Camera recommendations...

B

Ben Brooks

Member
Hello,

I'm after a new camera as my point and shoot died and I have a £25 ebay voucher burning a hole in my virtual pocket :) I'm only planning to buy it now as I have the voucher - I was going to wait for a few months but it seems silly to waste the eBay voucher! So my budget is pretty tiny - ideally around £50/£60ish, though I can be flexible and up it a bit you guys spot a bargain :) Figured I can always pick up new glass/toys later.

My initial thought was to pick up a 35mm film camera and learn to dev my own film as I doubt I'll be able to get a reasonable DSLR for that sort of money - though having a quick look on eBay it looks like you might be able to pick up an older DSLR for that sort of cash, but I was wondering if buying a low pixel count, older DLSR might be a false economy.

So, do you lot have any recommendations - film or dslr?

I'm after something I can learn the basics on. I'd really like something that I can take images with a shallow depth of field - I think this is because that was just about impossible with my point and shoot! If you find something with a fixed lens that will do this I'm not to fussed (I suspect if this exists it will be 35mm in this price range)

Your thoughts and guidance would be much appreciated!

Thank you :)
 
Last edited:
If you check out my thread I asked about a 35mm film camera (most of mine are medium format) I have just started and im actually now looking at getting a DSLR to practice on and then move back to film cameras lol If you are already pretty good with manual settings then maybe go with a 35mm SLR, they aren't that much, I am learning the basics as well and found that its quite limiting with film due to the number of exposures and cost of film and development. It might be an idea to get a DSLR to learn on - im looking at getting a Nikon D3100 and then mount a full manual SLR lens to it (that I already have) to learn on, then when I have shot loads of photos I can move back to a film SLR for the shots I want.

Here is my thread on 35mm SLRs:

http://www.realphotographersforum.com/film-conventional-cameras/5652-recommend-me-35mm-camera.html
 
D3100

Great camera choice the Nikon D3100 and just dropped in price again due to the 3200 arriving soon, still a great camera & it is the results that count, do not get taken in by megapixels, they do not make much of a difference in the end.
 
Andy Boardman said:
Great camera choice the Nikon D3100 and just dropped in price again due to the 3200 arriving soon, still a great camera & it is the results that count, do not get taken in by megapixels, they do not make much of a difference in the end.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the confidence boost, the other camera I was looking at was the Canon 1100D, but having watched some video reviews it was obvious that the D3100 was the way to go in this instance, I then saw a review for the 3200 and was like....ooo big jump in MPs, but its not like I am going to be blowing up the photo to A1 size! I have my MF cameras if I wanted resolution lol
 
I use Canon but over the 1100 would choose the Nikon everytime, much nicer camera & regards A1 prints the Nikon will do those anyway (3100 that is) so not a problem at all. I have seen one of my jpeg shots from a 40D printed 7ft by 3ft to make up a pull up banner display so there you go.
 
Thanks for the link David - My eBay is now full of Olympus OM's Canon A's and Nikon FE's! Is there any benefit of any of those over another? The OM's look like the cheapest, but there are loads of different types to choose from. The Nikon's seem to be the more expensive but there are a few that I think will go within my budget. Is there any advantage over one lens system over the others?

If I want to take images in lowish light with a shallow depth of field I'm I right I want to look for a 50mm 1.8/1.4f?

Sorry for all the questions - as you can tell I don't really know what I'm talking about!

I had a look at the d3100 but its over budget at the moment sadly - looks like a nice camera though!

Oh, and how do I change the title of this thread? I made a typo and I can't change it! I mean Camrea? Whats a Camrea?! Doh!
 
Ben, 50mm 1.4 would be best for low light and shallow DOF

It's a challenge to focus at f1.4, because 99% of the image will be out of focus by design!

But should produce some lovely images - lots of emotional connection
 
Thanks Chris - just what I needed to know.

