What camera should i buy

Status
Not open for further replies.
if anyone wants a 7d mine is gan on eBay after Christmas - will get a much better deal coming to me direct - fully boxed and well loved. :cool:
 


ayesane said:
if anyone wants a 7d mine is gan on eBay after Christmas - will get a much better deal coming to me direct - fully boxed and well loved. :cool:
Click to expand...

Are you downsizing or upsizing or whaaat?
 
ayesane said:
kinda moving horizontal and getting a mirrorless digi, a Canon M specifically. Pointless me having loads of class lens and a semi-pro body for taking pictures of the daughters..
Click to expand...

Ah yes, you did say
 
Icarebecauseyoudo said:
Ah yes, you did say
Click to expand...

in no rush like, keeping it until the new arrival.. um.. arrives. Then it's gan :cool:

btw, Canon users I also have various lens including wide-angle, tele and prime which will also be gan on eBay; again, a better deal to be sought from me.
 
ayesane said:
in no rush like, keeping it until the new arrival.. um.. arrives. Then it's gan :cool:

btw, Canon users I also have various lens including wide-angle, tele and prime which will also be gan on eBay; again, a better deal to be sought from me.
Click to expand...

Give me the details of the entire package you are getting rid of mate and what you are thinking of price wise
 
Lads, looking to get myself an entry level DSLR.

Many many years since I used one, but always wanted to get back into Photography for many moons now, so been reading a few magazines along with some of the very useful information on here.

What Digital Camera has voted the Pentax K-30 as the best of 2012, closely followed by the Nikon D3200 (which I see a few comments on this thread about.
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/advice/535263/best-aps-c-dslr-2012.html

any advice on which of these would be the best to go for? Like the fact that the Pentax has full weather sealing on it mind you. There are plenty of good deals kicking about for both these cameras at the moment as well.

K-30 with DA 18-55mm Lens £479
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...blue-da-l-non-wr-18-55mm-lens-85841/show.html

K-30 with Twin Lens Kit (Pentax DA 18-55mm WR Lens & Pentax DA 55-200mm WR Lens) £549
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...camera-in-black-twin-lens-kit-85726/show.html


D3200 with 18-55mm VR Lens £394
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...mera-in-black-18-55mm-vr-lens-84946/show.html

D3200 Digital SLR Mega Kit £589
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...on/d3200-digital-slr-mega-kit-88277/show.html
 
WASTID said:
Lads, looking to get myself an entry level DSLR.

Many many years since I used one, but always wanted to get back into Photography for many moons now, so been reading a few magazines along with some of the very useful information on here.

What Digital Camera has voted the Pentax K-30 as the best of 2012, closely followed by the Nikon D3200 (which I see a few comments on this thread about.
http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/advice/535263/best-aps-c-dslr-2012.html

any advice on which of these would be the best to go for? Like the fact that the Pentax has full weather sealing on it mind you. There are plenty of good deals kicking about for both these cameras at the moment as well.

K-30 with DA 18-55mm Lens £479
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...blue-da-l-non-wr-18-55mm-lens-85841/show.html

K-30 with Twin Lens Kit (Pentax DA 18-55mm WR Lens & Pentax DA 55-200mm WR Lens) £549
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...camera-in-black-twin-lens-kit-85726/show.html


D3200 with 18-55mm VR Lens £394
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...mera-in-black-18-55mm-vr-lens-84946/show.html

D3200 Digital SLR Mega Kit £589
http://www.jessops.com/online.store...on/d3200-digital-slr-mega-kit-88277/show.html
Click to expand...
I've never used either camera, but I'd go for the Nikon just because picking up gear second hand would be so much easier, and therefore cheaper for you.
 
UaeExile said:
I've never used either camera, but I'd go for the Nikon just because picking up gear second hand would be so much easier, and therefore cheaper for you.
Click to expand...

yeah, my next step was to delve into the equipment costs as don't want to burden self with one that will cost too much in the long run.

Tempted by the Pentax one presently, but if the financial aspect points to the Nikon then will probably go with that.
 
Anyone got any comments on Sony DSLR's? I know they are not a firm traditionally from a photography background but I have had quite a bit of their gear over the years and it's always good quality, looking to buy a second hand camera to get me started again, (used to be keen in my 35mm days!) Canon still looks favorite but would be nice to have another option.
 
Kid Galahad said:
Anyone got any comments on Sony DSLR's? I know they are not a firm traditionally from a photography background but I have had quite a bit of their gear over the years and it's always good quality, looking to buy a second hand camera to get me started again, (used to be keen in my 35mm days!) Canon still looks favorite but would be nice to have another option.
Click to expand...

A mate of mine has a Sony and loves it. I've never used it but depending on how far you are going with photography I'd be tempted to stick with Canon or Nikon purely for the range and availability of extras available for them.
 
