Hey guys, I have around £1600 to spend on a Body and some lenses.
I was wondering what camera you would recommend for about £700-£800? Leaving £800-£900 for lenses?
I am ideally looking for a Telephoto lens, Macro lens and a wide angle lens.
I would prefer a Canon, but if you can convince me may go for other brands..
I look forward to your responses!
Buy the 600D, the touch screen is a gimmick and won't take better photos for you. Save the money and spend it on better lenses. Stop worrying about good cameras and start focusing on taking good photos.
[QUOTE=The Salmon;37247031]Buy the 600D, the touch screen is a gimmick and won't take better photos for you. Save the money and spend it on better lenses. Stop worrying about good cameras and start focusing on taking good photos.[/QUOTE]
Ok, Cheers.
the touchscreen was putting me off a little.
But they are still the same price..
Oh I had no idea. Whatever just go with whatever is easier for you to get, or you could overanalyse it so you don't get hassled by the pixel peeping photo nerds around here (you know who you are).
See OP. :)
Grab a 600D in a twin kit to start with. You could also pick up either an extension tube (a great way to experiment with macro without committing to an expensive lens straight away) or pick up something like the Tamron 60mm.
That would be a good start, covering what you'd want it to, while avoiding spending excess on things you might get bored of.
As Salmon said, focus on taking good photos. You can always buy more specific gear down the track as you find you need it.
[QUOTE=ForceGhost;37246991]
I am ideally looking for a Telephoto lens, Macro lens and a wide angle lens.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe also consider getting a prime lens, 50mm if you like doing things like portraits or a ~30mm (for basically everything).
I found 50mm to be a bit too tight to just shoot everything and am saving up for a 30mm.
Shooting with a prime makes one think a bit more in my opinion, it felt completely different to using a zoom-lens and I really liked that.
[QUOTE=HiddenMyst;37248431]Grab a 600D in a twin kit to start with. You could also pick up either an extension tube (a great way to experiment with macro without committing to an expensive lens straight away) or pick up something like the Tamron 60mm.
That would be a good start, covering what you'd want it to, while avoiding spending excess on things you might get bored of.
As Salmon said, focus on taking good photos. You can always buy more specific gear down the track as you find you need it.[/QUOTE]
A 600D with the Tamron 60mm would be good for macro and other photos further away or no? I've been using cheaper point and shoot cameras for my needs, and now my Galaxy Nexus more since I always have it with me. The current point and shoot I use is a Kodak Slice (touchscreen is a nuisance but works fine on it, I won't get another touch camera) but the quality isn't the best I could be getting, and there's so many photos I took where I look at them and say "I wish I had a better camera".
[t]http://i.imgur.com/dOyBo.jpg[/t]
For example, this is the best closeup I've ever gotten with my Galaxy Nexus, but it would be so much better if it wasn't a cellphone camera, or even my point and shoot if I had it with me that day. I've taken a lot of other photos and some video in the same area like a chipmunk that's there often, so would the 600D also be good for taking video?
It would be good for all purposes, the tamron is a great lens, but would be in the mid tele range. It will allow you to get pretty close magnification to your subjects without being too physically close. And the 600D is stellar for videos
I think I may be swaying towards the 60D for the little bit more cash, any thoughts on the 60D vs the 600D?
The thing that immediately pops in my head is that the 60D uses 9 cross-type AF points whereas the 600D still has only 1 in the middle, but don't know if that will make a significant difference for you. I'm not so well-versed on how the 60D and 600D differ and what they can and can't do.
Although, I don't know if jumping to the 60D for your first DSLR is a good decision. It'll offer you lots of stuff to grow into compared to the 600D, especially since the 60D is more aimed at the enthusiast, but the 600D is very user-friendly and is a nice choice for getting to know DSLRs.
Cheers for the advise!
One of my worries is getting the 600D and feeling I have outgrown it and having to buy the 60D anyways :-)
You should look up comparisons online, as far as I know build quality is the main difference as well as a few other ergonomic differences.
The 60d is the more advanced camera, but it's not exactly a technical leap. It has 9-cross types (Meaning more accurate autofocus), a top LCD making setting changes quicker and simpler, a max shutter speed of 1/8000 (compared to 1/4000), a fps of 5.3 instead of the 600d's 3.7 coupled with a doubled RAW buffer (The amount of raws you can hold when shooting lots of pictures at once).There are probably a few other technical bits and bobs, but they're the main differences in spec, apart from a longer battery life, better build quality, etc.
Things to take note, though: Unless you're really experienced in photography, you won't need the higher shutter speed. I've been in photography for a year and have never found myself needing anything above 1/3000 except on very rare occasions.
Secondly, while the 60D may [I]feel[/I] better, it's not any more weather resistant or damage resistant than the 600D, so it's not worth paying the extra for durability, because there is practically no difference.
