Hello all! Advice please?

Dicky27

Dicky27

Suspended / Banned
Messages
69
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I'm new to the photography world and i have never owned any camera before, i am however pretty good on Photoshop and love editing photos. An example is below. I have used cameras before but only compact. I am wanting a DSLR and i have been researching them over the past week. Now the cameras i have seen are entry level and i have been looking at the Nikon D3100 and the Canon 550D. I have swayed towards the 550D as i want to do HDR photography sometimes and i know this a lot easier with AEB which the 550D has but the D3100 doesn't.

Now i went into Jessops to have a look at them to get a real life view of them and the 550D is £600 with 18-55mm lens http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77142/show.html. And while i am there i see the Canon 500D and this has the 18-55mm and the 75-300mm lens for £570 http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/80640/show.html. Now, my cousin races motorbikes and i go watch him so would i be better as a newbie to get the 500D with the two lens kits and i believe the 500D has AEB so i will also be able to do HDR photgraphy with it? Any drawbacks to the 500D? Would i still be better getting the 550D and waiting for a 300mm lens kit.

Thanks in advance


Photoshop example:
golf-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Any camera that shoots raw and you can HDR.

AFAIK the d3000 can do the auto bracketing (could be wrong).


Personally from a nikon pov I'd look at the d90 or d7000 (depending on pocket depth) and as you've posted the entry models as the ones you are looking at I will assume that you wont have much to spend on it.


Best advice would be to go to the store and handle all the cameras up to beginning pro - so you can see which you may want to upgrade to later.

Note down your fave cameras and go look in a second hand store for 'em
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the quick response! I am looking to spend around £600 max as it's my first one, but shooting HDR will be important to me but as you said HDR can be done with any RAW file so it wouldn't be a problem going for the D3100. The D7000 is out of my price range and looking at the D90 it looks similar to the 550D. But i definitely want a lens for motorsport so would i be better getting the D500 with both lenses for £570 and i can always upgrade camera later? What second hand stores are there?
 
Of course you don't need AEB to do HDR, but it certainly makes it much easier for some subjects.

However, that apart, the problem is the extra lens you're looking at - it's not the best. These bundles put together by retailers are attractive, and pretty good value for what you get, but the truth is that a decent tele-zoom like that costs a few quid.

The budget one to get is the Canon 55-250, which is a bargain at under £200. Next up is the 70-300 IS at around £400, though of course you can spend a lot more, eg 70-300L at £1200 (many other options).

You tend to need quite long lenses for bike racing, like up to 400mm, unless you can get close.
 
I don't think you'll go wrong with either the 500D or the 550D both are high pixel count sensors. I have the 50D (15mp) and the 7D (18mp) so in that respect they're similar to the 500D and 550D respectively.

Both will enable good image quality and the ability to crop substantially while still retaining good image quality. Like the 7D, the 550D will have the edge for cropping and therefore giving your lenses more effective reach, but it's not a night and day difference at only 3mp between the two. I appreciate the difference as I mainly photograph small birds, so I gain from the improved cropping ability, but depending on what you shoot, that may be neither here nor there for you.
 
CT said:
I don't think you'll go wrong with either the 500D or the 550D both are high pixel count sensors. I have the 50D (15mp) and the 7D (18mp) so in that respect they're similar to the 500D and 550D respectively.

Both will enable good image quality and the ability to crop substantially while still retaining good image quality. Like the 7D, the 550D will have the edge for cropping and therefore giving your lenses more effective reach, but it's not a night and day difference at only 3mp between the two. I appreciate the difference as I mainly photograph small birds, so I gain from the improved cropping ability, but depending on what you shoot, that may be neither here nor there for you.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree with CT there. Pixel count is not the limiting factor in this case, it will be the lens - by a long way. And cropping is a bad idea anyway unless there is no alternative - you're just throwing away quality.

You will not be cropping at anywhere near pixel level with anything but the very best quality lenses. CT's birding lenses, listed in his sig, ar Canon L-grade primes costing several thousand quid each.
 
Thankyou for the replies! All very helpful.

These are pretty much my options then..

