Spec me a camera!

S

Speedbird

Suspended / Banned
Messages
16
Edit My Images
No
Evening all,

I'm in the process of buying my first DSLR, and would appreciate some suggestions and guidance as to the best thing for my money. In the camera I'm looking for;

- Accessible and relatively user friendly but allows for progression up to advanced amateur and beyond.

- Good video quality, bare minimum 720p - ideally at 60fps.

- Not fussed about articulated screen etc.

- Photographing a little bit of everything. No lean towards a specific type of photograpy.

- Budget of approximately £500.

Am I right in saying that for my money I'm probably best looking at the Canon 550d with the 18-55mm kit lens?

I've noticed that the Sony a57 has just been announced, which I imagine will be at a similiar price point upon release. I realise it offers 1080p at 50fps and 12fps stills, but is this likely to be worth the wait?
 
Go for a 550D and you'll be pleasantly surprised. Has everything you're requiring of it and more. The 600D has the articulated screen and IMO, it's a gimmick. That is the only differentiating feature between the 550D and the 600D.

If you're interested in video, the 550D is absolutely stunning video quality. Pretty much all of Canons HDDSLR's have incredible video quality.

Whatever you can think of, a 550D will help you do it. Just be prepared to understand that the kit lens is good, but not the best thing you'll ever put on it. It's wide enough for most situations and zoomable to an extent to let you have a play. But yes, I would vote the 550D any day.

Hope that helps, don't be afraid to ask any other questions :)
 
Go to a used camera store and see which they have with video option. Handle them and note down which you liked the handling of, re-post back on here with those that you liked for advice :)

Its a personal thing, you need to handle them to see whether weight etc is ok, then play with the menus/knobs.

Personally you'd be looking to a used upper consumer/low pro model...?
Nikon I think is a d90/d300s (built in motor and video) - may be a d5100or d5000 (not sure it has video - doesn't have inbuilt motor)

Also do any of your friends own a camera - play with theirs? Asking as if you buy into the same brand you can swap lenses...
 
If you're prepared to get a grey import, which just means you'd have to return it to the shop for repair, you could get 600D with 18-55 IS lens delivered for your budget of £500. I bought a Sigma lens from www.panamoz.com in january and it was delivered in 4 days, with tracking number from dispatch to delivery. Here's the link to the 600D http://panamoz.com/index.php/digital-cameras/canon/canon-eos-600d-18-55-kit.html and just as an extra feature it can be used to wirelessly control speedlite for off camera flash, which could be very useful to some people.
 
The Sony will definitely be worth waiting for if the photos I've seen from it are anything to go by. One thing I will say is, check how it feels in the hand, this will play a big part in what you choose.
 
I've handled the 550d and it did feel comfortable. Until the announcement of the a57 then there was no doubt I was going to get the Canon.

Given that the a57 isn't out yet (or priced) I'm unsure as to how it will feel of course, but I have handled the slt-a35 and it didn't feel quite right. Too small if anything, and my finger was in an awkward position on the shutter button. I believe the a57 will be considerably bigger though, so may reduce the issue.

I'm unsure as to where the a57 will sit/compete with. With 1080p at 50fps (although 60fps in the US for some reason) and continuous auto-focus then you'd imagine it would perform better than the 550d, even with magic lantern.

As for image quality, DPreview have a couple of shots which look marginally inferior to the 550d, but I'm unsure as to how they got them.

I don't know an awful lot about sensors but it features the Exmor APS HD CMOS sensor (which I believe is a very good sensor) and the newest BIONZ processor - so it certainly should shoot some good shots.

I've seen one article comparing the a57 to the Canon 60d, which of course is much superior to the 550d. Where is this new Sony going to sit in relation to the competition?

If the conversion into £Sterling is linear then is this likely to be the vastly better choice over the 550d? ($800 is approx £500).
 
I have a 550d and love it. The main bonus of a Sony cameras is the the image stabilisation is all done in camera (could be wrong) so generally lenses are cheaper (again, could be wrong). But canon do have some rather nice lenses, and Magic Lantern FW adds a whole new level of tweakability to your 550d. Do Sony do HDR video recording?
 
The Nikon D3100 is worth having a look at.
 
Bambi72 said:
I have a 550d and love it. The main bonus of a Sony cameras is the the image stabilisation is all done in camera (could be wrong) so generally lenses are cheaper (again, could be wrong). But canon do have some rather nice lenses, and Magic Lantern FW adds a whole new level of tweakability to your 550d. Do Sony do HDR video recording?
Click to expand...

The myth that Sony lenses are much cheaper because they don't have stabilisation is often perpetuated about the internet.

On the face of it Sony lenses should be cheaper because they are much simpler not having stabilisation- odd that we find this then:p:

Canon 70-300 £379
Nikon 70-300 £419
Sony 70-300 £689

On the 70-200 front the Sony lens was actually dearer than the Nikon and Canon variants at one point- until they brought out version II. Not much in it between Nikon £1599 and Sony £1559 just now. If Sony brought out version II I'm sure that would more expensive than both Canon and Nikon.

