Is it worth getting an older dslr?

petebuster1

petebuster1

Suspended / Banned
Messages
238
Name
peter
Edit My Images
Yes
My G15 has to be the best camera ive owned to date, the picture quality is superb and its so versatile ive been really impressed but the main learning curve for me is because in imo anyway is its ergonomics.Its really helped me to understand manual controls which to be honest when i bought a 60d from the start i never thought i'd get used to:).
Now i've realised i really like macro photography and am starting to wish i'd not sold my 60d:bonk: so am thinking on maybe getting a second hand 40d or something and a dedicated macro lens but will these older models be good enough? and will i notice a great difference with a macro lens compared with the macro on G15 which is very good? thanks guys
 
The G15 already focusing pretty close doesnt it? would a closeup filter help?
 
Last edited:
Well I was looking at the raynox dcr 250 which I've read good things about
 
petebuster1 said:
...will these older models be good enough? and will i notice a great difference with a macro lens compared with the macro on G15 which is very good? thanks guys
Click to expand...

I think just about any DSLR will be good enough and I doubt you'll be able to tell which the image was taken with.

So far I've had 300D, 10D, 20D and 5D and when shooting RAW at low to mid ISO's and processing for best effect I have great difficulty deciding which shot was taken with which camera. New models give more bells and whistles and possibly better higher ISO performance but IMVHO if you shoot RAW and keep to low to mid ISO's great things are possible :D
 
Yes thats what i was wondering is there any really great difference between IQ in high end compacts and dslr's nowadays? i mean the G15 is 1.8 - 2.8 and the picture quality is as good as could ask for when i compose it right which i need a little/lot more practice to do yet:), but am i really going to see much difference with a dslr and a specific lens as i wouldn't need to print anything more than A3/A4 size.
 
Last edited:
I've never tried that Canon compact but I have a Panasonic LX5 which is a higher end compact so maybe it's about the same? If it is...

My LX5 produces images that look good at A4 but don't really stand up to close inspection or cropping and enlarging to A4.

Personally, the smallest system that I think produces the goods for anything other than snaps and small uncropped whole images to A4 is MFT.

I think you'll see an improvement with a DSLR, but too see it I think you'll have to use good lenses, shoot RAW and process the images to get the best results possible... and look closely.
 
Last edited:
mmmmm very complicated photography isn't it? So many options and ways of doing things,for me it would just a case of of putting on a computer and printing for the most part (for now anyway).Editing etc i'll get into a later time,don't really have time for all that.
 
There's still a difference in the IQ between compacts & DSLRs and no doubt always will be...the gap has closed however and having just bought a Sony RX100 I'm pretty certain it's this model that has closed it the most, very impressive images from it

Simon
 
No problems at all with an older model of DSLR - yes the new models are an improvement in certain areas, but if you don't need that, then there is no benefit - eg the 7D has improved AF tracking and a higher FPS than the 40/50/60D range, but if you don't need this, then it's not an advantage to have - nice to have, but not essential, same goes for ISO - if you shoot below 400 for example, then having a body that shoots well upto 25600 in't really necessary as you'll not use it. Again, these are nice features to have...

If you're shooting Macro, I'd tend to go for an older body and a dedicated Macro lens as you'll get much better results with them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top