1. Would you say i'd be better off saving my money and going for something like d3100 and then saving for a better lens for motorsport... http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/78032/show.html
Still able to do HDR using RAW files.

2. rather than 500d with extra lens...
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/80640/show.html

3. or would i be better getting the 550D and saving then for a better lens for motorsport...
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77142/show.html
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
I'm going to disagree with CT there. Pixel count is not the limiting factor in this case, it will be the lens - by a long way.
Click to expand...
That's an over simplification Richard. Lens quality and pixel density are two entirely separate issues and the limiting factor will depend very much on what the OP intends to shoot as to which is the lesser of the two evils.

And cropping is a bad idea anyway unless there is no alternative - you're just throwing away quality.
Click to expand...

Really? So if I photograph a wee birdy and view the resultant file at 1:1 - it's a mere dot in the frame often. If I crop that image down to (say) 1024 pixels, the bird occupies a much larger part of the reduced frame and a much larger part of the reduced frame than would be the case with a sensor having a lesser pixel count. There's no reduction in the actual 1:1 size of the bird (pixels per bird) and no loss in image quality whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Are Jessops pulling a funny with the 500d? I always thought the kit came with the newer 18-55 IS, and only the 450d kit came with the non-IS version. If it is indeed the older version, then I'd avoid - those two lenses aren't great.

I would go for a 550d 2nd hand (try the photo forum sale boards here and AVForums), a 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. All are fairly popular and pop up often for very decent prices. There's a 55-250 IS going for £110 just popped up here on TP for instance.
 
tomqh said:
Are Jessops pulling a funny with the 500d? I always thought the kit came with the newer 18-55 IS, and only the 450d kit came with the non-IS version. If it is indeed the older version, then I'd avoid - those two lenses aren't great.

I would go for a 550d 2nd hand (try the photo forum sale boards here and AVForums), a 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS. All are fairly popular and pop up often for very decent prices. There's a 55-250 IS going for £110 just popped up here on TP for instance.
Click to expand...

Ah now lenses are something i haven't researched. I'm guessing IS is image stabling?

I will have to look into this a bit more! Thanks for making me aware!
 
Dicky27 said:
Ah now lenses are something i haven't researched. I'm guessing IS is image stabling?
Click to expand...

Correct. This is more useful for longer focal lengths (where smaller movement will blur more), but the 18-55 IS is better all round than the old non-IS.
 
Dicky27 said:
Thankyou for the replies! All very helpful.

These are pretty much my options then..

1. Would you say i'd be better off saving my money and going for something like d3100 and then saving for a better lens for motorsport... http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/78032/show.html
Still able to do HDR using RAW files.

2. rather than 500d with extra lens...
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/80640/show.html

3. or would i be better getting the 550D and saving then for a better lens for motorsport...
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77142/show.html
Click to expand...

You've really got to make your own mind up about this. :) What Richard says is true - the 75 - 300mm isn't the best quality lens out there, but that doesn't preclude you from getting out there and taking pictures with it. You seem to be pretty adept in post processing, and careful editing and sharpening can make a huge difference to the final result.

You're embarking on a potentially very expensive pastime! If you can't afford top end glass just yet then get out there and take pics with what you can afford - it's far better than browsing Jessops site with your tongue hanging out and you'll actually be taking pictures and gaining experience.

People can and do produce great images here on TP without having top end glass, including bird images I might add - it may be more difficult and you'll need to get closer but it can be done. We tend to expound the "Get the best glass" mantra like some sort of religious dogma, but it's not doing people any favours if it discourages them from getting out there and actually taking some images.
 
Right and Nikon version of IS is VR? So whether i get Canon or Nikon the lens should be IS or VR? Also looking at DC lenses, are they no good then?
 
Last edited:
CT said:
You've really got to make your own mind up about this. :) What Richard says is true - the 75 - 300mm isn't the best quality lens out there, but that doesn't preclude you from getting out there and taking pictures with it. You seem to be pretty adept in post processing, and careful editing and sharpening can make a huge difference to the final result.