The non stabilised lenses are about the same though looks like Sony is dearer again:
Canon 50mm f1.4 £274 (granted it's a bit ropey and I wouldn't buy one:lol:)
Nikon 50mm f1.4 £292
Sony 50mm f1.4 £294

So, no one should buy a sony.......(I was debating ending the sentance there:lol:) based on the fact that stabilised lenses are dearer as there's really not much in it. You can find 'oddly' priced lenses in any of the brands- at the end of the day the one thing that is consistent is that you get what you pay for.
 
Speedbird said:
Evening all,

I'm in the process of buying my first DSLR, and would appreciate some suggestions and guidance as to the best thing for my money. In the camera I'm looking for;

- Accessible and relatively user friendly but allows for progression up to advanced amateur and beyond.

- Good video quality, bare minimum 720p - ideally at 60fps.

- Not fussed about articulated screen etc.

- Photographing a little bit of everything. No lean towards a specific type of photograpy.

- Budget of approximately £500.

Am I right in saying that for my money I'm probably best looking at the Canon 550d with the 18-55mm kit lens?

I've noticed that the Sony a57 has just been announced, which I imagine will be at a similiar price point upon release. I realise it offers 1080p at 50fps and 12fps stills, but is this likely to be worth the wait?
Click to expand...

If 60fps is really a must then you've ruled out Nikon at your budget. The only current Nikon cameras worth buying for those serious about video are the D4 and D800.
Canon is always a good bet and the 550d is a good camera. I'm not really up to speed on the latest and greatest at Sony so can't comment on them. Worth handling a Sony and Canon in case one is much more intuitive although personally I switch between Canon and Nikon and it doesn't put me up or down- I can store the info on which function is where on both brands- might not always know the date but I can do that:lol:
 
Dr_O said:
The myth that Sony lenses are much cheaper because they don't have stabilisation is often perpetuated about the internet.

On the face of it Sony lenses should be cheaper because they are much simpler not having stabilisation- odd that we find this then:p:

Canon 70-300 £379
Nikon 70-300 £419
Sony 70-300 £689

On the 70-200 front the Sony lens was actually dearer than the Nikon and Canon variants at one point- until they brought out version II. Not much in it between Nikon £1599 and Sony £1559 just now. If Sony brought out version II I'm sure that would more expensive than both Canon and Nikon.

The non stabilised lenses are about the same though looks like Sony is dearer again:
Canon 50mm f1.4 £274 (granted it's a bit ropey and I wouldn't buy one:lol:)
Nikon 50mm f1.4 £292
Sony 50mm f1.4 £294

So, no one should buy a sony.......(I was debating ending the sentance there:lol:) based on the fact that stabilised lenses are dearer as there's really not much in it. You can find 'oddly' priced lenses in any of the brands- at the end of the day the one thing that is consistent is that you get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

Just a few things.
1. The Sony 70-300 is their 'G' which is closer to the Canon L, that is over £1000, clearly you have to be very careful about comparing lenses in different classes, it's a minefield since quality is quite different and you often can't directly equate
2. There are other non-IS lenses that are very good VFM, the 16-50 f/2.8 SSM or the 28-75 f/2.8 are much cheaper then their counterparts, the 35 f/1.8 is also very competitively priced.
3.The main benefit of in-body IS is more about getting IS for free on older/cheaper lenses and even often for lenses that have no IS options on other mounts..
 
phil-t said:
Just a few things.
1. The Sony 70-300 is their 'G' which is closer to the Canon L, that is over £1000, clearly you have to be very careful about comparing lenses in different classes, it's a minefield since quality is quite different and you often can't directly equate
2. There are other non-IS lenses that are very good VFM, the 16-50 f/2.8 SSM or the 28-75 f/2.8 are much cheaper then their counterparts, the 35 f/1.8 is also very competitively priced.
3.The main benefit of in-body IS is more about getting IS for free on older/cheaper lenses and even often for lenses that have no IS options on other mounts..
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the G designation that Sony use but the Canon 70-300L wasn't built when Sony released the 70-300 or even the 70-400. It is very difficult to compare lenses from any brand- you're comparing a re-badged Tamron (the Sony 28-75) with the Nikon 24-70- different leagues in terms of performance and price. Arguably the Sony isn't value for money at all given the extra expense compared to the Tamron- a couple of changes sure but pretty negligible. A fairer comparison would be the Sony 24-70 which is £1165 and comparable in price except to Canon's hilariously priced version II.

All you can really go by is the desired focal length and then the usual business model which is budget lens, mid-range and pro.
In that regard the Nikon 70-300 and Canon 70-300 are comparable to the Sony 70-300. It's Sony's problem if they only do budget and pro.

You could argue that you can't compare the Nikon and Canon 50mm lenses because Nikon took the time to build them properly while Canon stuck them together without looking:D:p

The Sony/ Pentax model of buy the latest body then trawl the internet for 6months on the off chance that a 30yr old bargain lens will turn up, that you can then benefit from in-body IS while shooting moving objects at shutter speeds of 1/800 or taking stock landscape shots using a tripod is always fun:lol::p

Bottom line is people should not get hung up on IS and think it is a necessity or think that Sony ownership is much cheaper than Nikon or Canon- both assumptions would be incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top