Thirdly, even though it has better battery life and a bigger buffer/more fps, it's [B]not[/B] going to perform to a massive difference compared to the 600D in sports shooting. If you are going to shoot sports a lot, then you need the 7D and above - but for general sport shooting then A 60D or 600D with fast lenses would do great.
In my opinion, buy the 600D and spend the extra on a nicer lens or pocket it to go on travels taking pictures.
(If you need anything explaining just ask)
How different is the build quality? I get the feeling that any DSLR will be a big step up from my Lumix PAS :-)
[QUOTE=ForceGhost;37276986]How different is the build quality? I get the feeling that any DSLR will be a big step up from my Lumix PAS :-)[/QUOTE]
They're both probably feel a lot nicer than the Lumix (Although in general Lumix do use nice plastic in their cameras), but the 600D will be much more plasticy than the 60D, since the 60D is heavier, uses more rubber and a better grade of plastic. It's much nicer to hold - but I'd only really give this a serious consideration if a) money is no object and b) the 600D is completely unholdable (Which is the reason I'd personally not buy Nikon, most of the cameras in my price range feel uncomfortable as hell). Try them both and see how you feel.
Cheers for the advise! Will be popping down to the shop tommorow to try them :-£
I agree with what MrEndangered said, and because of that and since it's your first DSLR, I think you should go for the 600D.
I really think you should hold off buying the lenses right away, until you get a feel for photography and actually know exactly what lenses you want.
Who knows, maybe you will decide you never really want to shoot macro stuff anyway, so buying a macro lens would be a waste. Or maybe you LOVE macro, it all depends.
Coupling with Jo's advice, I'd suggest getting a lens that can do more than one thing, such as the Tamron 90mm (Or equivalent). It's 1) a macro lens, 2) a good length for portraits, and 3) a short telephoto.
So my advice would be a standard prime and something multi functional - if you don't like photography eventually, it's no big loss, but £1600 on camera equipment is a huge amount to lose.
Hell, just start out with the kit lens. If you feel the kit lens is lacking in some way, find out what's lacking and then find out which lens can fix that for you.
Hi, I figured I'd rather bump this thread than make a new one.
I'm pondering on whether to buy a DSLR for a while now - some of you might remember that I did post about it maybe a year back, but either way I decided I'd rather have a new computer, as I was without a job and because photography was really the lesser interest of the two. The situation has changed though, and I have a job now - and probably will have for the next year. Now, I have the option to take a 450D with the kit lens, plus a zoom lens (a Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS II, to be precise) plus some assorted stuff of the hands of one of my big brother's friends, for the price of $843.36 (this must sound pretty ridiculous to the american ears, but I digress). Now, I've of course done some research, and it would appear that I can get a 600D for ~$750, just without the extra stuff (of course still with the kit lens). I've looked up reviews, and I'm really leaning towards getting the 600D simply because it is newer and would cost me less money. The zoom lens does cost ~$350 here in Denmark, and that's some kind of value, but I don't really think I'd have a use for it. So what would you guys recommend? I'm still not completely sure that I want to spend the money, but it's just not completely apparent to me how much of a difference there is between the 450D and the 600D.
I say the 600D, the 450D isn't nearly as good of a body.
Canon 450D with 55-250mm for 840 dollars? That is ridiculous. A Canon 450D goes for 350 dollars at the very most and the 55-250mm is nowhere near worth the 450 dollars that remain.
If you go for the 450D then forget about the 55-250mm and save the money for a good lens.
And the 450D is still very much worth your money, I can tell you.
Yeah sounds like the guy who owns the 450 doesn't understand depreciation and how newer models affect it. 450 is still a good body, but you'll find the 600 is much nicer overall.
If you don't think you'll be doing many telephoto shots, then buy the 600 in a single kit and possibly invest in a 50mm f/1.8 when you get the spare cash again (nice and cheap lens, but it'll give you nice satisfying control over DoF and great low light performance).
Ultimately, it's up to you and you won't be disappointed with either but I know which way I'd swing.
Used Canon 5D MkII with the 24-105mm F/4 L kit lens.You'd still have money left over for a nifty fifty :D
[QUOTE=steamedbuns;37535079]Used Canon 5D MkII with the 24-105mm F/4 L kit lens.You'd still have money left over for a nifty fifty :D[/QUOTE]
Except we're being reasonable here and not suggesting cameras that are A) overkill and B) not priced like you seem to imply...
I might not have been thorough enough, but the 450D appears to be much more expensive Denmark - probably it isn't sold widely anymore. I've checked the prices here in Denmark, and the figures you're seeing are the real ones. Anyway, I'll probably get the 600D, it seemed like the best deal anyway. My ex just bought a Mk II and I can say that I really wouldn't have money nor need for such a camera.
Figures, a 600D versus a 450D for the same money - I know which one I would pick. Strange the prices in Denmark are so high, though. The 450D has been discontinued for a long time now but the average price should be around 300.
I'd always pick the better lens.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
