lens for when I go motor racing with my dads team.

I am very excited for the arrival of my camera! Hopefully should be here by midweek.

 

[LittleCanonKid]

I would have loved a 450D but it was just to much! And again, I really liked the Nikon feel, but wanted the lenses and the features of the canon.

Could anybody recommend a cheap but still sharp telephoto lens please? I have been looking at used Canon 55-200mm USM AF. I just don't know how quick or sharp it would be. As I would like a cheap zoom lens for when I go motor racing with my dads team.

I am very excited for the arrival of my camera! Hopefully should be here by midweek.

A popular lens (and compliment to the kit lens) is the EF-S 55-250 IS. It has a very good performance-to-cost ratio, and gives your camera coverage from 18-250 with the kit lens. Keep in mind though, if you're planning to work your way up to full-frame Canons that EF-S lenses will not work.

 

[toxic]

Could anybody recommend a cheap but still sharp telephoto lens please? I have been looking at used Canon 55-200mm USM AF. I just don't know how quick or sharp it would be. As I would like a cheap zoom lens for when I go motor racing with my dads team.

Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro DG or Canon 55-250mm IS come to mind...but how cheap is "cheap"?

 

[mattyb240]

Cheap being in the range of £100ish used. I wont be purchasing yet so I will be saving, I am just curious of recommendations for sport kind of scenarios for a beginner!

 

[PCMacUser]

Cheap being in the range of £100ish used. I wont be purchasing yet so I will be saving, I am just curious of recommendations for sport kind of scenarios for a beginner!

On eBay UK I've seen some 3rd party zooms going secondhand for under GBP100, but their quality is probably dubious! But then again, for something just to get started with, they'd be fine.

 

[toxic]

did some poking around, add the Canon 70-300 IS to the aforementioned lenses. or you can stretch your credit and get a Canon 70-200 f/4...