You're embarking on a potentially very expensive pastime! If you can't afford top end glass just yet then get out there and take pics with what you can afford - it's far better than browsing Jessops site with your tongue hanging out and you'll actually be taking pictures and gaining experience.

People can and do produce great images here on TP without having top end glass, including bird images I might add - it may be more difficult and you'll need to get closer but it can be done. We tend to expound the "Get the best glass" mantra like some sort of religious dogma, but it's not doing people any favours if it discourages them from getting out there and actually taking some images.
Click to expand...


Thanks, make sense!
After the advice given i would rather get a better camera with a better lens and get out there taking pics and save and wait for the right lens for motorsport rather than getting cheaper camera and more lenses for same price.
 
Dicky27 said:
Thanks, make sense!
After the advice given i would rather get a better camera with a better lens and get out there taking pics and save and wait for the right lens for motorsport rather than getting cheaper camera and more lenses for same price.
Click to expand...

Sensible - you have to start somewhere, and photography can bankrupt you pretty rapido! :D
 
CT said:
That's an over simplification Richard. Lens quality and pixel density are two entirely separate issues and the limiting factor will depend very much on what the OP intends to shoot as to which is the lesser of the two evils.



Really? So if I photograph a wee birdy and view the resultant file at 1:1 - it's a mere dot in the frame often. If I crop that image down to (say) 1024 pixels, the bird occupies a much larger part of the reduced frame and a much larger part of the reduced frame than would be the case with a sensor having a lesser pixel count. There's no reduction in the actual 1:1 size of the bird (pixels per bird) and no loss in image quality whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I cannot believe you're saying that Cedric. Cropping your way to a bigger image with a consumer grade zoom at 300mm is a road to nowhere, as we have seen often enough on these forums. Pixel density just doesn't come into it when you can't even form a sharp image on them. You just enlarge the blur.

You are using two enormous primes, of the very highest quality and huge cost. It's not the same thing at all.

And if there was "no loss in image quality whatsoever" by cropping, and simply about how many pixels you can put over the subject, birders would all be using compacts and gaining huge pixel-reach that way. It's not just the number of pixels, but how big they are.
 
CT said:
Sensible - you have to start somewhere, and photography can bankrupt you pretty rapido! :D
Click to expand...

Exactly! And i have other hobbies that bankrupt me such as an Audi TT and a want for a supermoto. :)

Ok so now i'm going to throw another camera into the equation. Now that i am settling for a good body and a good starter lens i have the following options so far. (i only showing examples form jessops as it's pretty much only site i know and to gain idea of what is out there)

1. Nikon 5100
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/80903/show.html

2. Canon 550D
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/77142/show.html
 
HoppyUK said:
I cannot believe you're saying that Cedric. Cropping your way to a bigger image with a consumer grade zoom at 300mm is a road to nowhere, as we have seen often enough on these forums. Pixel density just doesn't come into it when you can't even form a sharp image on them. You just enlarge the blur.
Click to expand...

How are you 'cropping your way to a bigger image' if you're cropping a portion of the 1:1 image? You're simply putting the bird in a smaller frame whether you're using top end glass or consumer glass - you're not enlarging anything, either the bird or any blur which might be present.

You are using two enormous primes, of the very highest quality and huge cost. It's not the same thing at all.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's the same thing, and in fact in my initial reply to the OP I did say that the pixel density may be neither here nor there depending on his intended main subject matter. It's obviously going to be less of an issue for motorsport than it would be for birds with a lot less cropping likely to be involved anyway.

And if there was "no loss in image quality whatsoever" by cropping, and simply about how many pixels you can put over the subject, birders would all be using compacts and gaining huge pixel-reach that way. It's not just the number of pixels, but how big they are.
Click to expand...

Perlease Richard can we try to keep it sensible! ;)All bird photographers crop - it's a fact of life even with very long lenses. As far as I'm aware you're not a bird photographer and I'm sad to say you're just not getting this at all. The vast majority of bird photographers use cameras such as Canon 7Ds and Nikon 300s for very sound reasons which I don't intend to re-iterate to the point of nauseum , we've done the subject to death here many times.
 
