motor

No.1 · 03-12-2006, 12:46 PM

Sorry to open two topics, but the are both distinct topics anyway.

I have somebody who wants to get into amateur photography, but they amy be a little too daunted about buying a full-on D-SLR.

So if a 350D isn't going to be practical to learn on, then what camera would you suggest they buy to learn the basics on?

£500 or $800 is the budget

Or is a 350D a good starter camera too? Can they just jump into photography on that, or would it be adivsable to get a lower spec cam to begin with?

Any input is welcomed here guys, so go ahead and post what you think is right.

Cheers

nthfinity · 03-12-2006, 12:57 PM

perhaps a 350D off ebay.

i dont see a problem with somebody's first camera being a SLR... mine wasnt... i guess it really depends on how serious this guy is. i wasn't at first... but serious enough to spend about 450 pounds to begin with... i've spent a lot more since... and pland to spend MUCH MUCH more in the future.

one positive thing is that the 350D is something you can continuously upgrade for years (IE, the lenses, and various attachments) where cheaper non-slr cameras just cant be upgraded much... nor to the same quality.

Pehtren · 03-12-2006, 01:00 PM

my cannon ixus 750 costs aprox 500 dollars, its small and its my first camera.
And its not so complicated.

As for the pics it has 7.2 Mpixels, and does pretty good pics for such small camera 8)

No.1 · 03-12-2006, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by pehtren

my cannon ixus 750 costs aprox 500 dollars, its small and its my first camera.
And its not so complicated.

As for the pics it has 7.2 Mpixels, and does pretty good pics for such small camera 8)

Thanks - the ixus takes good pics, i know, i've got one, but they are looking for a bit more manual adjustment etc.. thanan ixus offers

Originally Posted by nthfinity

perhaps a 350D off ebay.

i dont see a problem with somebody's first camera being a SLR... mine wasnt... i guess it really depends on how serious this guy is. i wasn't at first... but serious enough to spend about 450 pounds to begin with... i've spent a lot more since... and pland to spend MUCH MUCH more in the future.

one positive thing is that the 350D is something you can continuously upgrade for years (IE, the lenses, and various attachments) where cheaper non-slr cameras just cant be upgraded much... nor to the same quality.

thanks, nth - they aren't exactly strapped for cash - but £500 is what they want to spend on their camera

And the upgradeability factor is perhaps on of the main attractions - being able to customise the camera is a high priority.

Thanks for your thoughts guys 8)

Looking forward to more opinions...

Fleischmann · 03-12-2006, 02:12 PM

I can rcertainly recommend the Olympus C7070. It can be used a simple click and shoot camera or you can experiment with the manual mode which is very intuitional. There is a nice .pdf instruction. But I'm sure a 350D would is appropriate even for amateurs.

dutchmasterflex · 03-12-2006, 04:03 PM

If $800 is your budget, I'd go with the D50. You can get it easily for about $640 with the stock 18-55mm lens (which is actually pretty good for a stock lens)

You'll have the extra money to buy all the accessories that you will need (filter, bag, SD card, tripod, etc.)

I was thinking bout goin the 350D route as well but I started tallying up the costs for everything else and was easily close to $1000, not to mention, the stock lens on the 350D is crap compared to the one on the D50

No.1 · 03-12-2006, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by dutchmasterflex

If $800 is your budget, I'd go with the D50. You can get it easily for about $640 with the stock 18-55mm lens (which is actually pretty good for a stock lens)

You'll have the extra money to buy all the accessories that you will need (filter, bag, SD card, tripod, etc.)

I was thinking bout goin the 350D route as well but I started tallying up the costs for everything else and was easily close to $1000, not to mention, the stock lens on the 350D is crap compared to the one on the D50

I Have read things (here and elsewhere) that the 350D stock lense is crap

Can this be confirmed or denied by others?

And will this make the photographs less flattering for the beginner?

Would anybody else recommend the D50 over the 350D?

Darkel · 03-12-2006, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by thenumber1

Can this be confirmed or denied by others?

And will this make the photographs less flattering for the beginner?

Its build quality is average and you have to be careful with the settings if you want to take sharp shots, not the best lens to begin with indeed.
I guess the only reason it has been chosen as the kit lens is its low price.

No.1 · 03-12-2006, 04:46 PM

If another all purpose lens was to be used on the 350D, what would you recommend?

Budget for the lens is quite low - sub £200 or $300

nthfinity · 03-12-2006, 04:55 PM

the problem with the 18-55 canon kit-lens is its too soft, no matter what f stop you shoot at.... really noticable ∞ focus shots, or high depth of field shots. the lens 'works' best IMO for close subjects, and not 'wonderful' for cars... but ok enough for now

i'm shooting for a 10-22 as its' moral replacement in my arsonal; eventually, my ideal package would be this : (expensive)
wide-angle
EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM
general purpose
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
telephoto
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

... in an ideal world anyway... before moving on to further options

Darkel · 03-12-2006, 05:17 PM

At f3.5 80% of the shots are blurry anyway, I don't even know why they made it possible to chose that aperture

I was always at f6.3 @ Geneva last week and it wasn't that bad :bah: As I said, if you know how the lens will react it's easier, I only set one focusing point and did the job myself.

If you really want a lense which covers this range then you have to look for an EF-S 17-85 IS USM (but the distortion and AC are high at 17mm) or (TT close your eyes) a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (not talking about the new Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS USM which is pointless IMO)
The first one is wayyy to expensive (the price of a 70-300 IS) but the second one could be okay, dunno the real price though.

Nth, you should replace that old f4.5-5.6 100-400 by an f2.8L IS USM and that's nearly the perfect config, the only thing is that you first have to sell a few organs before having the money because an EOS 1Ds mkII should be even better than this cheap 350D

TT · 03-12-2006, 05:44 PM

Sigmaaaaaaaa????????????????? :bad:

:fuck:

SDK2003 · 03-12-2006, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by Darkel

Nth, you should replace that old f4.5-5.6 100-400 by an f2.8L IS USM and that's nearly the perfect config,

If Canon ever made a 100-400L F2.8 IS it would be insanely heavy and expensive.

The current Canon 400mmL F2.8 IS Prime lens costs £5.5k

5vz-fe · 03-12-2006, 08:30 PM

5.5k pounds?? :shock: :shock: :shock:

nthfinity · 03-12-2006, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by SDK2003

Originally Posted by Darkel

Nth, you should replace that old f4.5-5.6 100-400 by an f2.8L IS USM and that's nearly the perfect config,

If Canon ever made a 100-400L F2.8 IS it would be insanely heavy and expensive.

The current Canon 400mmL F2.8 IS Prime lens costs £5.5k

i was wondering what lens he was talking aboiut

the real problem with the 'old' 100-400 IS (L series) is that it might have some 'tunneling' effect near 100 mm... but being an L series, i'd guess its pretty low.

how do you like your set of lenses SDK? it seems you usually carry 2 cameras with you... which would be nice, i have to admit... no need to change lenses while out...