[Boobster]

Hi,

Looking to purchase my first DSLR in the next few weeks. Am looking at Nikon, Olympus and Canon at the moment.

I'm mainly going to use it for family pics (indoors and outdoors), outdoor pics (parks, trees, scenery etc) and also clubbing pics (indoors - low light).

I have a budget of £450.

Have read the various posts on here and reviews online. Am getting overwhelmed with all the choices. Any suggestions on what to get?

Thanks in advance

[sussexhifi]

i just bought my first dslr just over a week ago,

i went for the nikon D80 with 18-55 vr lens at 449.99 from jessops, with 2 year warranty, i bought a extra lens as well, and very very happy with it, was going to get the d60, but decided to go d80 instead,

takes a lovelyt pic

[psenior1]

you won't go far wrong with a Nikon D40/60 or Canon 450d... Depending on how important the shooting in nightclubs is, you may want to consider going for the cheaper D40 option and then spending looking at getting some glass that is more suitable to low light conditions....

[senu]

Im glad you stated a budget, intended use and brand preference ( although some might say Sony is missing, Pentax may give you VFM ect, Brand alliance at this stage may be not always be in your favour

In truth , you will get examples on a DSLR that can help you get those images at that price but will find for indoors ( low light/ club use) the issue of lenses which perform in lower light will soon crop up, but you need not worry initially
In order to make the thread most helpful to you and avoid the info overoad youve had, ( and a clonree of such past threads),
Why not list 3 or 4 that seem to appeal ( from all youve read so far) and a helpful pros /cons discussion should follow
Bear in mind 2 things
A lot of impressions will be based on personal preference rather than hard cold facts
Not a bad thing as
You will be best adviced to go into Jessops yourself, hold and play with whatever you fancy as that, not any "reviews" on here might make the biggest difference
HTH

[Ian_S]

Senu's advice is sound... go and feel some cameras.

To be honest my view at the moment is you'd be hard pressed to make an enormous mistake with the SLR you buy in that budget, so endless worrying about which body may be best is less useful than what feels good in your hand, and we can't tell you that.

Once you find one that is comfortable to you, then take a look to see what sort of lenses etc. are available for the shooting you've stated.

For good indoors family shots where you can't use natural light (could be a good dual use with your clubbing stuff) the only way to get them IMO is with an external flash, although that will break your initial budget.

I would go for a kit lens as they are just very good value, and then look for a cheap fast prime if you can. Even if you can't get the prime immediately, they're not mega expensive, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 for example, being around £60 new depending where you shop.

[Boobster]

Thanks for all the responses guys. I'm a bit snowed under at work at the moment, so was just looking for some quick advice. I shall take heed of your advice and go and 'feel' some cameras.

Initially I've been comparing the Nikon D40/D60, Canon 450D and Olympus E520. What are your thoughts on these? Reading the reviews I know the Olympus is smaller than the others.

I'm a novice with all the DSLR specs and what the pros and cons are. A friend has a D40 and she takes some good pics. I just wanna get that extra edge.

Wouldn't have a clue as to what additional lens to buy but hoping that's where you guys could help. Something that is good value for money and good in low light conditions I guess. I know it'll be hard on a limited budget.

Thanks in advance

[Crafty]

Im in much the same boat.

For your budget you can do better than a D40, unless you want to instantly go out and get a bunch of lenses too, so D60 is where you are aiming for Nikon.

I have played with the Nikon D60 and the Canon, what I found is the Canon was easier to fiddle with, it has a dedicated button for ISO, you could switch between adjusting EV, or aperture (in aperture priority) easily, the position of the thumbwheel seemed right too.
The Nikon seemed to make you go in to the menu structure and set whatever you wanted (e.g. iso or EV) and then exit out again, maybe I missed the function switch button, but I couldn't find it and the salesgirl wasn't too sure either. I also struggled to find space for my thumb on the Nikon, it demands you use it for the thumbwheel, I didn't find this comfortable. The LCD on the Nikon, by default has a nifty little graphic showing aperture and shutter speed, it is a shutter that on a low aperture opens up and closes on a high one, the shutter speed is represented by a band that goes around the outside of this. It looks pretty but I liked the canon better, it displayed the shutter/aperture at a larger size, so was easier to glance at.
The Olympus I haven't had my hands on, nor the Sony.