It looks like the 50mm 1.4 for the Olympus and and Canon are MUCH cheaper than the Nikon - so I guess that might rule out getting a Nikon for now.

Was all set for getting a film camera, but after reading what David said about getting DSLR to practice on I'm wondering if thats the right approach. I've found a few older Canons (350d's and 20d's) and the odd olympus under £80 (at the moment). What you would you guys n' girls recommend for a beginner? Cheap old DSLR or tried and trusted film slr?

Getting more and more confused the more I look in to it. Plus I need to buy it in the next few days to use my eBay voucher!

No pressure ;) :D
 
Digital provides quick and easy feedback on what you take but can breed a lazy learning curve due to the cost free nature of shooting
film forces you to think about every shot, especially with a fully manual slr .. This can lead to a greater understanding of the technical side of photography quicker, but due to the lack of instant feedback if mistakes are made it can be frustrating trying to work out what went wrong!

Nikon lenses are more expensive because they work on some digital nikons exactly as they did film ones!
Older Olympus and canon lenses can be mounted on modern cameras with adapters but with various limitations in thier use...

As for choosing between canon and Oly, there are many very nice cameras from both brands, the same goes for Pentax ... You are unlikely to go wrong, just make sure you get a fully manual (fully working) one!

Regarding lenses, a 50mm 1.8 will do you just fine for shallow DOF and will be a lot cheaper than a 1.4

If you want an old DSLR I would recomend the Nikon d50! Great camera (I had 3 of them at one point... Don't ask)
Very reliable despite thier age and I can tell you how to fix one of the only issues that comes up regularly with them!
 
Last edited:
I'd make one other point in digital vs film - the running costs:

Film, you're going to keep paying out for film and developing, and that's going to add up

Digital - you're good to go, as many shots as you like
 
Chris Dodkin said:
I'd make one other point in digital vs film - the running costs:

Film, you're going to keep paying out for film and developing, and that's going to add up

Digital - you're good to go, as many shots as you like
Click to expand...
Film is less costly if you develop yourself, as I think Ben originally suggested he might. But yes, the costs are greater with film, assuming there is no need to upgrade computer hardware/software to accommodate the digicam.
 
Thanks for that guys.

I'm leaning toward a dslr now if I can find one in budget! When did buying a camera become so confusing!

I don't think I'll get a d50 for under £100 though Hamish. Is the d40 any good? Got my eye on a D70 that looks cheap atm too.

Actually i have LOADS I'm watching including Canon 350d, 400d and 20d, Sony A200, S3 Pro and an Oly E-240 which I've never heard off :) Any of those that any of you would recommend I avoid?!

Thank you for bearing with me and all my questions!
 
Right. After looking into this I think that I'll just Get frustrated with the images of some of the older dslrs - I see quality high res pics every day at the studio and I'll just be annoyed that my camera can't do that! So, back to the original plan - going to get a reasonable 35mm camera, then save up for a nice dslr later. Sorry for faffing so much! :)
 
Ben Brooks said:
Right. After looking into this I think that I'll just Get frustrated with the images of some of the older dslrs - I see quality high res pics every day at the studio and I'll just be annoyed that my camera can't do that! So, back to the original plan - going to get a reasonable 35mm camera, then save up for a nice dslr later. Sorry for faffing so much! :)
Click to expand...

A few points.

During the many decades I shot film, cameras could be a long-term purchase. Film was constantly improving, and so was your image quality. My Brooks VeriWide100 was made in the late 1950s as near as I could tell, and it served me well into the past decade when I sold it for about what I had paid for it. At that time, nearly identical cameras were being still being made by Linhof, Horseman and Alpa, had I needed to replace it.

Now, digital cameras ARE the film. The only way to get better image quality than your current camera, is to buy a better one. In the early days of digital photography, there was a clamor to design cameras that could have their sensors upgraded. This ignored the fact, that there was also a powerful little computer in there. If a company built such a body with an replaceable sensor, say 4MP in 2003, when you upgraded in 2006 to a 10MP sensor, everything would be happening at a glacial pace with the 2003 computer being overwhelmed. So you would have to also upgrade the little computer. The upgrade—given labour costs—would have been much more expensive than a new camera off the production line.

