Noobie entry to DSLR

alexthecheese

alexthecheese

Suspended / Banned
Messages
95
Edit My Images
No
Hi there

Asked this on another forum, but have found this place recently and it seems to be be an extremely lively place with lots of experience.

I am going to enter the DSLR fun and games in a couple of months and am wondering which route to take with regard to the camera and lenses.

I don't really have a set budget, which it makes it difficult, but want to consider options between getting something like a 7D and a 5D MK2.

I am looking to get something as a hobby walk around photographer. Nothing really actiony, just buildings, landscapes, people etc.

The 7D would free up around £500 that I could pump into lenses, but then it's a crop sensor and less sensitive as I understand it.

The 5d mk2 is slower and has a poorer autofocus, but with the full frame sensor and decent lenses (L lenses I understand are the only jobbies fit for purpose, am I right?) I would get perhaps better photos, but with a much greater entry cost.

Could you please share your views on the above? If I did state a nominal £2k to get into this, what would you go for? 5dmk2 and a single walkaround lens to start with, to add more later, or a more complete 7d package?

Thanks. :)
 
By the way, the autofocus on the 5D is more than up to the task for what you'll be shooting. Now IF you did want to shoot sports, motor-racing etc then that's a different matter...........
 
Personally I would go 5D and 24-70 L F2.8 with possibly a 17-40 L for wider shots for what you want!

Why not start with a 5D classic to try it out before dropping a hefty chunk on a Mkii ? Its a very capable camera!
 
Thanks guys, appreciate the replies.

I like the idea of the movie mode that the 5d mk2 offers over the mk1, though like you say, it's a hefty price increase. Aside from the megapixels difference and the video mode, what's difference between the 1 & 2? I believe the autofocus in the mk2 was lifted from the mk1?

Lenses-wise it's a toss-up between the 24-70mm and the 24-105mm with IS, and I suppose again this has been asked before, but I'm not sure which one to go for. I understand the benefits of the extra stop that the 24-70mm gives, but with the additional flexibility of the 24-105mm and IS, it's just tricky. :p The 24-70mm is around £300 more expensive than the 24-105mm, so that says something.
 
The 5D MKII is fantastic...

Both the 24-70 and the 24-105 are excellent.

If you do lots of low light / indoors then the F2.8 will be useful

If it mostly out doors, decent light etc... then I would say go the 24-105.......
 
It will likely be outdoorsy stuff with good light, but after sploshing £1350+ on a 5d mk2 I think I might be wondering what the extra stop difference is like in low light.

An extra £300 on a lens though, that would get me a 50mm 1.4 with change for a bag.

I think if I had the cash I'd go for the 24-70mm and buy the 70-200mm 2.8 IS striaght off, but that one will have to come later.
 
Both are cracking lenses so you won't be disappointed with either. You'll need to decide if you need the extra reach of the 24-105 over the extra stop of the 24-70. Horses for courses.

Like you say, the difference in price is another lens. Have you considered the 85mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.4 ? Lovely on FF.
 
Last edited:
If this is your first DSLR and a new hobby are you sure you would like to spend so much money on the first go? In your situation I'd get something like a 550D or D90 or most probably a Kr and some decent 16-18/50-85 lens depending if you care for reach more than DoF control. A setup like that would only cost 1/4 of your current budget with plenty of cash for a nice holiday or two to enjoy taking pictures :)

Let alone that L glass + a FF body will be quite heavy to just walk around taking pictures. I have a K-5 and when I carry the three pancake primes with me it is fine but lug a couple of the zooms and it is not something I care doing for long.
 
Hey vrapan, I've been itching for a DSLR for years now. Quite a good number of years really, but have never been in a position to get one.

I'm going to be 30 in June, and am getting treated (with a dollop of my own money) to a DSLR. Me and the GF are travelling in July next year for 6 months somewhere around the world, so it works for that as well. :)

I think I do want the extra reach of the 105mm over the 1 stop benefit of the 24-70mm. I think. I'm not really sure how much one stop difference would affect me, it's basically a doubling of ISO to get the same amount of light, isn't it. It's also 1/3rd lighter.

RE: the 85mm... that is tempting as I have seen people rave about the bokeh you get with it. Though the 1.4 50mm is 1.4... and I want to know what that's like. :p
 
The 5D-II is a fine camera but I''d hardly call it a novice camera. It's a bit old lump that will take a lot of experience to get the best out of it. Unless you've already handled one to know what you're letting yourself in for you may be making a mistake by buying one outright. Choosing a DSLR from the armchair often doesn't work as well as you expect it to. Get down to your local camera shop and try out a few different models. You may well end up loving the 5D-II and buy it. You may also end up going for something you hadn't considered but will 'feel right' and fit your hands and needs better.
 
Last edited:
alexthecheese said:
Hi there

Asked this on another forum, but have found this place recently and it seems to be be an extremely lively place with lots of experience.

I am going to enter the DSLR fun and games in a couple of months and am wondering which route to take with regard to the camera and lenses.

I don't really have a set budget, which it makes it difficult, but want to consider options between getting something like a 7D and a 5D MK2.

