Recommend me a DSLR for circa £300

paul_c2

Kit lenses are fine, within their limitations - which are for the lower end cameras in your range:

1) the focal length is only 18-55
2) the aperture doesn't go down that far (the lower the f-stop, the physically bigger the aperture).

I'd say 18-55 is a little bit of a limitation and encourage your first upgrade to be some kind of lens which can do zooming in to ~100mm. If you bought a body and lens separately, you could do this without needing to also buy the kit lens which will save a little money in the long run.

Personally I don't think you'll find the aperture range a limitation unless you start exploring specific types of photography, so I'd not worry about this quite yet.

VR = vibration reduction. Worth having for sports/action/anything moving/anything low light (like, indoors stuff).

stickyfiddle

VR is worth having if you aren't going to have it on a tripod most of the time (i.e. most people's normal use). 

Kits lenses these days are fine - certainly not worthless whatever you read on photography forums. They're not as good as the full-fat lenses you'd pay hundreds for, obviously, but they're certainly better than they used to be and absolutely fine to get the grips with photography as a skill. 

I got a Canon 650D when the D3300 was brand new on the market - both were reviewed very well at the time and in reality they're very close in quality. I took all of the below on that 650D with the kit 18-55 lens. Hopefully they'll give you some comfort that you don't need to spend more unless you *know* you need a specific feature that you don't get at that end of the market. I preferred the Canon ergonomically so worth trying both brands just to get a feel for them in your hands, but be assured both are great. 

I'm now a Fuji guy through and through, but you won't quite get into the models worth having at 300. I'd happily talk your ear of about them if you wanted to spend 500+!

Also worth bearing in mind you will need some software to get the most out of a DSLR though. If you shoot in RAW rather than JPG (which gives you all the data the camera sensor sees), you can tweak that in Lightroom or Photoshop to really maximise the potential of each shot. All of the below were processed in Lightroom. None would've taken more than 2 mins.











  

strumjoughlamps

fretmeister said:

Can you get something for £300 ish that would be fast enough for Grand Prix photos?

taken with a Canon 30d + 70-200 f4 L which I reckon you would get pretty cheap nowadays..

not_the_dj

What's the general opinion of "bridge cameras" as an alternative for stepping up from a compact but not going to a DSLR?

strumjoughlamps

not_the_dj said:

What's the general opinion of "bridge cameras" as an alternative for stepping up from a compact but not going to a DSLR?

you gotta spend to get a decent bridge camera Canon G3x, Sony RX10 or similar, something with a 1" sensor

stickyfiddle

I'm with Strum on bridge cameras. It's not that they aren't good, it's just that they're not better value than a DSLR or half-decent interchangeable-lens mirrorless (i.e. Fuji, Sony, Olympus), so I don't quite see the point in them.

ThePrettyDamned

strumjoughlamps said:

not_the_dj said:

What's the general opinion of "bridge cameras" as an alternative for stepping up from a compact but not going to a DSLR?

you gotta spend to get a decent bridge camera Canon G3x, Sony RX10 or similar, something with a 1" sensor

And even then, it just isn't the same. 

The latest big Sony bridge is astonishing quality for a walk around but expensive - and still with limitations. 

I understand the advantage of smaller sensor cameras, particularly for landscape where having depth of field is important (although you sacrifice the ultra wide views to some extent) but if you want the best quality for you money, interchangeable lenses are good. 

Of course, the x100 is ace if you just want a fixed focal length all the time - with the big advantages that come from having a leaf shutter (sync at any speed, quiet, small). So that comes under "premium compact" I guess. 

Axe_meister

Question. Why are full frame camera so much more expensive? The larger sensor can't be that much bigger than the APA sensor? The rest of the chip chip sets seem to be present in both APS and Full frame cameras 

stickyfiddle

Axe_meister said:

Question. Why are full frame camera so much more expensive? The larger sensor can't be that much bigger than the APA sensor? The rest of the chip chip sets seem to be present in both APS and Full frame cameras 

I assume it's more because everything else on a full frame DSLR is upgraded over their crop frame equivalents (ie body material and mechanical bits - including the prism), rather than just due to sensor and electronics.