Being a digital image capture device, the technology follows Gordon Moore's 1966 Law to a certain extent. There is no planned obsolescence as in cars half a century ago. Makers don't just move a bit of trim about and slap on a sticker that says "New and Improved". When I bought my D700, in 2008 with its big, full-frame sensor, it represented the state of the art in low-light photography. Now in early 2012, I have the X-Pro1 with a sensor half the size that equals or exceeds it, at roughly half the price. The camera business is cutthroat competition. A number of old, established companies could not compete and have vanished. Each generation of technology, brings with it progress that empowers the photographer to shoot under conditions unimaginable a few years before. These are improvements, that allow the skilled shooter to genuinely shoot what was impossible yesterday.

With a digital, all the cost is up front. Once equipped, the only ongoing expense, is storage on your computer; and it is incredibly cheap. Film photography IS an endless ongoing expense. If you do your own processing—the cost of film, paper and chemicals. If you use a lab, there is the cost of processing and printing—plus your time and travel costs to and from the lab. Plus, the lab prints everything. With digital, you may shoot a dozen exposures of a subject, experimenting with angles and lenses, then pick the one that best delivers your message. With film, you get shoe boxes full of prints—many redundant. If you are intent on learning to be, or being a photographer, the cost is substantial. I found that within six months, my initial digital cameras had completely paid for themselves, when compared to the cost of ownership of my film cameras before them.

I learned photography through film, and it was enormously expensive. I bought film in bulk and did my own processing for the most part—which I also had to learn—but none the less, the cost of becoming a photographer was costly. There was a substantial time-gap between what I was trying to learn and the results I got. At the cost of film, one tended to use every exposure before processing. One processed, I would have to examine the results and try to remember exactly what I had tried to do on each shot—and what I needed to improve. There was a time-disconnect between action and results—an ineffective way to learn.

Digital cameras have monitors. Immediately after the shot, you can view it and analyze your result. Exposure over or under—why? The scene is before you and your settings are still on the camera for analysis and learning. Image is fuzzy—why? Out of focus—did you choose the best focusing method? Camera movement—what is your shutter speed in relation to your focal length? Bad colour—why? Shooting under mixed light or light beyond what auto-white-balance can handle? Time to learn to do a manual white-balance?

Certainly the easiest, cheapest and most effective learning tool in the near two centuries of the medium of photography. Learning is totally interactive. You can try something and you immediately see the effect. At no cost, you can find solutions by trying as many approaches as you need, with constant feedback from the camera.
 
The d40 is technically the newer version of the d50 but lost the autofocus drive for older AF lenses ...
i personally wouldn't buy a Sony or Olympus
Olympus camera have smaller sensors which means wider angle lenses are more expensive
sonys are nice cameras, they use the Minolta mount ... The a200 I didn't like ... The a100 was a nice camera I thought.
But I'd still buy somthing with a Nikon or canon mount
the Fuji s3 is a nice photo taker (with Nikon mount)... Won't go fr less than £100 though

I know that's a reply to a post that you went back on but I wondered if Larry might have swayed you?
I have a d100 Nikon that's a bit slow for some reason, but works ... I'll dig it out .... I might be able to find a Nikon film camera you could buy off me too ...
ill have a look, let me know if your interested
 
I have just bought a Nikon D3100, will post up my first impressions very soon - got 500mbs of photos to get from the card first though!
 
Thats great David - look forward to seeing some of your work with the new camera!

You guys don't make my life easy do you! :D Oh well, if it was simple it wouldn't be as fun would it ;)

Hamish - I've PM'd you :) Thank you for the info too - most helpful :)

Larry - You have made me stop and think. Thank you for the long and detailed post - very useful.

