Used camera body: £220 budget

inky

inky

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Name
Megan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi!

I previously owned a Nikon D5000 a few years ago, but had to sell for personal reasons.

I've been recently trying a friends Nikon D300 and it reminded me how much I missed my old camera. I loved the feel of the D300, the weight and the size felt comfortable. Loved the accessibility of the controls. So then I visited a local used store and also liked the feel of the Canon 30D. Although I've owned Nikon, I'm not particularly tied to any brand, just keen to get back into the market.

Budget wise (£220) I've narrowed it down to;
Nikon D200 (£180)
Canon 30D (£140)
Canon 40D (£210)

I know it's all 'old technology' but unfortunately that will have to do for a while, until my finances improve. Basically, I want opinions on whether I've made terrible choices and shouldn't bother with any. Or, if not, which of the three would be best for my needs. Also any other possibilities I may have missed?

Photography wise, mainly portrait (candid) with a possibility of trying studio work, and street photography (so the ruggedness is a bonus). I've no need for video.

Either way, looking at getting a 50mm Prime with any of the above (not included in the budget!).

Unfortunately I can't stretch the budget any further, so the D300 is off limits.

Thank you for any help!
 
My order of preference would be the price order of the ones you list, the 40D has the best sensor and all of them have decent build/body.

A consideration though is that the Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime isn't a patch on the Nikon one in build quality, I've heard of quite a few just falling apart, never heard of that happening with the Nikon version. The Canon is cheaper though...
 
Allllll-though....

With that kind of budget I'd seriously be looking at Pentax kit, absolutely brilliant cameras and superb value for money. I'd imagine you'd get a generation newer for your money.
 
The only Pentax I could find in budget would be the K10d? I think that's what it was. I wasn't too sure how it'd compare against the Canon.

Thank you for the input!
 
I would agree that from those 3 you mention, the 40d would be the best buy. It's got a metal body under the plastic and will stand up to more knocks.
Along with the Nifty Fifty it makes a cracking combination, then save up for the 70-200f4L, a marriage made in heaven!
 
Wait and get the D300 that you really know you want :)

MBP seem to have a d5100 for £234. That could be another possibility. It would be much newer and isn't that much over your budget. Ffordes have one for £239.
 
Last edited:
I agree with those suggesting a D300. It's an extremely capable camera with an AF system that's as good as it gets (still) as far as DX Nikon offerings go.

If you look around carefully you should find one at or very near to your budget.
 
I know that the D300 would be a better choice, but my budget is not likely to be extended for sometime, and I'm eager to get a camera before the school holidays this month.

So, disregarding that is the D200 not worth it at all?

Also, would I be better going for the Canon 40d, or saving £80 and getting the 30d then putting the extra money towards a better lens, then upgrading the body when more money becomes available?

Would a good condition 30d still produce some nice shots? Or is it just too old/produce too much noise compared to the 40d?

Sorry for all the questions!
 
I had a D200 and used it alongside my older D70. When I upgraded to FF, I sold one of the bodies to help fund the new body. I still have the D70. Not only because the D200 was worth a bit more but also because I prefer the D70 in terms of both feel and the images it gave me. Can't put my finger on what felt wrong (to me) about the D200 but the colours the thing put out were never (to me) as pleasing as the D70's.

Depending on how big the final product is likely to be, don't get too hung up on MP counts. Unless you intend to print over A3, 10MP will probably be enough (and even 6MP is OK at a normal viewing distance).
 
inky said:
I


Would a good condition 30d still produce some nice shots? Or is it just too old/produce too much noise compared to the 40d?
!
Click to expand...

It'll produce excellent photographs. The later XXD cameras have some edge, but I bought my 30D in 2008 and have never felt any need or desire to upgrade it. Lenses matter far more than bodies.

Nod said:
Depending on how big the final product is likely to be, don't get too hung up on MP counts. Unless you intend to print over A3, 10MP will probably be enough (and even 6MP is OK at a normal viewing distance).
Click to expand...

I agree. The 30D is 8.2MP and can print at A3 easily, and I've gone to A2 with good results at, as you say, normal viewing distance. It does constrain the ability to crop though.
 
Dont know why your thinking a 40d at £200 plus http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...eos-info-3batteries-more.526371/#post-6078734 went for £130 here last week

I have a 40d, was an upgrade from a 400d and is a fantastic camera, just got a 5d too, but I wont be getting rid of the 40d, it's that good.

frankly, I see no point going for a 50d over the 40 at all, maybe the 60 for the flip screen, but the difference between 40 and 50 is little and not worth the money.
 
