I didn't mention it because this thread was initially about sub-£300 cameras. I liked my 350D a lot, so I imagine the 400D is much of the same (missing the dedicated status LCD unfortunately, but that seems par for the course at this level these days).
Entry-Level digital SLR
- Thread starter Alex S
- Start date
I didn't mention it because this thread was initially about sub-£300 cameras. I liked my 350D a lot, so I imagine the 400D is much of the same (missing the dedicated status LCD unfortunately, but that seems par for the course at this level these days).
Patrick Dixon
Imagineer
Excellent! The Nikons all seem to get pretty rave reviews, and I'm sure a 12-yr old (or however old she is now) will get to grips with the technology much quicker than me - plus, of course, she has the advantage of all those 'arty' genes.
Tony Lockhart
Avoiding Stress, at Every Opportunity
When she was about 4 and a half, my niece managed to get to grips with a fair number of my 40D's features! Maybe a 12 year old will be past it!
Tony
Alex S
carbon based lifeform
It does seem more or less equivalent to my erstwhile 35mm cameras and pretty cheap so I guess now was a good time to plunge into DSLRs.
Modern cameras seem a bit like modern cars - I want a car that goes, I don't want anti-shake, dust-off, auto-change, windscreen-wipe, light-dip, empty the ash-tray automaticity.
Modern cameras seem a bit like modern cars - I want a car that goes, I don't want anti-shake, dust-off, auto-change, windscreen-wipe, light-dip, empty the ash-tray automaticity.
I wouldn't be without a heated windscreen these past mornings!
Seriously, I gather the anti shake on my Dads canon "pas" does make a difference.
Anti dust....?
Don't know.
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
When it comes do camera gizmos, most of them do nothing to improve the basic shot. My Leica M8 has only one bit of automation and that is an aperture priority metering mode. If it could have any one of the gizmos added that other cameras seem to have as standard these days it would have to be the ability to get rid of dust on the sensor.
cheers
Cliff
cheers
Cliff
For my money all you really need is some (decent) form of light sensing/aperture control and a focusing system
The rest should be (IMO) up to the person behind the lens.
Photography now seems to be mostly done on the computer i any case......which for me is missing the point.
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
Alex S
carbon based lifeform
Which begs the questions: Do these anti-dust systems really work and how often, in normal use changing a lens twice a day, say, does one get dust on the sensor and how difficult is it then to remove?
I'll find out how useful anti-shake is (at the tele end I hope a lot) since I've ordered the 55-200 VR to compare with the 18-55 non-VR. This will also allow me to change lenses and put plenty of dust on the sensor.
There is a certain irony here; the D40 was cheap enough to buy a few lenses. Had I bought the D90 with all its dust-off and other bells and whistles I'd probably not have afforded to change lenses. I'm presuming that if you don't remove the lens you don't get dust on the sensor.
I'll find out how useful anti-shake is (at the tele end I hope a lot) since I've ordered the 55-200 VR to compare with the 18-55 non-VR. This will also allow me to change lenses and put plenty of dust on the sensor.
There is a certain irony here; the D40 was cheap enough to buy a few lenses. Had I bought the D90 with all its dust-off and other bells and whistles I'd probably not have afforded to change lenses. I'm presuming that if you don't remove the lens you don't get dust on the sensor.
johnfromnorwich
even my wife noticed the dif..
Don't know about anti-dust systems but dust on the sensor is a major PITA. I've cleaned the sensor on my D40, but it took several goes, including one attempt by a shop (fail). It's still not perfect but it's clean up to f16ish. There's a thread on here somewhere about sensor cleaning adventures.
This thread has got me itching to take a plunge for a DSLR, - from what I've heard so far - there's a couple of contenders.
I like the sound of the Pentax k-m - particularly the small size - as the I think I'm more likely to use a camera if it's reaosnably easy to carry around. And it sounds like there's some nice prime lenses to take advantage of down the line if the enthiusiasm takes hold.
