Thread: Entry level camera?

I can't believe you haven't asked me...after getting me onto the slippery slope of pen turning, I could at least return the favour and get you onto the photography cash cow...:P

Personally, either Canon or Nikon will do the same job. I have been using Canon for the past 9 years but before that I was using Nikon. The only difference will be how they feel in your hand.

There are a few other things to consider though...do you want to shoot sports and need a high frame rate or are you mostly looking to do landscapes, portraits, studio stuff and not need high frame rates?

In the Canon range, you could pick up a 5D - full frame sensor that is beautiful and sharp (good resolution in the sensor) but a slow frame rate. These have been superseeded by the 5D MkII (and maybe the 5D Mk III soon) so second hand ones are pretty affirdable now. If you want a higher frame rate but a smaller sensor, you could look at the 550D or 600D which have a moderate frame rate (3.7 fps) or spend a bit more and get the 60D with 5.3 fps.

In the Nikon range, something like the D90 would be good for higher frame rate and the body can be had for around $900.

With either body, don't go for the kit lens...if you buy from Teds or one of the other big chains, try and negotiate a price for a third party lens like a Sigma. My father bought a Canon 450D a few years ago and instead of getting the two kit lenses, he got a Sigma 24-200mm which will cover most of your applications. And to be honest...you won't notice the difference between that and a Canon/Nikon lens that is twice as expensive for most of what you shoot.

Any questions, just give us a call.

Paul

Corbs
Photo access in Manuka or the ANU centre for continuing education run short photography courses. I haven'nt looked it up but I think Sturt school in Mittagong also run weekend courses. I have a canon 400D with an 18- 250 mm lens. If you want to have a bit of a play with it give me a ring.

Andyd

Andrew,
Thanks for the offer. I may take you up on it down the track. If I go to Sturt in Mittagong it won't be to take photo's though

Paul,
I just sent you a PM


Corbs

Originally Posted by corbs

If I go to Sturt in Mittagong it won't be to take photo's though

what, not even photos like these ?


Works on display at the 2009 end of Course Exhibition

I bought ny wife a Nikon d3100 for.Xmas and its a great camera. Dual lens kit, 14 mp, 1080 hd video...really great bang for the buck. It's been on sale for around $1000 for a while now

Ian, if I go to Mittagong I want to be working with the wood not taking pictures of it... some beautiful pieces that come out of that place

If you do go the Canon way...
then either save for the Lseries 24-70 2.8, or the 17-55 2.8 IS if you want a zoom.or evenL series 24-105 4
but
For less money you could get some pretty amazing and cheap primes.
50mm 1.8 great lens for less than $150
85mm 1.8 also great for less thans $560
100mm 2 great for less than $660
well you get the idea. These little primes can take some great images and are amazing value for money.(espec the 50mm 1.8)
all the best
Kevin

Originally Posted by kevjed

If you do go the Canon way...
then either save for the Lseries 24-70 2.8, or the 17-55 2.8 IS if you want a zoom.or evenL series 24-105 4
but
For less money you could get some pretty amazing and cheap primes.
50mm 1.8 great lens for less than $150
85mm 1.8 also great for less thans $560
100mm 2 great for less than $660
well you get the idea. These little primes can take some great images and are amazing value for money.(espec the 50mm 1.8)

second what Kevin says
I use a Nikon, and besides being inexpensive compared to a zoom, the single focal length lens, especially the 85mm/f1.8, take super superb photos

another advantage of a single focal length lens is it will force you to learn composition and position -- with a zoom it's just too easy to zoom to something that looks acceptable. With single focal length you have to move around till the composition is just right.

Originally Posted by ian

another advantage of a single focal length lens is it will force you to learn composition and position -- with a zoom it's just too easy to zoom to something that looks acceptable. With single focal length you have to move around till the composition is just right.

Agree 100%

Corbs, I won't make a recommendation on an entry level camera as "entry level" means different things to different people. However I can recommend DPreview as an excellent site for getting unbiased information. It also allows you to pick several models/makes and make a side by side comparison.
Whatever you choose I wish you luck, photography, I've found, is as slippery a slope as wood turning (DAMHIKT).

Originally Posted by corbs

I'm now in a position to pursue the hobby a little further and am interested in a good entry level camera which isn't just point and shoot.

So my question is, what would you recommend as a good entry level camera which isn't just a toy. I'm also looking at tafe courses so interested in recommendations on that front too

Corbs

so far this discussion has focused on DSLR's as entry level options.

The option that hasn't been mentioned are the "enthusiast" compact cameras.
Many of these have a lens of a higher quality than those supplied with the low cost DSLR packages plus enough manual controls to keep even the keenest photographer occupied.
Look at cameras like the Fuji Finepix X100, and there'll be comparable cameras from Panasonic (look for Lieca lens), Sony (look for a Carl Zeiss lens), Nikon and Canon.

Then there's the mirrorless micro 4/3 series. The advantage here is that some makes (I think Pentax is one) will take almost any SLR lens ever made -- giving you access to the really inexpensive second hand lens market.

Ian makes a good point, there are some excellent fixed lense cameras available now. One thing I would look for is the ability to capture in raw mode, it will give you so much more flexability when post processing your photos.

I agree with the two post imediately above.
For me, when I had to buy a gift for a friend in need, I went for the Fuji X10. A great little compact that has a terrific, sharp and fast little zoom lens. Has a manual zoom ring and can be operated as a point and shoot or a fully manual camera. It has a real dial for exposure compensation so you can do a quick over ride of the exposure in fully auto mode/manual metering.
When you get better with the image making you will want to shoot RAW images and do a little magic in photoshop or the like.
For less than $650 you will blow away most digital slr's with the kit lens or even the second tier lenses.
Yes, its that good.
Wait until we can get our hands on the Pro level version out soon...
Enjoy
Kevin

Seems to be a bit of bias against kit lenses here...lol

When I had my Canon 350D, I would have to agree with the general consensus. The kit lenses take some pretty good shots when they are stopped down and the IS certainly helps. Problem with my 350D was twofold. It back focused and it didn't take good pics at high ISO. The kit lenses were lousy with this camera.
When I got the 7D I thought I'd try the kit lenses again. The 7D takes great pics even at ISO 3200, so I can stop the kit lenses down. The results amazed me. Sure, I'd get better pics with L series lenses but that's not an option right now. Just saying kit lenses can give good results.

Whatever you decide to get, learn the capabilities of your camera. Don't use Auto mode, learn the art of photography. Someone mentioned Raw, to me, this is a must. Sure they're bigger pictures than jpeg, but memory cards are cheap...

My 2c worth