I am looking to get something as a hobby walk around photographer. Nothing really actiony, just buildings, landscapes, people etc.

The 7D would free up around £500 that I could pump into lenses, but then it's a crop sensor and less sensitive as I understand it.

The 5d mk2 is slower and has a poorer autofocus, but with the full frame sensor and decent lenses (L lenses I understand are the only jobbies fit for purpose, am I right?) I would get perhaps better photos, but with a much greater entry cost.

Could you please share your views on the above? If I did state a nominal £2k to get into this, what would you go for? 5dmk2 and a single walkaround lens to start with, to add more later, or a more complete 7d package?

Thanks. :)
Click to expand...

You don't always have to use L lenses. Some very reasonably priced EF primes and zooms (5d2 can't take efs of course which is a pity) that produce fantastic results of the 5d2.
 
alexthecheese said:
Hey vrapan, I've been itching for a DSLR for years now. Quite a good number of years really, but have never been in a position to get one.

I'm going to be 30 in June, and am getting treated (with a dollop of my own money) to a DSLR. Me and the GF are travelling in July next year for 6 months somewhere around the world, so it works for that as well. :)

I think I do want the extra reach of the 105mm over the 1 stop benefit of the 24-70mm. I think. I'm not really sure how much one stop difference would affect me, it's basically a doubling of ISO to get the same amount of light, isn't it. It's also 1/3rd lighter.

RE: the 85mm... that is tempting as I have seen people rave about the bokeh you get with it. Though the 1.4 50mm is 1.4... and I want to know what that's like. :p
Click to expand...


Depending on where your are travelling then a large DSLR and Lens will attract much unwanted attention. May be consider Micro 4 thirds for easier carrying and a lower profile.....
 
I've used SLRs before and I have a reasonable grasp on how they work and a small idea of how to get the best of them, but if I don't go the whole hog I think I'll be wondering about what I'm missing out on. Like I say, I've wanted one for about 10 years and though I can't afford to go ultra-pro or anything like that, I want a really kick arse setup that I can learn heaps from.

Anybody heard of the Samyang 85mm 1.4? I've just stumbled across a review of it on Youtube by a Scottish guy who's absolutely raving about it. It's manual focus which is obviously quite a thing in itself, but the results look excellent. A Canon 1.8 is £350 ish, with the 1.2 well over a grand, so it seems pretty good value for money at around £250!
 
Beagletorque said:
Depending on where your are travelling then a large DSLR and Lens will attract much unwanted attention. May be consider Micro 4 thirds for easier carrying and a lower profile.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I appreciate that and that is a concern. Hmm. :shrug:

I also appreciate that I haven't even seen one in person, I am judging it against a 550d and 60d that I've used, but the 5d mark 2 does certainly look bigger.

I dunno, I know I am probably coming across one of those people that knows best without really knowing anything, so I will try and check one out in the shops if I can find somewhere that stocks them.
 
Like you, I'm new to DSLR and I've just got myself a 60D. I went to the local camera shop and had a feel of a few different makes and sizes. I chose the 60D because it felt right in my hands.

However, I have read that it's not the camera that produces good shots, but the person behind the lens. And I do believe this. Good composition for one shot will be better than 100 rubbish ones.
 
XT8i said:
Like you, I'm new to DSLR and I've just got myself a 60D. I went to the local camera shop and had a feel of a few different makes and sizes. I chose the 60D because it felt right in my hands.
Click to expand...

There ya go. This is what you should do. :)
 
I do get what you mean, but at the same I'm not too fussed what it feels like. :shrug:
 
alexthecheese said:
I do get what you mean, but at the same I'm not too fussed what it feels like. :shrug:
Click to expand...

If you find yourself not liking how it feels you'll either not use it as much or will want to replace it... been there done that (admittedly a long time ago) expensive error potentially in not doing it.
 
alexthecheese said:
I do get what you mean, but at the same I'm not too fussed what it feels like. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That suggests to me that you're out of your depth already.
If the camera doesn't feel right I your hands you've just wasted a lot of cash on something you're not going to use.
If a camera is too big and heavy you won't want to carry it around, if the buttons are in awkward places you won't be able to get the best out of it as you won't be able to change settings quickly.
Seriously, there is some very good advice here that you should take in board.
The way your posts come across is that you want the best just because it's expensive, but if you don't have a full understanding of how to use it, you're not going to get many good shots from it, you're probably a lot better off with something like a 600D or a 60D.
 
Mandoo said:
That suggests to me that you're out of your depth already.
If the camera doesn't feel right I your hands you've just wasted a lot of cash on something you're not going to use.
If a camera is too big and heavy you won't want to carry it around, if the buttons are in awkward places you won't be able to get the best out of it as you won't be able to change settings quickly.
Seriously, there is some very good advice here that you should take in board.
The way your posts come across is that you want the best just because it's expensive, but if you don't have a full understanding of how to use it, you're not going to get many good shots from it, you're probably a lot better off with something like a 600D or a 60D.
Click to expand...

I think that's what everyone is thinking...
 