Other considerations at this point ? Well from doing some reading the range of lenses for the Nikon is smaller, because the D60 doesn't have a motor in the body to run the auto focus in the lens, which the higher range Nikons do, so not all Nikon lenses can be used. Some say that the lenses with the motor in are more expensive - this doesn't seem true of the 3rd party lenses that I looked at (Tamron, Sigma etc).

If I remember rightly Sony bought Minolta to use their experience in lenses. Olympus do joint development with Leica.

I'm going for the Canon, it was better to hold, the controls meant it was easier to fiddle and were vaguely familiar from my powershot.
To be honest none of these cameras are going to be a bad buy, 90% of it comes down to personal preference.

[Yandros]

Crafty - not a bad summary

Some extra Nikon info...

The +/- button + dial changes ev
You're right, there's no dedicated ISO button, but you can set the Func button to do this.
The number of screw drive lenses is dwindling fast, so is less of an issue. The main offenders that the OP might be interested in are the old Nikon 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 primes.

Regarding low light lenses for clubbing - I reckon the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is the one (which is available in various mounts).

A D40+kit lens+Sigma 30mm f1.4 is doable for £450

[Boobster]

Just been reading some more reviews and the Sony A200 has now been thrown into the mix. Everywhere I read, it's just gets no end of praise. It's available at a good price too. Due to this, I'd be able to get more lenses, memory card and case. Bonus!!

Any views on this camera?

[senu]

It ssems to be value for money and a good performer.

I say "seems" as I haven't used it myself (Only toyed with it for a hr or so) but I used its predecessor : the A100 for a good few months last year and liked it a lot
(I do use Canons 350, 30 40D) at home and a Nikon D200 at work FWIW)

It not perfect though ( and none is TBH) Its achilles heel ( if that)

1) Possible noisier at high ISOs but this might be nitpicking as
2) The oft mentioned reduced variety of lenses compared to Nikon or Canon. However this applies to Pentax, Olympus ect..all of which have a decen tuser base so it may be a moot in practical terms
It gets a mention only because people buy one camera and buy into a system
On its own the A200 should keep you happy
Try it out when you go to do your " test driving"

[Smiffy 2]

Originally Posted by Boobster

Just been reading some more reviews and the Sony A200 has now been thrown into the mix. Everywhere I read, it's just gets no end of praise. It's available at a good price too. Due to this, I'd be able to get more lenses, memory card and case. Bonus!!

Any views on this camera?

I use it, and am very happy with it.
Cheap, second hand Minolta AF lenses will fit it, and there are some crackers in amongst them, notably the 50mm f1.7 and 70-210 f4 "Beercan" which together could be picked up for about £200.00 off evilbay.
The A200 also has in body stabilisation, which means you can fit any lens to it and will benefit unlike some other manufacturers who build the stabilisation into their lenses.
The standard "kit lens" offers slightly better reach than most other manufacturers too, going from 18-70mm rather than 18-55mm. Not much extra length but could make a difference for portrait work etc. when starting out. And despite what you might read, the kit lens isn't too bad at all, capable of some really nice results if you experiment with it a little.
But as others have said, getting a feel for the different makes out there is a must....it's no good having the best "bang for buck" camera if it doesn't feel right in your hands.
I looked at Nikon/Olympus/Canon when I made my choice but for me the Sony fits like a glove.
Not an easy choice to make, I spent ages deciding which one.
But any of the cameras you are looking at will give very decent results.
Rob

[Boobster]

Thanks again for the advice guys. I'm going to go and check out the Nikon D40/D60, Olympus E520, Sony A200 and finally the Canon 400/450.