MaDMaCKeM said:
A mate of mine has a Sony and loves it. I've never used it but depending on how far you are going with photography I'd be tempted to stick with Canon or Nikon purely for the range and availability of extras available for them.
Click to expand...

Cheers, what I thought tbh but if there's one about cheap enough I might be tempted.
 
Kid Galahad said:
Anyone got any comments on Sony DSLR's? I know they are not a firm traditionally from a photography background but I have had quite a bit of their gear over the years and it's always good quality, looking to buy a second hand camera to get me started again, (used to be keen in my 35mm days!) Canon still looks favorite but would be nice to have another option.
Click to expand...

I've had a Sony A33 for a while as my second DSLR - and have just upgraded it to a A65. Technically its not a DSLR since it doesn't use a conventional "flipping" mirror - bur rather a translucent process which allows 1/3 of the light through to constantly focus and 2/3 of the light through for the sensor.

Its actually still pretty effective in low light - and more than useful down to ISO 3200 - which feels counter - intuitive give that 1/3 of the light is being taken away.

The big advantage is that the focus system is constantly on - which means that it will constantly refocus during a fast moving burst, for example, of a moving subject.

I started with Sony before moving to a Canon 7D as my main camera - and the 18 - 250 lens that I have had for a couple of years means that for everyday walkaround use - I more frequently pick up the A65 than the 7D. Its a very useful all rounder lens - and the optical quirks can be sorted in Lightroom and PS (usually with architecture shots.) This lens is optically the same as the Tamron 18 - 250 lens - so selecting that in LR / PS lens correction sorts the major distortion issues.

The quality of pictures that it takes is (to my non - professional eye) just as good and rich as the Canon and has 24 megapixels rather than the 18 of the 7D. This means that its still possible to crop and have a larger file size than the 7D - and especially more so than my older SLR cameras.

In fact, if you're prepared to drop to JPEG only - it allows a "virtual" 1.4 or 2.0x magnification, which is actually quite interesting to use for "framing in the field" at the long end of my favourite Sony lens, converting a 250mm lens into a 500mm.

At 2.0X the image is reduced to 6mega pixels - but it wasn't so long ago that entry level DSLRs had that as the default. The 1.4X magnification has an image size of about 14 mp (or thereabouts - can't remember the precise number.)

I really, really like the A65 - though when I want to assure myself of absolute quality - then I stick with the 7D.

Hope that helps over the Sony aspect of the debate.

Forgot to mention - the viewfinder is electronic on the A65 - though is so good I don;t think most people would be put off by it. Its certainly massively better than the Sony A33 was - and I thought that wa smore than good enough.

The sensor on the A65 is the same as the A77 - though the build quality of the A77 is recognised to be better (magnesium body etc.)
 
2310 Return said:
I've had a Sony A33 for a while as my second DSLR - and have just upgraded it to a A65. Technically its not a DSLR since it doesn't use a conventional "flipping" mirror - bur rather a translucent process which allows 1/3 of the light through to constantly focus and 2/3 of the light through for the sensor.

Its actually still pretty effective in low light - and more than useful down to ISO 3200 - which feels counter - intuitive give that 1/3 of the light is being taken away.

The big advantage is that the focus system is constantly on - which means that it will constantly refocus during a fast moving burst, for example, of a moving subject.

I started with Sony before moving to a Canon 7D as my main camera - and the 18 - 250 lens that I have had for a couple of years means that for everyday walkaround use - I more frequently pick up the A65 than the 7D. Its a very useful all rounder lens - and the optical quirks can be sorted in Lightroom and PS (usually with architecture shots.) This lens is optically the same as the Tamron 18 - 250 lens - so selecting that in LR / PS lens correction sorts the major distortion issues.

The quality of pictures that it takes is (to my non - professional eye) just as good and rich as the Canon and has 24 megapixels rather than the 18 of the 7D. This means that its still possible to crop and have a larger file size than the 7D - and especially more so than my older SLR cameras.

In fact, if you're prepared to drop to JPEG only - it allows a "virtual" 1.4 or 2.0x magnification, which is actually quite interesting to use for "framing in the field" at the long end of my favourite Sony lens, converting a 250mm lens into a 500mm.

At 2.0X the image is reduced to 6mega pixels - but it wasn't so long ago that entry level DSLRs had that as the default. The 1.4X magnification has an image size of about 14 mp (or thereabouts - can't remember the precise number.)

I really, really like the A65 - though when I want to assure myself of absolute quality - then I stick with the 7D.

Hope that helps over the Sony aspect of the debate.

Forgot to mention - the viewfinder is electronic on the A65 - though is so good I don;t think most people would be put off by it. Its certainly massively better than the Sony A33 was - and I thought that wa smore than good enough.

The sensor on the A65 is the same as the A77 - though the build quality of the A77 is recognised to be better (magnesium body etc.)
Click to expand...


Great review mate, thanks for taking the time to educate the uneducated! Looks like it's an option especially with the high MP count.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top