The Sony sounds like it has a more versatile kit lens, but having seen one in the shop I'm more concerned I'm going to use it as much as it looked pretty bulky.
So a couple of basic questions which I would appreciate some advice - with a budget of up to about £450.
One the offers I can see on SRS Microsystems website is includes the K-m with Pentax DA L 18-55mm & 50-200mm Lenses for £429 (possibly with £50 cashback as well) - will this make it as versatile as the Sony - or is this spending money on lenses that I'll soon want to upgrade. Any other suggestions on lenses to start with?
On the Sony - is it worth upgrading to the Sony DSLRA350K - will the extra megapixels make any difference?
Cheers
David
I like the sound of the Pentax k-m - particularly the small size - as the I think I'm more likely to use a camera if it's reaosnably easy to carry around. And it sounds like there's some nice prime lenses to take advantage of down the line if the enthiusiasm takes hold.
The Sony sounds like it has a more versatile kit lens, but having seen one in the shop I'm more concerned I'm going to use it as much as it looked pretty bulky.
So a couple of basic questions which I would appreciate some advice - with a budget of up to about £450.
One the offers I can see on SRS Microsystems website is includes the K-m with Pentax DA L 18-55mm & 50-200mm Lenses for £429 (possibly with £50 cashback as well) - will this make it as versatile as the Sony - or is this spending money on lenses that I'll soon want to upgrade. Any other suggestions on lenses to start with?
On the Sony - is it worth upgrading to the Sony DSLRA350K - will the extra megapixels make any difference?
Cheers
David
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
Hi David
if you have the money, the ergonomics of the 350 are worthwhile having. Not really sure if it makes much difference having 10% or 20% more linear resolution though.
In terms of choosing brands, Canon and Nikon give you the most choices, eg other lens makers make lenses for them. 4/3rds (Olympus, Leica, Panasonic) is an interesting option - giving longer effective focal lengths for a lower weight. Pentax is maybe the most closed in option in that most lenses for that fitting are made by Pentax/Samsung. Having started out on Olympus OM, then Minolta xi, I was rather disappointed to hear Minolta was shutting down and as a result ended up going the Nikon route before Sony announced they were going to retain the same lens fitting (D'oh)
Of the big brands, Pentax and Nikon are the best for retro-fitting old glass to new bodies (for DSLRs that is)
cheers
Cliff
Dust isn't a problem for me as I usually shoot portraits, so tend to hover around f5.6 at a smallest. I tend to notice dust when I stop down more for landscapes and this is when I discover how much dust I have.
I have always cleaned the camera with one of the pec-pad around a bit of plastic devices, with some cleaning fluid. Works well and is easy to sort out. I tend to give my DSLRs a couple of cleans a year to sort them out. I spend much longer getting rain and salt off my lenses than I do cleaning the sensor, but then that's what living by the sea in england is like. If I lived in a hot/dusty climate I imagine it would be rather different.
Cesare
johnfromnorwich
even my wife noticed the dif..
It was the pecpad approach I used. Okay but stil fiddly and it took several goes. Your're right about living by the sea in the UK. I'm pretty sure the crud got in in Australia - everything was clean up until the first lens change in Darwin. Since coming back to North Wales it hasn't happened again.
Thanks Cliff.
As you point out it's certainly a gamble knowing where to start.
Pricewise the Sony would be a more expensive option, as I would get the £50 cashback with the K-m.
Jonathan made a comment about the Sony lens being particularly good - is it that much better than the lenses that come with the Pentax.
BTW - anyone know where to go to try Pentax's - I went to Jessops and was surprised to find they don't stock them.
David
As you point out it's certainly a gamble knowing where to start.
Pricewise the Sony would be a more expensive option, as I would get the £50 cashback with the K-m.
Jonathan made a comment about the Sony lens being particularly good - is it that much better than the lenses that come with the Pentax.
BTW - anyone know where to go to try Pentax's - I went to Jessops and was surprised to find they don't stock them.