I've narrowed these down to be on my shortlist.

Just got to see how they feel in my hands. Once I know which one 'fits like a glove', I'll need the appropriate low light lens.

Where's the best place to go to check them out? I'm in Coventry by the way.

[Gingerbillc]

Originally Posted by Yandros

Crafty - not a bad summary

Some extra Nikon info...

The +/- button + dial changes ev
You're right, there's no dedicated ISO button, but you can set the Func button to do this.
The number of screw drive lenses is dwindling fast, so is less of an issue. The main offenders that the OP might be interested in are the old Nikon 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 primes.

Regarding low light lenses for clubbing - I reckon the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is the one (which is available in various mounts).

A D40+kit lens+Sigma 30mm f1.4 is doable for £450

I have the D60 and various lenses, the sigma 30mm being one and its a cracking low lighter for short to medium distance, f1.4 is so shallow it takes practice to get a balance of what to have in focus. I would reccomend the D60 over the D80 as for what it lacks in buttons, it makes up for in taking better pictures/ features. The D60 and kit lens is a good start, then add the 30mm or wait until Dec and get the AF-s 50mm f1.4.

[senu]

Just a little word about Canon.. As good as the 400D might be, the 450D is that much better..The 400D itself has been " replaced" by the 1000D
But
Stay within budget ( the camera tends to be the first of many purchases)
And " test drive them
As I hinted .. none will be a let down in terms of actual quality. but you do have to "enjoy" using it

[gingaman]

I've also been looking at entry level DSLRs - with regard to the Nikon D40/D60, has anyone used both?

Ken Rockwell is always talking about the D60 (and D40x) being a 'downgrade' of the D40, just wondering how truthful he's being. The kit lens has VR which you would think might be an advantage over the D40 (although again Ken says its optics aren't quite as good as the non-VR version with the D40) but in real usage terms does it matter much, it costs about £100 more than the D40 but is it worth it? The D40 appears to have great high ISO performance so maybe you could live without VR in the kit lens, ie just increase the ISO (not ideal I know) for those few pics with poor light. When buying another lens with longer reach (eg Nikkor 55-200mm) then yes you'd want the VR version for hand-held zooming. The D60 has Expeed Processing any thoughts or knowledge on what that gives you over the D40?

[Krank]

I just bought the D40 over the D60. I'm a complete novice and budget was an issue and many people suggested the benefit of the VR on the 18-55mm lens wasn't as great as on a zoom lens (55-200, 70-300). Pics are great on the D40, in my opinion, with the standard kit lens and i've just ordered the 70-300VR zoom to compliment it. The D60 had lots of stuff I wasn't sure I was going to need or use as a beginner and as always my budget was getting stretched more and more as I looked at camera's with features I thought I wanted. I always want the best for my money and it was difficult to make a choice but I don't think you can't go wrong with any of the entry level DSLRs. I went for the D40 in the end because it felt nice to hold and it takes good pics straight out of the box on auto and will also give me the opportunity to experiment when I get more comfortable with the camera. I'm very happy with the D40 but I'm sure I could so easily be saying I'm happy with my D60 or A200 also ...and at £220 it was a bargain

[DpM]

I also went for a D40 at £220 I could not say no.
Just looked and it has gone up to £249.99 now

[gingaman]

Originally Posted by DpM

I also went for a D40 at £220 I could not say no.
Just looked and it has gone up to £249.99 now

I noticed that also, it went up to £269.99 at one point last week.

There's a few places with the price @ £249.99 now, including Amazon and Argos - Dixons are the cheapest at the moment with £245 including postage. Probably still a bargain at that price although £220.00 was even better of course!

Nikon may also offer another cashback scheme soon, their last one finished a couple of months ago.

