# Help picking between these cameras



## Alastair (5 Oct 2013)

Hi all. 
I thought it about time I got a fairly decent camera and have come across 2 im stuck on. 
One is a pretty much do it all with wide angle lens etc etc Canon PowerShot SX40 HS  - PowerShot and IXUS digital compact cameras - Canon UK which gets great test reviews and lots of play about options and is cheap, 
Or the nikon d3100 dslr. Obviously you have more room for lense changes etc and to fiddle with more settings etc but is a bit more and doesnt come with the wide angle lense. 

I dont want to spend lots and these 2 are both very cheap but which one is best for an all in do it all etc??? I dont want to go getting too technical just yet. 
Im gearing for the Canon but the nikon looks nice too


----------



## Michael W (5 Oct 2013)

Nikon D3100 is the best choice imo because it focuses very fast which can't be matched by the compacts and the IS control is very good, even in dull light you can still achieve excellent results. The focus speed will really come in handy for catching your chocolates!


----------



## oldbloke (5 Oct 2013)

If you get a DSLR you can expand as time goes by, as dosh allows, and as you want to try new things (which you may well do).
You can be much more creative and learn how things work with the DSLR, thus improving your skills and opening up new fields for you.


----------



## Aron_Dip (5 Oct 2013)

What about the d3200 DSLR? iv just picked one up quite cheap mate.. Review Here


----------



## George Farmer (5 Oct 2013)

Any DSLR over any compact, almost without exception.


----------



## Alastair (5 Oct 2013)

George Farmer said:


> Any DSLR over any compact, almost without exception.



Thanks George.  And regarding macro lenses, what kind of cheap options are there.  Ive seen allsorts of sets, dedicated lense etc


----------



## Michael W (5 Oct 2013)

Me and my dad share our camera equipment, the Nikon 60mm ED 2.8 is what we use, quite effect for portraits.


----------



## krazypara3165 (5 Oct 2013)

As above I wojld pick the nikon dslr!


----------



## BigTom (5 Oct 2013)

Definitely go with a DSLR, you'll only get frustrated with a compact. A dedicatd macro lens is a must have really (a proper one with 1:1 magnification, there are lots of zoom lenses that label themselves as macro which will get you to ~1:3, which isn't always enough). Longer macros (90mm+) are worth the extra over 50mm, you want as much working distance as possible. Don't be scared of buying second hand, places like talkphotography are great for picking up kit. Lenses hold their value really well, so if you buy used you can usually sell stuff on down the road for very little loss.

As for which make/model of body to go for... the last couple of generations from all manufacturers are all really good. Go with whatever you like the ergonomics of if you can go and play with a few in a shop. After that prioritise high-ISO noise performance (assuming a focus on aquariium photography). Spend more on lenses that you do on the body.


----------



## callmephathead (6 Oct 2013)

Dslr all the way...but I would go for a Canon rather than Nikon. TBH cameras from both brands will be very similar in performance, I just find the Canons to be easier to use and more user friendly.


----------



## George Farmer (6 Oct 2013)

Alastair said:


> Thanks George. And regarding macro lenses, what kind of cheap options are there. Ive seen allsorts of sets, dedicated lense etc


Like Tom says in his excellent post, it's worth investing in a decent dedicated macro lens, but they are relatively expensive. 3rd party manufacturers i.e. Tamron, Sigma, Tokina are worth a look. Probably around £250-£350.

You can get macro filters that screw on to the supplied kit lens (usually 18-55mm). These are ok but lack the quality optics of a proper macro.  But they can be bought for a few quid off eBay etc.

My advice - get an entry-level DSLR, either Canon or Nikon.  Then save for lenses.  The 50mm f/1.8 from both makes is a great portrait lens and is super for FTS.  It's also cheap at around £80.  Then save for the macro.  I use a Canon 100mm f/2.8 which is brilliant.  The Nikon equivalent is the 105mm f/2.8.  But as I said, look at 3rd party too.  Google is your friend, especially for reviews and getting the best deal.

Top tip - If/when you get your DSLR, learn to use it in full manual mode from the start...


----------



## oldbloke (6 Oct 2013)

Canons have the "live view" feature which means you can look at the picture you are going to take on the full screen at the back. As you then adjust aperture, exposure compensation or whatever, the view changes before your eyes! Great for sunsets and the like.


Fen sunset by threequartersky, on Flickr


----------



## Yo-han (6 Oct 2013)

My Nikon D5100 has that as well, not sure about the 3100. But I would pick the DSLR as well. Don't worry about the macro lens yet. The standard kit has a quite good zoom, if you crop it on your computer, a nice 800x600 macro like foto remains. And you can always safe money for the real deal later


----------



## Nutty (6 Oct 2013)

My D3100 allows live view, but i wouldn't say its the best screen, useful if you can't view via the eye piece but not true enough for my liking, although the grid feature does make it easy to square things up! i found it does drain rediculously on the battery with extended use though 

My thumbs up to 3rd party manufactures, good lenses for mucking about and learning due to their comparative price, but they do lack something compared to original brands if your image is going to be scrutinized closely.

