About to buy my first camera.... i think!

S

Spottedcat

Suspended / Banned
Messages
4
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

So very very new to this, i have decided that now i have a little more free time, i would like to take up a hobby (perhaps more) in photography but i dont know anything!
I know a photographer and she has given me a few tips but as she is on maternity, i cant bother her too much.
So, i intend to start a course, to get things started but first i need to think about a camera.
The photographer is selling one of hers next month, a canon 70d with some lenses being 17.55 (and 2 others but i think i dont really need to get things started) but its quite costly.
I called an independant camera shop today who said that it was a good camera, however, they had a canon 400D in stock.
What are your thoughts on this camera?? I understand its an old camera?? Would this be ok to work witg being a beginner?
Ps - i know nothing about pixels etc (something to come with my course)
Many thanks
 
Have you got a budget in mind?

Please compare prices with reputable second hand dealers such as mpb, ffordes, etc. - there are a number of them.

mpb have a 400D from £64 atm and a 70D from £389.

I had a 400D but if I was in your shoes I would probably go for a 40D (predecessor of the 70D) which costs only a little bit more than a 400D. The only meaningful sacrifice you make with these old bodies is:
1. megapixels - 400D/40D have 10.1 megapixels but this should be plenty for most applications.
2. high ISO will be noisier than on more modern bodies (but way better than it was in the days of film).

You should then be able to pick up one of the EF-S 18-55 Canon kit lenses for around £50.

As Joel says it's more important that you learn the basics about photography before you start spending big money on camera bodies. Lenses tend to keep their value if you buy second hand but most digital camera bodies lose their financial value in a very similar fashion to cars.
 
Their are two trains of thought. One to buy cheap and cheerful to get started and upgrade as you progress, and one to buy high end from the get go as you will potentially lose less money this way, assuming of course this is something that you will do for a very long time.

I can see both sides of the argument tbh, but most people can't afford a big outlay from the start so would normally recommend the former option. Either camera is great as a starter, and don't worry about megapixels they're arguably the least important spec of a camera for most things.
 
Thank you

My budget is minimum but that in mind, i want to get a good camera as cheap as possible so if that means paying slightly more, then so be it.
I did just look on ebay for a 40d, and i did feel a little more excited about that one than the 400d. I do think the 70 would be a silly decision at this point.
I was going to see the independant camera shop at the wkend, have a hold of a few, get a feel for one.
I will also look at mpb as well.

Can i have a few more tips please?
I was advised not to bother with a lens kit, as they are not very good.. is that the case? I was thinking of getting the 17-55 or the 18-55 purely by recommendation, i actually have no idea what they specialise in or what is the difference between the 2.
The area of photograpy i am interested in is family portraits also in natural outdoor settings
 
Last edited:
As long as you don't intend to shoot in the driving rain, a kit lens will be fine to start out with. The 18-55 IS and 18-55 IS STM get good reviews for their optical quality:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/404-canon_1855_3556is_50d
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/831-canon_1855_3556stmis

What these lenses sacrifice versus more expensive alternatives is build quality, weathersealing and light-gathering ability but none of that should matter too much if you're starting out. On the other hand kit lenses are lightweight, which helps to keep the overall weight down and will encourage you to bring the camera along instead of leaving it at home...
 
I think i need to start being a little patient. Standard me is wanting to run before i can walk!!!
 
There's nothing wrong with kit lenses, it just depends on your expectations. Of course they're not as good as the higher end lenses but they can still give very nice images indeed. Just don't expect the 'classic' portrait look with the blurred backgrounds.

Is there a reason you're only looking at Canon?
 
A would advise buying used for now. If you buy from a used specialist you'll hopefully get some sort of warranty, 6-12 months.
Don't be stuck on just Canon, Nikon make good camera's too.
You haven't mentioned a budget, but anything from a 40d to a 70d will do you well. I'm a Canon user so can't really comment on the Nikon line-up. The kit lenses really aren't bad at all for starting out (i still use mine after 3yrs), yes they have some limitations, but nothing that will hold you back whilst you are learning.
 
Im not only looking at canons, im open to others. It was simply because my photograpber was selling one that made me look at canon alternatives.
I have seen the nikon 3400 that has some good write ups too.
To be honest, i havent got a budget (and not in a good sense either) money is very limited so it is a case of whats the best camera i can get without going to mad. Im definately going to get a used camera.
 
Spottedcat said:
Im not only looking at canons, im open to others. It was simply because my photograpber was selling one that made me look at canon alternatives.
I have seen the nikon 3400 that has some good write ups too.
To be honest, i havent got a budget (and not in a good sense either) money is very limited so it is a case of whats the best camera i can get without going to mad. Im definately going to get a used camera.
Click to expand...
The D3400 is an entry level camera. It will still produce stunning shots but things like autofocus systems are relatively basic.

A used D7100 would be one hell of a camera for the money. I guess it's probably Nikon's competitor to the Canon 70D. There's pros and cons for each. There's no doubting that the Nikon has a much better sensor, and as such will technically produce noticeably better image quality.