Last edited:
CT said:
How are you 'cropping your way to a bigger image' if you're cropping a portion of the 1:1 image? You're simply putting the bird in a smaller frame whether you're using top end glass or consumer glass - you're not enlarging anything, either the bird or any blur which might be present.
Click to expand...
Reading between the lines as I've been involved in another discussion with Richard about this, I think what he means is the more you crop, the more you have to enlarge the image to make it fit a specific printed size (e.g. 12"x8"). The more you have to enlarge, the lower the resulting quality will be, whether you have a high pixel density on the subject or not. At the end of the day, a 300mm lens on a FF or APS-C sensor will project the bird exactly the same on the sensor. If you take the same crop from an APS-C and FF, you will have to enlarge them by exactly the same amount to get a given picture size.

If you're doing it to get a 100% crop for display on a PC, clearly, there will not be any issue.

Apologies if I have misrepresented Richards views or I have misunderstood what he is saying...
 
arad85 said:
Reading between the lines as I've been involved in another discussion with Richard about this, I think what he means is the more you crop, the more you have to enlarge the image to make it fit a specific printed size (e.g. 12"x8"). The more you have to enlarge, the lower the resulting quality will be, whether you have a high pixel density on the subject or not. At the end of the day, a 300mm lens on a FF or APS-C sensor will project the bird exactly the same on the sensor. If you take the same crop from an APS-C and FF, you will have to enlarge them by exactly the same amount to get a given picture size.

If you're doing it to get a 100% crop for display on a PC, clearly, there will not be any issue.

Apologies if I have misrepresented Richards views or I have misunderstood what he is saying...
Click to expand...

Well all that's fair enough. Enlarging the image to print if necessary is a different matter. The example I've given is of an extreme 1:1 crop. In most cases even after cropping you'd still be left with a very large cropped image which would need substantial reduction in size to show it at 1024 pixels and would print larger than that anyway - even after cropping.

It's a pointless argument really- bird photography is what it is as anyone who does it knows . Of course there's an advantage in larger pixels but it doesn't negate the huge pixel loss in cropping down a 1DS3 image to the same FOV as a 7D and further huge pixel loss in any further cropping - the 7D ends up with the better quality image however you cut it, were it not so we (bird photographers) would be using full frame sensors, but we're not. Richard really should give us the credit of knowing what's best for our particular needs - we're not all daft! :D
 
arad85 said:
Reading between the lines as I've been involved in another discussion with Richard about this, I think what he means is the more you crop, the more you have to enlarge the image to make it fit a specific printed size (e.g. 12"x8"). The more you have to enlarge, the lower the resulting quality will be, whether you have a high pixel density on the subject or not. At the end of the day, a 300mm lens on a FF or APS-C sensor will project the bird exactly the same on the sensor. If you take the same crop from an APS-C and FF, you will have to enlarge them by exactly the same amount to get a given picture size.

If you're doing it to get a 100% crop for display on a PC, clearly, there will not be any issue.

Apologies if I have misrepresented Richards views or I have misunderstood what he is saying...
Click to expand...

What I am saying is this, and I don't want to get into pixel density vs resolution vs MTF and all that stuff. I have done enough birding to know what the key factors are, and that is longest lens first, and then crop if you have to. Applies to any long lens shooting. You can't just crop your way to a decent image, regardless of pixel density, unless the lens resolution is also at the same level - which is the point I was picking up in CT's original post.

For example, if you have a lens capable of say 100 lpmm resolution (and that's pushing it with a Canon 70-300 IS at 300mm, which is not the sharpest 300mm lens ever made) then expecting to see any benefit from the 200-plus lpmm pixel density with a Canon 50D/7D is obviously going to result in disappointment. You cannot benefit from the extra pixels if the lens is not capable of resolving them in the first place, and any subsequent cropping is just enlarging the lens blur, before you get anywhere near pixel level.