Final two pence i promise! Photoshop can fix a lot, however if you can start with a better image by means of best bodies (sensors) and lenses you can afford the less you need to do to really enjoy your images!!

Cheers,
Nutty


----------



## Michael W (6 Oct 2013)

George makes a good point about starting with manual it will be really helpful in the long run. Also get into the habit of saving the pictures as raw files as it will allow easy manipulation via softwares like photoshop with practise of course as mentioned by Nutty.


----------



## wijnands (28 Oct 2013)

A DSLR with a good kit lens and a macro lens will be a compact any day of the week. However, you're easily looking at a 1000 quid pricetag.

If the money isn't there, I've recently had the chance to experiment a bit with a panasonic fz-72 and I was very impressed! Decent lens, not too shabby on the higher iso and a very usable macro option.


----------



## pepedopolous (28 Oct 2013)

Sorry to throw a cat amongst the pigeons but if you aren't decided about which type of camera to buy you should definitely consider mirrorless cameras as well (think DSLRs but smaller and with more features).

For example, Olympus OMD-EM5 and PEN, Panasonic GH2 or GH3, Sony NEX 7.

Cheers,

P


----------



## wijnands (28 Oct 2013)

Smaller, yes. More features? I'd love to hear about them. Might want to add that for a lot of these there's little in the way of macro lenses so you'd end up having to buy an adapter.


----------



## BigTom (28 Oct 2013)

I'm pretty sure Alasatir has already picked up a new camera (not sure what he went for in the end), so this is fairly moot, but m43 does have two very high quality native macro lenses, plus several options in 43 mount that work well with an adaptor, and are also very well suited to macro photography using legacy lenses (which tend to be smaller which suits the form factor), plus you get a larger depth of field for a given aperture with the smaller sensor which is actually a bonus in many cases.

I moved from a Nikon DSLR setup to m43 and very rarely regret it. If you're heavily in to strobism then it probably isn't for you, and there are a couple of other downsides - somewhat reduced lens selection, a stop or two difference in high ISO performance against similar generation DSLRs and you pay extra for the reduced form factor, but overall m43 has really turned into a pretty complete package in the last couple of years.

The GH3 (and GH2 before it) is probably the best SLR type camera for video in any class, as a bonus.


----------



## wijnands (28 Oct 2013)

I will readily admit that the smaller platforms have made an immense amount of progress the last few years and a lot more is still to come.

Personally... I don't expect one to replace my D300. I've got big hands and I shoot a lot with a big tele outdoors in all weather.


----------



## BigTom (28 Oct 2013)

I swapped from a D200 and have hands like hams, fingers like sausages and abuse the hell out of my kit and have had no issues . A few more fully weather sealed lenses would be nice, I'll admit, but I've got my stuff drenched plenty of times without damage, and they do seem to be starting to fill that niche in the lens list.

I'm not saying m43 is the be-all and end-all, but I think a lot of SLR shooters do have some pretty well entrenched misconceptions about the system.


----------



## wijnands (28 Oct 2013)

I'm inclined to agree with you Tom. Perhaps I need to give them another chance when the time comes to replace the D300.


----------



## BigTom (28 Oct 2013)

It really depends whether or not size is an issue for you. I realised one day that I'd stopped taking my DSLR out with me unless I was on a specific photography mission, whereas with m43 I can always chuck a body and lens in a coat pocket (or my girldfriend's handbag!) and so have it with me far more often. Even if I'm going out for a typical full day's shooting, my two bodies, a super wide angle, a fast normal prime and my macro lens weight in at a whopping 1100 grams combined, plus about the same again for my mini manfrotto tripod, which is normally sufficient if it isn't blowing a gale.

But, the downside is that you sometimes end up paying more for the privileged of not having shoulder ache, and you lose maybe 10% sensor performance against an equivalent gen DSLR.


----------



## wijnands (28 Oct 2013)

I drag around 5, 6kg of gear on a day out but the D300 and a single lens does travel with me on business trips.


20130811-DSC_6329 by j_wijnands, on Flickr


----------



## BigTom (28 Oct 2013)

Yeah I remember the days of heading out with a D200, Sigma 120-300, 150 macro, 10-20, a mid range zoom, ringflash, full size tripod, two massive heads, etc, etc. God knows what that lot weighed in at.


----------



## basil (23 Nov 2013)

Whatever you settle on Alastair, photgraphy is fascinating and I've found that especially with shrimp it enables you to enjoy the detail that you'd probably
never appreciate with the naked eye. I've always enjoyed taking pictures of my tanks and shrimp, but found myself getting increasingly frustrated with the point and clicks. Earlier this year I bought a Canon DSLR, just with the standard 18-55mm kit lense and it's the best thing I ever did! It's a now becoming a hobby in it's own right, and I've just this weekend ordered myself a dedicated macro lense. Can't wait to get snapping next week!

My advice would be save for the DSLR!


----------