[mjw123]

I can't recommend the D40 enough - nearly 2 years after purchase and not in the slightest bit interested looking elsewhere. The PQ is incdredible and needs little PP'ing which appeals to me. From beginner right up to intermediate and beyond the D40 offers quality for all. Yes there's a few bells and whistles missing that some of the more expensive DSLR's have but unless you need why pay for them ?

D40+ Kit lens
50mm prime AF-S
SB400 external flash
55-200VR

All you'll need for a very long time.....

Long may this little cracker keep punching above it's weight

[senu]

Guys
As good as the D40 might be
The OP has £450
Is it not possible he could get anything better? ( regardless of Brand)

I appreciate I haven't made any specific brand suggestions ( and will not) and
Im neither for nor against it as it is undoubted VFM but I can see this thread hijacked into becoming yet another D40 appreciation thread..
This May or may not help the OP! but its worth keeping the thread even handed as best we can

[Krank]

To be fair, the OP actually asked for thoughts on the D40 and a few others. As I've been in a similar situation recently I added my opinion as I ended up with a D40. As I stated you can't go wrong with any of the entry level DSLRs IMO.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by senu

Guys
As good as the D40 might be
The OP has £450
Is it not possible he could get anything better? ( regardless of Brand)

I appreciate I haven't made any specific brand suggestions ( and will not) and
Im neither for nor against it as it is undoubted VFM but I can see this thread hijacked into becoming yet another D40 appreciation thread..
This May or may not help the OP! but its worth keeping the thread even handed as best we can

Oh go on then, you've twisted my arm

Here are the options that I would be happy to recommend...

Canon 450D+18-55 IS for £442
Canon 1000D+18-55 IS for £329
Nikon D40+18-55 for £240
Nikon D60+18-55VR for £329
Sony A200+18-70 for £254

Then on top of any of the above, £252 for a Sigma 30mm f1.4. I reckon the 50mm options would just be too long for what the OP wants to do with it.

Another option might be to get a body only D60 or A200 maybe, and go for the Tamron 18-50mm f2.8. It's not as truly low light as the Sigma, but better than a kit lens.



Hmm, just found this thread, and it might be of interest....

a good lens for clubbing photography for D40? - Photo.net Nikon Forum

Basically your landscape shooting is pretty undemanding, and a bog standard kit lens will do, but low light shooting is a pain. The suggestions in that thread are interesting. The options seem to be...

Sigma 30mm f1.4 if you want to try natural light, but a razor thin depth of field when wide open (and fixed focal length)
Tamron 18-50mm for flexibility, but will need more light or a flash
Superwide for freaky stuff (I've seen some AMAZING superwide club shots!)
Flashgun

[Boobster]

Originally Posted by senu

Guys

Originally Posted by senu

As good as the D40 might be
The OP has £450
Is it not possible he could get anything better? ( regardless of Brand)

I appreciate I haven't made any specific brand suggestions ( and will not) and
Im neither for nor against it as it is undoubted VFM but I can see this thread hijacked into becoming yet another D40 appreciation thread..
This May or may not help the OP! but its worth keeping the thread even handed as best we can

Senu,

Thanks for stepping in here. I thought the thread was going to go off topic.

Although I've asked for opinions, I'm just looking at those I've mentioned earlier in the thread and looking for constructive feedback regarding pro/cons.

I'm not too particular regarding brand but am going to make the decision once I've had the cameras in my 'hand'. Then it'll be back for advice on getting best 'bang for buck' packages based upon the criteria I specified.

Not being harsh but just don't want the thread becoming a minefield like so many others.

[Boobster]

Yandros,

Looked at that thread whilst searching and it's pretty confusing. I'm too much of a novice to understand the terminology for lenses just yet.

Thanks for your suggestions though. Much appreciated.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Boobster

Yandros,

Looked at that thread whilst searching and it's pretty confusing. I'm too much of a novice to understand the terminology for lenses just yet.

Thanks for your suggestions though. Much appreciated.