What you can achieve with primes costing £5-6k, such as CT's 300L 2.8 and 500L 4, compared to a consumer grade zoom is just not the same. That is the only point I want to make ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
What you can achieve with primes costing £5-6k, such as CT's 300L 2.8 and 500L 4, compared to a consumer grade zoom is just not the same. That is the only point I want to make ;)
Click to expand...
Yes. Point well made ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
What you can achieve with primes costing £5-6k, such as CT's 300L 2.8 and 500L 4, compared to a consumer grade zoom is just not the same. That is the only point I want to make ;)
Click to expand...

Well you made it, but it was quite unnecessary as that was never in dispute ;)
 
Ok so i was all set on the 550D and then i see this Sony Alpha a580.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/78149/show.html

Cost atm is important and i'm trying to set my budget to £600 including £70 3 year cover for piece of mind.

Also the with the Sony it looks like you get more for your money.

How is the camera viewed on this forum and people's opinions on it?
 
Dicky27 said:
Ok so i was all set on the 550D and then i see this Sony Alpha a580.

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/78149/show.html

Cost atm is important and i'm trying to set my budget to £600 including £70 3 year cover for piece of mind.

Also the with the Sony it looks like you get more for your money.

How is the camera viewed on this forum and people's opinions on it?
Click to expand...

They are fairly similar in many ways - however you will get a lot of advise to go with Canon (or Nikon) rather than Sony - some of it sensible (better availability of gear in shops to try, for example), some of it plain 'anti-Sony' ranting :shrug:

An important factor in considering the two is how you see your photography progressing over the next few years. If you expect to continue spending £500+ each year, then the additional range of options that Canon (or Nikon) bring might be a factor - if not, then you can ignore it, as there will be more than enough things to spend your cash on!

I can't remember if it's been suggested yet or not, but it is also worth going into the shop to investigate before you aim to buy - see how the different models feel when you hold them - some people don't worry about the slightly different styles, others find some awkward (too big / small, etc).
 
The a580 is great value and has the best APS-c sensor on the Market right now. See DxO Mark for a comparison with the 550d.
 
How about buy the Nikon D90 used for £449 in MPB Photographic and then buy a used nikon 18-200mm VR for £299.

I know is add up to £750 but you get a decent camera and pretty good start up lens to begin with, then you can slowly build up your lens collection at the future.

D90 is no toy and can shoot that bracket HDR you talking about easily as well. If you like the canon, then you can't go wrong with 550D either and you can upgrade in the future to 60D, 7D etc ......
 
Johnd2000 said:
The a580 is great value and has the best APS-c sensor on the Market right now. See DxO Mark for a comparison with the 550d.
Click to expand...

No, unless you understand the math behind their testing it is possible to get sucked in to theoretical results not real world.

Many people find the methodology flawed as they only print results and don't show how this was obtained.
 
On the advise i will stick to Canon or Nikon as i intent to be doing this for a long time and i want to get a nice collection of lenses and upgrade camera in the future. I may go for the Nikon D3100 as it's my first dslr and this will be more than enough for my needs and i can always upgrade camera and keep the lenses in the future.
 
I'd still opt for a d90 if you can... and maybe the 35mm f1.8 as a starter prime...

I had an 18-200vr mki and found it soft although as a first lens its range is awesome. Only soft when comparing to other prime lenses (so will always be soft).

Mate here at work recently bought the d700 and a tamron lens, which has been very crisp. Pics he has are nice :) Tamron 17-50 (around 260ukp on amazon). Should give you the wider angle for landscape stuff yet be versatile enough for portraits. May be worth considering :)

Let us all know when you get the camera of your choice :)
 
ecniv said:
I'd still opt for a d90 if you can... and maybe the 35mm f1.8 as a starter prime...

I had an 18-200vr mki and found it soft although as a first lens its range is awesome. Only soft when comparing to other prime lenses (so will always be soft).

Mate here at work recently bought the d700 and a tamron lens, which has been very crisp. Pics he has are nice :) Tamron 17-50 (around 260ukp on amazon). Should give you the wider angle for landscape stuff yet be versatile enough for portraits. May be worth considering :)

Let us all know when you get the camera of your choice :)
Click to expand...

Thankyou, i'll look into these and compare them against my options.

I just get put off the d90 as it's not in production anymore and would rather have a newer model. and then i can always upgrade later on.

Thanks i will :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top