David
Well I got my hands on a few cameras today - the Sony A350, Nikon D60, Pentax K-m/K2000 and the Canon EOS450D.
I definitely agree on the advice on trying different cameras out - the Sony just didn't either look or feel right to me.
My two favourites on handling grounds alone were the Pentax and the Canon. My favourite was probably the Canon, but then it is a fair bit pricier that the Pentax. I have some more questions which I'd appreciate some advice.
Firstly on the Pentax - there seems some conflicting advice out there as to whether the K-m is a replacement or a level down from the K200D. There is an article in What Camera, which seems to try to position it as a replacement, given that they have stopped selling these in Japan. DPReview.com (a site I know is not highly rated here) has the K-m more as a cut down K200D. If so, the K200D has come down so much in price, that it's nearly the same cost as a K-m and may be a bargain. So if I went for a Pentax -which should I go for. Does the K-m improve in areas on the K200D?
Looking at dpreview.com - they say this of the K-m
"For all the reasons above the K2000 is a difficult camera to rate, combining as it does an excellent feature set with a fairly fundamental flaw (the inability to easily check or select the focus point being used) that we consider to be serious enough to be a deciding issue. The lack of focus point indication is also, crucially, something that we feel the target market (the first time buyer) would benefit from (small viewfinders and slow zooms don't make it easy to spot when the camera hasn't focused where you want it to). The target user is also much more likely to shoot JPEG than to process raw files in ACR, and the difference between the K2000's raw and JPEG output is so great that we've been forced to split the image quality score in the table below."
Can anyone explain whether this is as critical as they make out.
Secondly on the Canon - this was probably my preferred option in terms of handling. Again, I hear very conflicting reports on the quality of the kit lens. Is it OK to live with as given this is right at the top of the budget, I won't have any money to spend on accessories for a while.
I'm also interested in the price of lenses going forward - given that image stablisation is in the camera for Pentax, and also with the backward compatibility of older lenses - does this significantly reduce the cost for new lenses, or does the greater choice from other lens makers compensate for this with the Canon?
Any help greatly appreciated.
Cheers
David
I definitely agree on the advice on trying different cameras out - the Sony just didn't either look or feel right to me.
My two favourites on handling grounds alone were the Pentax and the Canon. My favourite was probably the Canon, but then it is a fair bit pricier that the Pentax. I have some more questions which I'd appreciate some advice.
Firstly on the Pentax - there seems some conflicting advice out there as to whether the K-m is a replacement or a level down from the K200D. There is an article in What Camera, which seems to try to position it as a replacement, given that they have stopped selling these in Japan. DPReview.com (a site I know is not highly rated here) has the K-m more as a cut down K200D. If so, the K200D has come down so much in price, that it's nearly the same cost as a K-m and may be a bargain. So if I went for a Pentax -which should I go for. Does the K-m improve in areas on the K200D?
Looking at dpreview.com - they say this of the K-m
"For all the reasons above the K2000 is a difficult camera to rate, combining as it does an excellent feature set with a fairly fundamental flaw (the inability to easily check or select the focus point being used) that we consider to be serious enough to be a deciding issue. The lack of focus point indication is also, crucially, something that we feel the target market (the first time buyer) would benefit from (small viewfinders and slow zooms don't make it easy to spot when the camera hasn't focused where you want it to). The target user is also much more likely to shoot JPEG than to process raw files in ACR, and the difference between the K2000's raw and JPEG output is so great that we've been forced to split the image quality score in the table below."
Can anyone explain whether this is as critical as they make out.
Secondly on the Canon - this was probably my preferred option in terms of handling. Again, I hear very conflicting reports on the quality of the kit lens. Is it OK to live with as given this is right at the top of the budget, I won't have any money to spend on accessories for a while.
I'm also interested in the price of lenses going forward - given that image stablisation is in the camera for Pentax, and also with the backward compatibility of older lenses - does this significantly reduce the cost for new lenses, or does the greater choice from other lens makers compensate for this with the Canon?
Any help greatly appreciated.
Cheers
David