jevs
Well-known member
Electric Dogwood
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
General Photography thread
- Thread starter SeagullSongs
- Start date
Jack Straw
I look nothing like him!
Electric Dogwood
Love it!
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
We have such a large technical area 
Jack Straw
I look nothing like him!
Jack Straw
I look nothing like him!
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Afternoon all,
Venturing into the world of photography as an absolute beginner and was wondering if you could advise on which of the below two camera's I should go for.
I'm looking at purchasing one of these, plus a 75-300mm lens for distant nature shots.
Canon EOS 1200D
Canon EOS 100D
Venturing into the world of photography as an absolute beginner and was wondering if you could advise on which of the below two camera's I should go for.
I'm looking at purchasing one of these, plus a 75-300mm lens for distant nature shots.
Canon EOS 1200D
Canon EOS 100D
brightn'ove
cringe
Afternoon all,
Venturing into the world of photography as an absolute beginner and was wondering if you could advise on which of the below two camera's I should go for.
I'm looking at purchasing one of these, plus a 75-300mm lens for distant nature shots.
Canon EOS 1200D
Canon EOS 100D
If you can afford a little bit extra, go for a 760d or 700d, the improved performance at high ISO will really help when taking long range nature shots. Those two, whilst good for a lot of things, won't do the job for nature photography. Ideally you want a 70d but they are a bit more expensive.
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/canon-eos-760d-dslr-body/MTEwNDA2NA_A_A
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Thanks for the suggestion but to be honest, the 760 is quite a way out of my price-range. £479.00 body-only.
My budget is pretty much £400 tops, which includes body and 2 lenses (inc. tele lens).
Zukey Seagull
Well-known member
brightn'ove
cringe
in that case go for the 100d, it has better low light performance http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-1200D-versus-Canon-EOS-100D___940_871
BattFink
Active member
Personally for that budget, I'd be looking at a decent second hand camera... take a look at www.mpb.com (based on the old stein), I've had a fair few lenses etc... from them, can't really fault them
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Thanks Gents.
To complicate things, I've spiralled down the rabbit hole after spending 6-7 hours researching and it now looks like the Nikon D5300 (or D5500 possibly) is the winner so far.
I'll have a look at your links later this morning.
Also, any suggestions on 3rd party lenses? I've been looking at ultra-wide lenses but they all seem to be starting at about £500 upwards!
Jack Straw
I look nothing like him!
I used my tripod as a monopod, i.e. just one leg extended, just for a bit of stabilization. It does help tremendously.
Thanks for the nice comment.
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Ended up with a Pentax K-S2 with a 35mm Prime lense (Pentax f/2.4).
Next on the shopping list is a Samyang 14mm Prime.
2 decent lenses covering every day photography plus a nice wide-angle lense for landscape.
Not particularly fussed with anything over 35mm just yet.
It's been an expensive afternoon.
Afternoon all,
Venturing into the world of photography as an absolute beginner and was wondering if you could advise on which of the below two camera's I should go for.
I'm looking at purchasing one of these, plus a 75-300mm lens for distant nature shots.
Canon EOS 1200D
Canon EOS 100D
If you really an absolute beginner, I would start with a bridge camera like the Canon SX60.
I too would jump the entry level DSLR and choose a Canon after a couple of years. I am assuming general photography. The SX60 is not patch on a DSLR for landscapes though.
Compared to film cameras the learning process is longer. The SX60 will give you that and you will not have to swop lens. The Canon SX60 is a fun camera and well designed.
Although I have had 35 years of cameras, part semi-professional, I still make mistakes with digital equipment. Thinking myself to get the Tamron 16-300 zoom for my Nikon D3200 (not recommended: D7100 is better and Canon is best, except for the 2 models you chose which are limited in what they can do).
Any faults with the Tamron super-zoom that can be missed?
These Nikons have their drawbacks. i.e. (1) for flash photography (2) using some Sigma lens and non-Nikon ones.
I know as I bought the Nikon D3200 on a whim cause it was cheap.
They can be circumvented by using a long lead for off-the camera flash (most people don't use this but I do), and by using only having manual focusing for the cheap lens (some of them).
The Nikon D7100 would be the way to go (you might even be able to get a secondhand one on this group?), However stating that the Nikon D3200 or D5300 are both very nice cameras to handle (very important in the field). I found the two kit lens not the ones I wanted. 18-105 is much better for general use, and for the second lens 70-300 with semi-macro seems to be better. That's why I'm considering the Tamron 16-300. (I have eschewed photographing birds on cost grounds.)
Don't rush into buying a wide-angle lens.
NB; The Nikon D5200 series have more focus points than the D3200 series. Someone else will have to say how much difference that makes? I would be interested to know?
Last edited:
Another important factor is the availability of image stabilization. Entry level camera bodies have sensor based image stabilization so you have to buy lenses with Optical stabilization feature (cost more).
That means the cheap lens (older ones) do not work so well.
The absence of image stabilisation built into the camera makes them smaller and lighter and better to handle for the average photographer. A factor not be sneezed at. Bridge cameras are even lighter and look cheap as well. In the poor light of an English winter a DSLR makes better pictures on automatic (some people use automatic all the time because the results are usually good) than a bridge camera.
NB: I use my bridge camera more often than my DSLR*. I found I actually got better pictures 90% of the time. The viewfinder in bridge cameras is naff (electronic), but the articulating screen is a most useful addition. (*I might not if I buy the Tamron super-zoom)
That means the cheap lens (older ones) do not work so well.
The absence of image stabilisation built into the camera makes them smaller and lighter and better to handle for the average photographer. A factor not be sneezed at. Bridge cameras are even lighter and look cheap as well. In the poor light of an English winter a DSLR makes better pictures on automatic (some people use automatic all the time because the results are usually good) than a bridge camera.
NB: I use my bridge camera more often than my DSLR*. I found I actually got better pictures 90% of the time. The viewfinder in bridge cameras is naff (electronic), but the articulating screen is a most useful addition. (*I might not if I buy the Tamron super-zoom)
Last edited:
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Ended up with a Pentax K-S2 with a 35mm Prime lense (Pentax f/2.4).
Next on the shopping list is a Samyang 14mm Prime.
2 decent lenses covering every day photography plus a nice wide-angle lense for landscape.
Not particularly fussed with anything over 35mm just yet.
It's been an expensive afternoon.
Just bought a 10mm Samyang Prime.
Rice and peas for the rest of March.
