DSLR or Bridge?

BigTom

Member
Joined
1 May 2009
Messages
2,281
Location
Edinburgh
Most people quickly find they prefer the layouts of either Canon or Nikon, and frankly thats probably as good a reason as any for making a choice at this end of the market. Personally I'd take Nikon for ergonomics (and to a lesser extent build quality) any day of the week, but that's just me.
 

bigmatt

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
676
Location
Castleford, West Yorks.
just played with a canon briefly and like the layout. I need to find time to go into Leeds and have a play go Jessops! If anyone sees any good used gear in the meantime could they let me know either here or via pm? A million thanks, Matt
 

spyder

Member
Joined
7 Mar 2011
Messages
1,020
Good place to start. I got the 400d a few years back. I found it easy to use, navigate and comfortable. Nikon felt a bit clumsy to me.

Play at Jessops. when you walk out you will know which you want to go for. ;)

nayr88 said:
When looking through starts of cameras and comparing them, what's the important are the imported things other than price and mega pixels?
Cheers

Sorry to hijac, I'm sure it'll benefit you thread anyways :)

IIRC, the entry level, budget bodies have a smaller sensor. The more "Pro" bodies have a full sized sensor = higher quality images. The higher end range also tend to offer higher FPS burst modes. There are other bits i'm sure but those are the main reasons for the higher price.
 

bigmatt

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
676
Location
Castleford, West Yorks.
Thanks guys - the camera i was looking at went for £93 on ebay (no lens though - body only) which must have been the bargain of the century. Are the 350d lenses compatible with newer canon models? The reason for me looking at an older model is obviously cost - i can pick up one of these (with lens) for less than £150 on eBay and, whilst i'd love a brand new one, the lesser cost just seems to make more sense to me when starting out. Other than a tripod and remote shutter release what other kit should i be lookingto invest in?
Thansk again for all your help,
Matt
 

bigmatt

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
676
Location
Castleford, West Yorks.
...or even the 300d - i've got a shot at one (body only) for £30! My thinking would be like this...i tend to look at pics on computer, or print them out in "standard" sizes - will i really notice the lower pixel count at this "beginner" level? The lenses and accessories for this are (mostly) compatible with the rest of the range so, in the future, if i choose to upgrade, i'll only need to buy the body and finally it means i can at least buy the camera now, and add to it bit-by-bit rather than making a massive one-off investment
Thanks again folks,
Matt
 

Stu Worrall

Global Moderator
Staff member
Joined
7 Sep 2008
Messages
1,989
Location
Flintshire, North Wales
dont bother with the 300d, its just too old and slow nowadays and im not sure if its compatible with the EFS system? the 350d on the other hand is a great camera second hand. Ive taken some of my best photos on a 350d and the sensor is the same as what was in the 20d and 30d.
 

bigmatt

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
676
Location
Castleford, West Yorks.
Thanks Stu - it's good to know you and Aaron have had good experiences with the 350d and just for financial reasons i think i'm leaning in that direction. How about the other stuff for tank/general photography? My very beginnings of a list is .... tripod (variable height - from 45cm to about 5ft to cover my low tank and me - i'm 6'6"!), remote shutter release, slave (?) flash (any recommendations on this very much appreciated - i'll be trawling throught the photography threads when i have the opportunity!), decent bag to keep it safe. Do i need UV filters or are they a waste of money, and the same for Macro lenses?
Thanks yet again folks!
Matt
 

aaronnorth

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2008
Messages
3,953
Location
worksop, nottinghamshire
I don't use a flash, but this is only because at the time I couldn't afford one and now I don't have a fish tank and currently I do not find it limiting my photography. It would certainly help though.
Depending on how bright your fish tank lights are you could get away with it, the 350D has an acceptable noise levels at ISO800 anyway which will get you about 1/125 sec shutter speed quite easily IME. You can always edit the noise out aswell.

UV filters are a waste of time, polarizing filters can be pretty useful where there is a lot of glare off glass or water.
Neatural Desity (ND filters) are good for landscapes.
I don't really use filters (I often forget lol), but shooting in RAW helps massively.

If you are after a good macro lense, then the Canon f/1.4 50mm is one of my favourites. Good price too!

Thanks, Aaron
 

gmartins

Member
Joined
31 Jan 2011
Messages
308
Location
Azores
neutral filters can be useful to protect the lenses from scratches. cheaper to replace the filter than the lenses.

G
 

JohnC

Member
Joined
14 Nov 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
On a mountain in the Highlands of Scotland
i've just spent the last couple of months playing the ebay canon game.

I wanted around 10mp with liveview (the lcd screen at the back showing what the photo is going to be like) so was looking at stuff past the 450d but ended up trying for a 40d at around £320 - 330 without lens, £440 with lens. Then all of the sudden it dawned on me that the newest entry level 1100d comes with the exact same sensors and features as the old pro models. It just lacks the metal body and study build. £389 with the 18-55 lens new from ebay. Picked up a smaller f1.8 50mm II lens this week from amazon second hand for £70.

week 1 of owning it and its AMAZING. so glad i stopped fishing on ebay for second hand stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... al_Cameras

was a real help with our buying to work out the minimum i wanted.

Best regards,
John

p.s sorry if i've missed any chat I just skim read the first page and posted.
 

spyder

Member
Joined
7 Mar 2011
Messages
1,020
gmartins said:
neutral filters can be useful to protect the lenses from scratches. cheaper to replace the filter than the lenses.

G

This is worth taking into consideration. I order UV or skylight filters when I order a lens and it goes on as soon ad the lense cap comes off. Physical protection ;)
 

bigmatt

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
676
Location
Castleford, West Yorks.
The camera has had to go on hold for a while as the old laptop died but, as a small aside i did buy a cheap tripod from eBay - what an amazing difference it makes. Even with my sub-£100 quid compact just using a £9 tripod makes such an enormous difference when shooting tanks - just using auto mode it seems so much better!
Now thinking about a 1000d in a few months (when the laptop is paid for) as i have gone through the new/second hand conundrum and i think newer is actually better value in some ways. Plus i have the worst luck with camera so warranty would be nice!
M
 

Greenview

Member
Joined
12 Jun 2011
Messages
196
I have had a rethink about protective filters recently and have stopped using them. I prefer a lens hood, it helps to protect the front element from knocks quite well and also cuts down flare. If I do use a filter then I try not to pick a cheap one as it degrades image quality quite a bit.
 
Top