If you really have your heart set on a D300, but you've just got to have something now, I'd go for the 30D and the 50mm f1.8 you mentioned. That'll cost £200. Put some more money aside when you can, then sell the Canon gear - you won't lose a great deal on it - and buy the Nikon. D300s are easy enough to find on the used market, and they're not going up in price.
 
srichards said:
Wait and get the D300 that you really know you want :)

MBP seem to have a d5100 for £234. That could be another possibility. It would be much newer and isn't that much over your budget. Ffordes have one for £239.
Click to expand...

This, the sensor in this is either the D90 or D7000 sensor, which is very capable dynamic range wise
 
Thank you for all the replies!

The £200 for the 40d was from the MBP website, and seemed to be the average. I've no access to the classifieds on here unfortunately!

I've never printed above A3 before, standard normally being A4 size.

I felt like the D5100 was a bit plasticky to be honest, especially after feeling the size and weight of the Nikon D300 :(

Think I am swaying towards the Canon 30d and 50mm for now, just until my funds improve, then making a decision between brands! This will give me a chance to see how the controls vary to Nikon at least.

So, the Canon 30d is still a capable camera that will let me carry on learning for a year or so, then make an upgrade decision?

Unless I can get a 40d for the £150 mark anyway.
 
Ah didnt realise you didn't have access to the classifieds yet sorry.

Well, I assume your prices on the 30d and d200 in your first post are mpb or similar then, you could check out http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos30d&products=nikon_d200 for a side by side comparison.

I don't know nikons at all I have to admit so can only go on something like dpreview, but looking at it the nikon comes out slightly better on megapixels and it's water and dust resistant too. So in real terms theres not much difference, you have to decide if the £40 difference is enough to swing you, considering that £40 will be a big chunk toward a 50 f1.8 for the canon
 
Nikon equivalents do seem to have the advantage over Canon in the "noise stakes"
(Better ISO handling)
But if you are not shooting low light stuff, then personally, as others have said.
The 40D is a very capable camera. (and reasonably easy to get to grips with as well.)

I had one for a few years and was more than happy with its performance.
 
I used to have a 30D which broke and then bought a 40D as a replacement. I would recommend the 40D over the 30D. The picture quality is the same and the body are very similar.
But I prefer the 40D because it has liveview which is great when you set the camera on a tripod, you can easily frame and zoom up to 5x in the liveview. Which mean you can manage to focus much better on a selected point. I never use the liveview handheld because I prefer to look in the viewfinder.
Second point in my opinion were the 40D is better is in ISO, with the 30D I would rarely go above 400ISO, in the 40D I go up to 800ISO. It's not very good compare to the newish camera but it's a noticeable improvement.
 
andrewc said:
Wex have a 40D for £ 190, its OK, but I'd personally save a little longer and stretch to a 50D for the nicer screen.
Click to expand...
Donnie said:
Dont know why your thinking a 40d at £200 plus http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/th...eos-info-3batteries-more.526371/#post-6078734 went for £130 here last week

I have a 40d, was an upgrade from a 400d and is a fantastic camera, just got a 5d too, but I wont be getting rid of the 40d, it's that good.

frankly, I see no point going for a 50d over the 40 at all, maybe the 60 for the flip screen, but the difference between 40 and 50 is little and not worth the money.
Click to expand...

I did an 'upgrade' from a 40D to a 50D and was very disappointed.
Yes, you get a few extra features, AF microadjust being probably the best one, but other than that it wasn't really worth it.
Buying one from scratch however....the 50D will retain more of it's value so if you can find one at the right price I'd say go for it.
Sold mine recently and got good money for it.
 
I had a 50D and a 40D at the same time, and the 50D was always the camera I reached for first, I read lots of people commenting the 50D wasn't as good, but these upgrades tend to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary, and I always thought the 50D did everything better than the 40D did. However, you've got to draw a line somewhere, if £ 220 is the max budget and you need a camera now, a 40D will be fine and with the right operator will take some fantastic photos.
 
Um may of missed something here but you want a d300?

You have 220 to spend and they are on sale for 230.

Just wondering why you don't buy one.??

I must admit I'm on my phone so may of missed a post saying you had changed your mind, if so pretend I didn't say anything :p
 
I opted for a canon 40d with a 50mm 1.8. So far all my photos have been taken with it or a 18-55mm kit lens. Have a look at my flickr if you want to look at some test shoots or just search flickr for canon 40d images.
 
Recently spotted a few bargain D300 s for sale about your budget but if you cant find one I'd suggest the D200 and you can always upgrade to a D300 or D300s later to suit any other lenses you buy, you wont lose money on a D200 now really.
 