You're welcome

As I said above, for landscapes, all of your shortlisted cameras will to the job, and it would come down to personal taste of the camera ergonomics/quality if that was your only use. I would add though that image stabilisation is helpful for landscapes (in-body for sony, VR lenses for Nikon or IS lenses for Canon). This obviously makes Sony the best bang per buck for landscapes by far.

The downside is that the Sony noise reduction is a bit behind Canon/Nikon, so for your low light shooting, you'll be less inclined to use the very high ISO settings. Below 800 ISO all your shortlist are much of a muchness, but above that level things start getting more interesting. The small Olympus sensor suffers quite badly, and Sony are a bit guilty of smudginess and colour noise. Oddly, the D40 does well, as it has a lower pixel density. The D60 has quite good noise reduction, but the best of the bunch is the Canon 450D. So, not too suprisingly, the most expensive camera gives you the best results. The Canon also has the best set of feaures of all the cameras on your list (except that it needs IS lenses to get image stabilisation).

Regarding lenses - for low light use, 'fast' lenses the best for the job. These have a wider maximum aperture (ie they let more light in) than kit lenses. The lower the f-number the better basically. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a fixed focal length lens often used for available light street and 'street photography'. The Tamron 18-50mm f2.8 is a 'faster' lens than the kit ones, so scrounges you a little more light, but you still get zoom flexibility. VR/IS lenses are no use if your subjects are moving, unless you're deliberately going for blur effects (but keeping the room sharp).

[Crafty]

Originally Posted by Boobster

Yandros,

Looked at that thread whilst searching and it's pretty confusing. I'm too much of a novice to understand the terminology for lenses just yet.

Thanks for your suggestions though. Much appreciated.

Im only just starting out but hopefully this will be some help (apologies if Im teaching granny to suck eggs).

The measurements that you see (e.g. 18-55mm) is the focal length, basically the distance from the lens to the sensor (canon call it the focal plane). The higher the number the "closer" you will get to the subject. Lets say you want to do landscape work you need a wide angle lens (low numbers). On the other hand if you wanted to catch wildlife you probably wont be able to get so close, so a zoom lens is needed (e.g. 70-300). This is exactly the same as film cameras, except that to compare them you need to multiply the digital lens by the focal length multipler (sometimes called the crop factor). For the canon it is 1.6, the Nikon 1.5.. so for example a Nikon 18-55 lens is the 35mm film equivelent of 27-82mm. This link explains it better Focal Length Multiplier: Optical: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review This was very handy when speaking to a couple of film SLR guys about lenses so we could talk on equal terms!

The lenses that only have one length advertised (someone mentioned a 30mm f1.4) are called prime lenses, as you might of guessed there is no zoom - you want more or less in the picture ? you have to move nearer or further away. The advantage is that generally the lenses are much sharper and will give a better image than a zoom.

The aperture advertised for a lens is the widest it will do - what does it matter ? well lets say we have an f2.8 lens and an f4 lens, in theory using the f2.8 lens means we can use a faster shutter speed, because more light can get through the lens/body to the sensor. Why does it matter? imagine taking shots of sports, kids running about or a bird flying.. a longer shutter time means the camera will "see" movement, which will show in your picture as a blur, so having a faster shutter time means the camera wont "see" the movement, resulting in no blur.
Cheaper lenses are advertised as say 18-55mm, f3.5-5.6. This means at 18mm the lowest aperture the lens will do is f3.5, at 55 the lowest it will do is f5.6. Some lenses are advertised as (say) 24-105mm f4, this lens will do f4 no matter what focal length.
The biggest thing about lenses is distortion, you will see this mentioned in reviews. It also seems common for lenses to go "soft" (i.e. not very sharp) at full zoom, some are better than others.
From what I read lens selection is very subjective, I've read poor reviews on lenses to go and read forums where someone has posted saying they love the lens and posted sample images far better than the ones in the reviews - what gives ? I have also seen people buy a lens, not be happy, obtain a replacement and been far happier - the inference being that the first lens, whilst not faulty was of a lower accuracy/standard. I don't doubt that some of this could be placebo effect, but there must be some truth in it somewhere.