I was only going to splash out right now due to having a eBay/Paypal voucher burning a hole in my pocket - I might be better going back to my original plan and saving up for a while and buying a decent dslr...
 
Ben Brooks said:
Larry - You have made me stop and think. Thank you for the long and detailed post - very useful.

I was only going to splash out right now due to having a eBay/Paypal voucher burning a hole in my pocket - I might be better going back to my original plan and saving up for a while and buying a decent dslr...
Click to expand...

Excellent idea. While a dSLR may well be the ideal camera for you, be aware that there are some really interesting cameras coming to market. Once the camera companies mastered the basics of making digital cameras, a lot of R&D money has been going into sensors, and that is paying off with smaller cameras quite capable of very nice quality.

The person who bought my D300 is presently sharing his ancestral homeland in Europe with his two grown daughters, and both a daughter and father are carrying a Fuji X-S1 while the D300 languishes at home. The X-S1 has a built-in zoom of enormous ratio, and one of the most interesting multi-mode sensors on the market. Canon has come out with a "serious compact" that is in essence a very high-end P&S. Moderate zoom built in, with a 1.5" sensor that is nearly as large as those found in many dSLRs. Ricoh has an interesting camera—a basic chassis, that accepts a variety of modules that transform it into quite different cameras.

Olympus and Panasonic share the Micro Four Thirds format, with a large variety of lenses from which to choose, plus there are mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras from Sony, Samsung and Pentax/Richoh. When Nikon brought their little Nikon 1 models to market, in many ways they were the most technologically advanced cameras you could buy—and they were not aimed at enthusiasts! The power was aimed at making them easy to use, no-fail family cameras. These all tend to be much smaller and lighter than dSLRs, as well as much quieter, making them easier to use for natural unposed photographs of people.

Photokina is a huge photographic trade show held only once every two years. This is a Photokina year and it will be opening on September 18th. Camera companies tend to use it to introduce new technology, and to get feedback—positive or negative—to prototype designs. Between today and the day it closes, we will be getting a preview of what may be in store for us over the next couple of years.

I for example, always carried a small, very-high quality rangefinder camera after work during the film era. It was a camera-type I greatly desired from the beginning of the digital era. Fuji showed a prototype at the last Photokina and I recognized instantly that it was the camera which for over a decade I had been hoping to buy. Response was enthusiastic and Fuji put it into production. I ordered one on the day of the announcement and could not have been more pleased with it. Over the past year and half, it is with me every time I step out my door. It is still one-of-a-kind.

While any camera can do the job, finding the camera that provides the highest level of comfort is what makes the hobby so pleasant. As you browse the shelves and handle the merchandise, imagine what and how you will be going about taking pictures. If budget is a problem, you could do much worse than buy one of the higher-end compacts. Less complication with the built-in lens, but still all the controls of a 'real' camera—along with sophisticated automation. Use it fully for a couple of years. By that time, you will have the experience to really judge your direction in photography, and the sort of camera that will empower you to pursue that direction. After you buy, the compact can continue doing duty as a carry-everywhere camera or you can pass it on to someone worthy. All the major camera makers have at least one in their line-up. They can provide a lot of learning with little risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Stevenson Gawen
Camera Clubs?
Replies
10
Views
331
Stevenson Gawen
Stevenson Gawen
Stevenson Gawen
Thoughts on the old Olympus 4/3 DSLRs?
Replies
17
Views
299
Laurence Griffiths
Laurence Griffiths
Stevenson Gawen
Suggestions on budget HiFi or Bluetooth speaker?
Replies
6
Views
281
Stevenson Gawen
Stevenson Gawen
Shaun Haselden
Aviation history...
Replies
3
Views
32
Shaun Haselden
Shaun Haselden
Laurence Griffiths
Greetings from Brisbane, QLD
Replies
18
Views
437
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Ivar Dahl-Larsen
Back
Top