Screen Shot 2017-09-22 at 08.09.52.png





However, as we all know photography is subjective and whilst technically the Nikon should produce technically better IQ some people prefer Canon colours and as such will prefer the Canon despite it's technical spec not being great. This is why it's important to look at images that these cameras produce to see what your preference is. Look at unedited images if you can as processed images won't give you a true reflection of native colours etc etc.

Also, the handling is one of the most important factors. If you don't like the way a camera feels in the hand, don't like the control layout o don't like the menus etc you won't enjoy using it and probably won't get the best from it. Canon users will tell you that the Canon layout is better, and Nikon users will tell you the Nikon layout is better. You need to decide for yourself.

Lastly, think about the lenses you can see yourself wanting in the future. TBH Canon and Nikon have just about everything covered, but Canon do the odd lens Nikon doesn't and vice versa.
 
snerkler said:
Also, the handling is one of the most important factors. If you don't like the way a camera feels in the hand, don't like the control layout o don't like the menus etc you won't enjoy using it and probably won't get the best from it. Canon users will tell you that the Canon layout is better, and Nikon users will tell you the Nikon layout is better. You need to decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

Surprising how much difference this makes, though some seem to adapt to different systems easily.
When I first went digital I followed advice and bought a Nikon after years of using Pentax film cameras. After a month of trying to get to grips with it, took it back to the shop with the intention of going back to film again. However the shopkeeper handed me a Canon 300D that had just come in part-exchange, took it outside for a quick play and that was it, everything about it was right for me.
Still using Canon more than 10 years later and still cant gel with Nikon when I have been handed one by others. It will be the opposite way around I'm sure for other people. So it is well worth going to a shop to handle different brands before buying into a system.
 
smr said:
Get the 400D and learn about photography - exposure triangle - depth of field, aperture, ISO, shutter speed, composition, light... all important things a more expensive DSLR won't teach... learn that first and then upgrade when that Camera limits you, that's my advice.
Click to expand...

Do this-----^
 
On paper I'd go for a new Nikon as the sensors are mostly higher resolution with better dynamic range - you can recover more shadow and highlights in raw (I know a few people who have sold Canon gear and switched to Nikon or Sony because of this). The D3300/D3400s are good starter cameras with 24mp sensors and the kit lenses are decent - resolution isn't everything but when smartphones are providing 20mp+ images, is 10mp enough? To me the answer is no. A D7100 would be excellent if you can stretch to it, you wouldn't outgrow it for a very long time, if ever
 
Scirocco_09 said:
On paper I'd go for a new Nikon as the sensors are mostly higher resolution with better dynamic range - you can recover more shadow and highlights in raw (I know a few people who have sold Canon gear and switched to Nikon or Sony because of this). The D3300/D3400s are good starter cameras with 24mp sensors and the kit lenses are decent - resolution isn't everything but when smartphones are providing 20mp+ images, is 10mp enough? To me the answer is no. A D7100 would be excellent if you can stretch to it, you wouldn't outgrow it for a very long time, if ever
Click to expand...
Just because a phone may have 20mp it doesn't mean a great deal. What are you viewing on, how large are you printing etc. 10mp is plenty for A3 prints. 10mp is actually more resolution than a 4k TV. The only time you need higher res is for cropping and/or printing very large. Don't get me wrong, the extra MP can be handy but I certainly wouldn't rule out a lower MP camera, especially just because a mobile phone may have more (y)

A D7100 would be a very good choice though, and could last the OP a long time. Unless of course they get the curse of GAS ;)
 
snerkler said:
Just because a phone may have 20mp it doesn't mean a great deal. What are you viewing on, how large are you printing etc. 10mp is plenty for A3 prints. 10mp is actually more resolution than a 4k TV. The only time you need higher res is for cropping and/or printing very large. Don't get me wrong, the extra MP can be handy but I certainly wouldn't rule out a lower MP camera, especially just because a mobile phone may have more (y)

A D7100 would be a very good choice though, and could last the OP a long time. Unless of course they get the curse of GAS ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe it wasn't put very well but you know what I'm getting at :) I had to use my old D90 for a shoot last year and found the lack of megapixels prohibiting due to the lack of cropping you could do, and that's 12mp. Too many megapixels though and GAS might mean you want and need a new computer!
 
Getting it right in camera is far better than cropping. Better to get the right lens in the first place to preserve quality.

Pro's still use and make money with their FX Nikon D700's and they are "only" 12MP.
 
Scirocco_09 said:
Maybe it wasn't put very well but you know what I'm getting at :) I had to use my old D90 for a shoot last year and found the lack of megapixels prohibiting due to the lack of cropping you could do, and that's 12mp. Too many megapixels though and GAS might mean you want and need a new computer!
Click to expand...
I've said it before; I'd rather rake a 40d out on a job than any current entry level camera. Megapixels and low light IQ are lovely to have, but don't compare with outright usability when it comes to the quality of output.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top