The bit that really gets me is the image stablisation, each manufacturer calls it something different (Nikon is VR, Canon is IS, Sigma is OS, Tamron is VC (just looked them up ). No doubt Sony/Pentax call it something else too.

Any corrections to the above welcome, probably not the best description but gives you an idea

Got my 450D on Sunday, just with the kit lens. Had a few of hours with it and so far Im pretty happy, I've got to grips with the basic controls, going to start playing more with it now

[mjw123]

Originally Posted by homerpovey

To be fair, the OP actually asked for thoughts on the D40 and a few others. As I've been in a similar situation recently I added my opinion as I ended up with a D40. As I stated you can't go wrong with any of the entry level DSLRs IMO.

Exactly mate - we are talking ENTRY level.....why not pay £240 for something more than capable for the standard the OP is at and use the extra £200+ saved for a decent zoom lens & external flash all for his £450 budget....surely this represents a better VFM package than just the latest DSLR with kit lens?

It's not just cooincidence the D40 has so many admirers.....annoying as it may be

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by mjw123

Exactly mate - we are talking ENTRY level.....why not pay £240 for something more than capable for the standard the OP is at and use the extra £200+ saved for a decent zoom lens & external flash all for his £450 budget....surely this represents a better VFM package than just the latest DSLR with kit lens?

It's not just cooincidence the D40 has so many admirers.....annoying as it may be

It depends really on whether £450 is boobster's total fixed budget, or whether this is flexible. Given ONLY £450 and told to kit someone out, I'll naturally gravitate towards a D40/A200 as that gives you room to play with for flashguns, lenses etc. Obviously something like a 450D is going to be a better long term base for a camera system, but if that blows the whole budget and gets just a camera and kit lens, I'd say that's a poor choice. Boobster, what I'm basically saying here is that a decent flashgun, and/or a 'fast' lens will almost certainly gain you more overall than the difference between a Nikon D40 and Canon 450D.

If your budget is flexible though, the higher end bodies get you quite a few nice features for relatively little money, and 450D can still be regarded as a steal, price/performance wise...it's just that the D40/A200 is practically being given away!

[senu]

Originally Posted by mjw123

Exactly mate - we are talking ENTRY level.....why not pay £240 for something more than capable for the standard the OP is at and use the extra £200+ saved for a decent zoom lens & external flash all for his £450 budget....surely this represents a better VFM package than just the latest DSLR with kit lens?

It's not just cooincidence the D40 has so many admirers.....annoying as it may be

Im not sure anybody is ( or should be) annoyed at the "coincidence" of the D40 having any no of admirers,
It is great little kit , but so are others out there and I still think keeping the thread balanced is not a bad thing for the OP and anyone else with similar aspirations

My point is that we should not turn it into a one horse thread.

If the OP wants the D40 , let him get one , having considered all else there is out there, whether poorer or better VFM

[mjw123]

Originally Posted by Yandros

It depends really on whether £450 is boobster's total fixed budget, or whether this is flexible. Given ONLY £450 and told to kit someone out, I'll naturally gravitate towards a D40/A200 as that gives you room to play with for flashguns, lenses etc. Obviously something like a 450D is going to be a better long term base for a camera system, but if that blows the whole budget and gets just a camera and kit lens, I'd say that's a poor choice. Boobster, what I'm basically saying here is that a decent flashgun, and/or a 'fast' lens will almost certainly gain you more overall than the difference between a Nikon D40 and Canon 450D.

If your budget is flexible though, the higher end bodies get you quite a few nice features for relatively little money, and 450D can still be regarded as a steal, price/performance wise...it's just that the D40/A200 is practically being given away!

Fair comment - think the OP needs to establish whether he'd like to get kitted for his £450 budget or just use that for his body purchase.