So after reading everyone's advice I was a little confused what to do, so I went browsing on eBay and saw a mint in box Canon 30d with two batteries for £160, I put in an offer for £120 inc postage and it was accepted :)
I figure for learning and improving it will do until the end of the year! I hope so anyway.

I now find myself in unfamiliar territory as a Canon owner and I'm a little excited to get started.

I now have a lens question. I've found myself with £150 after my bills, and have a couple of lens options...

A Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for about £150 used.

Or, a Canon 50mm f1.8 and a Canon 70 - 210mm f4 both used for £150 together.

What are these lenses like and which would be my best way to go?

Thank you loads, everyone!
 
tHe 70-210 is old as hell (it was canons first AF lens made from '87 to '90)- it works but its not the greatest , its also virtually worthless , you can get them for a tenner or less on the bay - the 50mm f1.8 mk2 usually goes for about 50 quid (mk1s are more) so that bundle is significantly over priced

I'd be inclined to pick up a 55-250 which can be had for £99 from MPB or cheaper on the bay of e , and then spend the other 50 on a 18-55 IS 'kit' lens

that said it depends on what you are going to do - if you don't need the longer zoom then the 17-50 is the better lens
 
I am not a Canon user so I may be wrong BUT I think the 50m and the 70-210 f4 for £150 sounds too cheap, they may be FD lenses and not suitable for your Canon body. Like I say I maybe wrong but worth checking out. If they compatible with the 30D and IF they are in good condition they would be ideal for Studio and Candid Portraits.
 
BBR said:
I am not a Canon user so I may be wrong BUT I think the 50m and the 70-210 f4 for £150 sounds too cheap, they may be FD lenses and not suitable for your Canon body. Like I say I maybe wrong but worth checking out. If they compatible with the 30D and IF they are in good condition they would be ideal for Studio and Candid Portraits.
Click to expand...

See my post above - they arent too cheap , they are too expensive - by about 90 notes - the 70-210 f4 is at best 24 years old aand it wasnt that great to start with
 
This is the EF version if that makes a difference, not the FD so it should be fine on the 30d I think?

Ffordes have them for that price too and I usually find their stuff quite reasonable. So now I'm a bit confused.

I can only find the FD version on eBay for cheap, these seem to be at the 80 -100 mark.

That's why I was looking at these, for the portraits :)
 
The D200 is known as a very good camera at base ISO, also very one talks about excellent skin tones. Well worth it I'd say.
 
I know they are EF - the FD ones were manual focus. What canon basically did was take the FD lens (which was already a dated design) and add a basic AF motor as well as changing the mount . In their day they were ground breaking because canon had never had an Auto focus lens before .. however their day was so long ago that gods dog was a puppy (and its rumoured that marcel had hair :eek: ) they were made from 1987 to 1990 , at which point they were discontinued and replaced with the f3.5-4.5 70-210 (now also discontinued)

Seriously anyone paying 100 notes for a 25 year old lens is getting ripped off (okay so its F4 - but don't be thinking it like the much more expensive 70-200 f4) - if you want a mid range zoom for a hundred notes its hard to beat the Efs 55-250 f4.5-f5.6
 
Pentax K-x well within your budget. Can't bring myself to sell mine because I won't get what I feel its worth to me.

Even though I never use it now (sad I know). Here are my photos taken with it. And I probably wasn't doing it justice at that time. http://www.flickr.com/groups/kx/pool/54050400@N05/

A few will be at ISO 5000, with plenty between 1600 and 3200
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I know they are EF - the FD ones were manual focus. What canon basically did was take the FD lens (which was already a dated design) and add a basic AF motor as well as changing the mount . In their day they were ground breaking because canon had never had an Auto focus lens before .. however their day was so long ago that gods dog was a puppy (and its rumoured that marcel had hair :eek: ) they were made from 1987 to 1990 , at which point they were discontinued and replaced with the f3.5-4.5 70-210 (now also discontinued)

Seriously anyone paying 100 notes for a 25 year old lens is getting ripped off (okay so its F4 - but don't be thinking it like the much more expensive 70-200 f4) - if you want a mid range zoom for a hundred notes its hard to beat the Efs 55-250 f4.5-f5.6
Click to expand...

Aw I was hoping it was decent. Back to the drawing board then I reckon!

Thank you for the advice :)

And I had a look at a few Pentax cameras but I'm not sure that one was there! I opted for the Canon 30d in the end.

Thanks though!
 
EF-S 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS give a lot of bang for buck. My daughter has these on her 60D and they work very well and cover a lot of ground..
 
Last edited:
Oh ok, thank you! I shall have a look at prices :)
 
on MPB £99 for the 55-250 , £50 for the 18-55 IS
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top