Axe_meister

So give us a budget full frame camera

Drew_TNBD

Axe_meister said:

So give us a budget full frame camera

Best you're gonna do is a 2nd hand Canon 5D I'd say. Full frame isn't necessarily going to make your pictures or video any better anyway.

I'm going for a Sony A7S at some point. The ISO noise performance is ridiculously good on that camera.

ThePrettyDamned

Axe_meister said:

So give us a budget full frame camera

Nah, just put the focus points in the right place rather than the same ones as is in the aps-c cameras.  This means they're squished into the middle. 

Lazy designers. 

If you want full frame on a budget, you can get an eos 30e very cheap. Pair that with a good prime and some fuji velvia or provia and you have eye controlled auto focus that really works (seriously, put this in digital!) and the full frame benefits - just with film. 

The sensor is the biggest cost though. It's why medium format digital is so expensive. 

You could get a d700 or 5d cheap. Great cameras. The d700 is still thought of as one of the best thought out dslr's of all time. 

paul_c2

At £300, full frame DSLR is an irrelevant distraction.

stickyfiddle

Full frame is really not necessary though. It's nice, but sensor size is way down the list of what makes a good camera & photo, beaten by (in no particular order)

- quality of lens
- handling of camera
- software (both in-camera and on laptop)
- quality of photographer
- light conditions

Full frame is moot unless all that stuff is decent, and by the time someone has got the hang of all of that they're usually not interested in budget cameras anyway. I'd take my Fuji over a heavy full frame DSLR any day of the week (unless shooting sport, which I'm not ).

strumjoughlamps

I use FF for weddings and portraits(Canon 1dsmk2 best focussing system ever) but my mate and his 7d wins hands down for fast action.

One thing I found with the 1dsmk2 is all of  sudden the I bet bargain 50mm 1.8 didn't cut it so I had to move up the lens scale.

Great camera tho, that and my Pentax K5ii with 50-135 2.8 da* lens have been my 2 fave cameras

StanleyAccrington

Canon M3. £300-370 second hand.

ThePrettyDamned

Agreed about full frame being unnecessary for most folk. 

If you're talking about film, though, I'd argue anything below medium format is pointless - given the huge advantages of digital for small sensors. If you go film, go large and enjoy 300mp + images for the insanity and excess they are  

I want to get into portraits, weddings and events/low light. The Sony appeals @Drew_TNBD but the focusing wasn't stellar on the one I tried and the good lenses are enormous, heavy and extremely expensive compared to a 50mm 1.4 from the slr brands. So I'll probably go for a last gen ff camera. 

@strumjoughlamps have you seen a d500 yet? It'll absolutely blow your mind for sports. Just positively rattles, and the auto focus is nuts. 

I am still waiting for canon to bring back eye controlled auto focus - I used to use that a lot, not gimmicky at all - just worked great. 

ThePrettyDamned

The best digital camera I've used, full stop, is probably the fuji x100. Fixed lens (has a couple of converters though), lovely lens flare if you shoot into the sun, flash sync at any speed (given a fast enough light) and small. 

It's a shame interchangeable leaf shutter digital cameras are not around - I suspect the price would be prohibitive. 

strumjoughlamps

you want out and out image quality in a small form for under £300 then you will never beat the Sigma DP merrills, seriously you would wow at what they can achieve.. but being its a Foveon sensor you have to use their own software which takes a couple of days to get used to and processing is slow, its crap for fast action, or even medium action.. the battery only gets you about 30-40 shots(you get 2, I had 6 in the end)..

but wowsers detail is amazing..

you should see this in its native res... 

ThePrettyDamned

strumjoughlamps said:

you want out and out image quality in a small form for under £300 then you will never beat the Sigma DP merrills, seriously you would wow at what they can achieve.. but being its a Foveon sensor you have to use their own software which takes a couple of days to get used to and processing is slow, its crap for fast action, or even medium action.. the battery only gets you about 30-40 shots(you get 2, I had 6 in the end)..

but wowsers detail is amazing..

you should see this in its native res... 

I've often wondered who had one of these! 

The camera, not the bird.