That's a little harsh, don't you think?

I don't think anywhere I've given the impression that I want to get it just cos it's expensive. Fair enough it sounds a bit brash saying I'm not fussed about how it feels, but the attitude has just swung a little unfairly because I said i don't mind carrying around a lump?

And I already said I would check it out in the shops. :shrug:
 
Hi Ales, i think what they're trying to say is that there is little need in somebody new to slr cameras plumping straight in for a semi-pro camera. I hope this doesn't sound condescending, because it isn't meant that way, but if i was able to give advice to myself 10 years ago, it would be to get any dslr i like the feel of, stick with the kit lens and maybe add one prime, a tripod and a flash, and take a lot of pictures, read up and ask questions on forums like this, and go on a couple of local photography courses.

This and 6 months to a year of shooting will tell you a lot about the photography you want to specialise in, and that will affect your choice of kit.

Whether your first camera be a 5d mk3 or an eos1000, there will be plenty to learn and practice, and your skills and knowledge will be the limiting factor, not the camera. You may be setting yourself up for a significant disappointment by spending so much on a camera expecting that to make a significant difference to your pictures.

But still go on some courses, even if you do get a mk3!
 
The main reason to get a 5D2 is because it's full frame and, ultimately, is capable of better image quality than crop-sensor cameras. However, while the difference is relatively small, and really only noticeable in bigger enlargements, but the extra cost, extra size and weight (especially lenses) means it's much more of a commitment.

From what you've said, and also in view of the travelling aspect, you might be better off with something smaller/lighter/cheaper. If you've not yet tried a crop format DSLR, or perhaps one of the new mirrorless camera types, you should do that before spending more than you need. And I don't mean just fiddling with one in a shop, but actually using one and seeing the results for yourself.
 
Hi,
I understand what your saying about wanting to get better. Probably better than what you need. I got a 550d and loved it, I produced some shots better than a full frame, it's having the eye for a good shot then going home and tweaking it on the Pc.
I'm upgrading the the 7D now that I'm confident I like photography, plus my lenses are compatible.
I'm not expert but from what I've seen , it's the real enthusiastic semi professional or professional photographers that go for the 5d mk2&3. I might be wrong and am open to criticism .
Maybe getting something light and small and low cost for you holiday. If you want to take it up more and more seriously you could then get the 5d and keep the 550d as a spare or you may find someone in the family who can share those photo taking moments with you!

Like others have said, you need to get what's right for you! And if that's a 5D MkIII then that's what your gonna get
 
Every new pro digital camera that has come on to the market was the best thing since sliced bread. These fantastic cameras are still about, most of them in the TP classified with very low mileage! Usually bought by people who think that the camera takes the picture. The latest and best versions are usually only better at the extreme ends of the photographic envelope, which for professionals in their particular fields may give a real benefit. For pictures of your pets, gardens, holidays and most snaps that you see on here, having a DSLR actually makes it more difficult to get a good photo than a point and shoot!

Obviously it's your money and you can spend it how you like, but if you come on TP asking for advice, you could at least pretend that you are interested in it even if you think it is wrong and you know what you’re going to do anyway!

Perhaps once you have got all your kit you could come back on and tell us if we were right or not?
 
Beagletorque said:
Every new pro digital camera that has come on to the market was the best thing since sliced bread. These fantastic cameras are still about, most of them in the TP classified with very low mileage! Usually bought by people who think that the camera takes the picture. The latest and best versions are usually only better at the extreme ends of the photographic envelope, which for professionals in their particular fields may give a real benefit. *******For pictures of your pets, gardens, holidays and most snaps that you see on here, having a DSLR actually makes it more difficult to get a good photo than a point and shoot!*******

Obviously it's your money and you can spend it how you like, but if you come on TP asking for advice, you could at least pretend that you are interested in it even if you think it is wrong and you know what you’re going to do anyway!

Perhaps once you have got all your kit you could come back on and tell us if we were right or not?
Click to expand...

I must disagree with the bit I've highlighted!

A p&s is useless at getting shots of my very active dalmation marking around, let alone my o/h's horse, my 50d and 10mm lens and filters create stunning holiday photos a p&s won't be able to replicate. A DSLR makes all the above much easier by virtue of it's capabilities.

Of course a p&s is far more convenient, but then so is my 50d with the appropriate bag. I'd rather use kit that gets the shot.

As for the OP, a 5d mk2 may actually be more restrictive than the 60d!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I must disagree with the bit I've highlighted!

A p&s is useless at getting shots of my very active dalmation marking around, let alone my o/h's horse, my 50d and 10mm lens and filters create stunning holiday photos a p&s won't be able to replicate. A DSLR makes all the above much easier by virtue of it's capabilities.

Of course a p&s is far more convenient, but then so is my 50d with the appropriate bag. I'd rather use kit that gets the shot.

As for the OP, a 5d mk2 may actually be more restrictive than the 60d!
Click to expand...


Assuming A) you have a 10mm lens in your kit and B) you know have to use it! ;)

Can't comment on the dalmation as I've never tired to shoot one with the camera :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top