advertisement


Which inexpensive DSLR?

A

avole

The wise never post on Internet forums
I'm looking for an inexpensive, as in around the 600€ mark, DSLR. I don't want a compact, have one already, but something with a decent lens that can produce sharp, as noise free as possible, photos up to the poster size would be ideal. I'm not fussed about video, wifi or bluetooth.

It also needs to be fairly robust if possible, as its destiny is being stuffed in back packs and sweltering in hot, humid conditions.
 
600 euros? What's that now? £500??
so...
noise free means good high ISO performance in low light, probably means cropped sensor at that price.
poster size, means 18 MP + and 20+ if you can (and shooting RAW when you can).
Basic suggests older, less faffed with.
Rugged suggests Nikon amongst others.

=

Nikon D7100 or D7200.
Lens is up to you, but the D series 50mm Nikors are sharp as sharp, and a 1.4 aperture will help you along to those grain free images.

I've not checked the costs. If those are too pricey, then buy a 3 series body ( the 5 series are just over tricked 3's with no image advantage) and still get the 50mm 1.4D to go with.
 
try some in the hand - I'd suggest Canon or Nikon for lens availability, and then it really is down to personal preference of how you feel the camera works in your hand, and how you get on with the software.

Although I would recommend Canon as that is what I know and use, and I would concur with the advice in post #3 that you should save a few more euros and get a used Canon EOS 5D mk II

I should add that about 80% of my photography is now done on a compact - and I am producing prints up A0 with no problem from my Leica compact. The only time I use my DSLR these days is with a 400mm lens for wild life and with a very wide angle for landscape.
 
Although you stated a DSLR, perhaps you can have a look at a used Fuji X-E1 with lens. The bodies are going for about $200 USD on eBay. You will get a small, rugged camera with very good image quality. The Fuji lenses are also fantastic. The system will come in lower than your estimated budget.
 
gintonic said:
try some in the hand - I'd suggest Canon or Nikon for lens availability, and then it really is down to personal preference of how you feel the camera works in your hand, and how you get on with the software.

Although I would recommend Canon as that is what I know and use, and I would concur with the advice in post #3 that you should save a few more euros and get a used Canon EOS 5D mk II

I should add that about 80% of my photography is now done on a compact - and I am producing prints up A0 with no problem from my Leica compact. The only time I use my DSLR these days is with a 400mm lens for wild life and with a very wide angle for landscape.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I'm thinking DSLR is for size of enlargements, so your comments are interesting, particularly as I have a Leica compact, though that is currently in for repair. The photos will be used in the resto and also in the arty space next door, so large is a must.

The comments about upping the price aren't unexpected, and I may be able to increase the budget, or alternatively go for a cheaper body with a better lens. The Nikon D series does sound interesting. I don't know much about Canon.
 
quick q...what are you photographing?
ie. Is it always bright daylight, fairly close-to subjects, because the tougher the light conditions, the 'better' the camera will need to be. That said, any starter DSLR from Nikon, Canon, Pentax etc will, with a VG standard lens, be surer to take a sharper, very enlargeable pic, in most lights, than any compact. It's about sensor size, not MP count.
I use both a full frame FX, and DX sensor Nikon, a 4/3rds olympus, and a panasonic compact. They sit in that order, unsuprisingly for IQ and esp when producing prints at A1 +.
Used costs are approx (assuming 1 standard lens) minimum £800 for full frame, and anything from £3-700 for DX (cropped) sensor sizes.
Camera bodies and systems vary very little in IQ...fractional differences, but it is worth trying some competitors in hand to make sure you get on with the feel and OS in question.
 
Food for a start, followed by night, day misty etc landscapes and people. A0 is required, but obviously not for all photos.
 
Then you really need IMO/E a minimum of an APS-C sensor, and you may be better thinking hard about lens costs, since you'll need a fast aperture for low light and to blur backgrounds in at least one lens, and the needs of landscape and people/food are quite disimilar. Zooms sound like a possible route, but HQ zooms with wide apertures are very pricey...way over your total budget, so I'd suggest you should look at one standard zoom (like an 18-70mm type idea) for daylight use and a fast prime (like a 50 1.4) for low light.
Canon are great ofc too, but I've always bought Nikon. The semi pro 7 series APS-C sensored cameras (7000/7001/7002) will do everything you need. The best of the standard zooms is probably the 18-105. It's been around a good while so ebay examples can be well priced, is sharp and covers a sensible zoom range. The 16-85 and 18-140 are equally sharp if you find one.
For primes, either of Nikon's f1.4 lenses are excellent, the D or G series. Get a good price and neither will disappoint. A 7100/18-105 and D50 1.4 might be had in good nick for 750 -850 quid?
Check the shutter count on the camera...high counts should be ok, but suggest pro use, which means wear. Stay under 10/15000 actuations.
 
avole,

If you want to save a few bucks on a 50 mm prime, check out the 50 mm f/1.8G. It's excellent for the dough.

Joe
 
I think the suggestions so far are good, that you're probably looking at a 16mp or so DSLR to get the image resolution you require, and that primes are the cheap way to get decent image quality, and also, wider apertures for low light performance.

I'd certainly consider APSC sensors - don't get caught up in the whole 'has to be full frame' mindset as this is a mistake. Going with APSC gives you a significant saving in cost, size, and weight if you go that route, and you basically move to 35mm from 50mm as a 'standard' prime, and there are plenty of suitable options for this.

I would just say, do consider Fuji X mirrorless systems as they have great image quality and will also meet all of your requirements. Do you really need a DSLR, or do you need a good quality sensor with good quality lenses? A Fuji X (say an E1 or Pro1) with their 35/1.4 prime is excellent, and will be easily in your budget.
 
Oh, and as for robustness, i've taken my Fuji X pro 1 skiing on many occasions, using it up mountains to take landscape shots. It works ok with thick gloves on. I fell on it one time, and it didn't seem to notice, although it was quite painful for me as I fell on it ;)

Here's one with the Fuji XE1 and 18/2 lens (so 28mm equivalent) - i have various 5d II images from the same trip, and can't tell them apart on screen (with the 5d shots being taken with an canon L lens). This shot is cropped and hence is only 12mp or so, but it gives you an idea of the image quality:

DSCF3480 by Cesare Ferrari, on Flickr
 
Nikon 7100 should be within budget and would be my recommendation as it would be a very capable all rounder. The Nikon DX prime lenses 35 and 50mm are great too as already mentioned.

I also had a Fuji X Pro 1 and whilst it was a nice camera, it was very slow to focus. I think the newer series of lenses help get over this to a certain extent.
 
Canon or Nikon, which ever feels best in your hand, get the biggest display and you don't need to spend all the budget, some of the newer models offer very little difference in quality than previous ones.
Daughters just upgraded from a 350D ( worth about £80) to a newer £300 Canon and to be honest I don't feel her images are any better?
 
Slight change of plans when clearing out the shed. Found two Nikon AI and AF lenses in the shed, so I'll go Nikon. The 7200 seems a decent camera, so it seems the best choice. Unfortunately, the cheaper Nikons won't take the lenses I found.
 
winchman said:
Canon or Nikon, which ever feels best in your hand, get the biggest display and you don't need to spend all the budget, some of the newer models offer very little difference in quality than previous ones.
Daughters just upgraded from a 350D ( worth about £80) to a newer £300 Canon and to be honest I don't feel her images are any better?
Click to expand...

I had a 400D and bought a 100D (used the same lenses) and to me there was a marked difference in some photos, especially lower light ones where the ISO performed much better... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top