This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
currently using a canon compact and Kodak bridge camera, but now looking at getting my first dslr with a view of actually learning something about photography as opposed to just using the auto settings.
looking for some advice as to what would make a good entry level camera for someone with very little knowledge to learn with and hopefully get some decent landscape shots.
no preference for make and my budget would be around £500 but possibly a fair bit higher if the advice on here pointed to a particular camera.
I was looking at the canon 1200 d which comes with 2 lenses for about £400 but would be happy to spend some more on one with just one lens and add to it later if the knowledgeable folks on here advised that.
thanks .
looking for some advice as to what would make a good entry level camera for someone with very little knowledge to learn with and hopefully get some decent landscape shots.
no preference for make and my budget would be around £500 but possibly a fair bit higher if the advice on here pointed to a particular camera.
I was looking at the canon 1200 d which comes with 2 lenses for about £400 but would be happy to spend some more on one with just one lens and add to it later if the knowledgeable folks on here advised that.
thanks .
In reply to buzby:
Save some money and get into film/analogue photography, you might learn more too!
Save some money and get into film/analogue photography, you might learn more too!
In reply to buzby:
I've just (as in Saturday) got a Nikon d5200 so far I think it was a good choice, there are way too many to choose from
I will try to upload a couple of the shots I took in the peak district on sunday in a howling blizzard : )
I've just (as in Saturday) got a Nikon d5200 so far I think it was a good choice, there are way too many to choose from
I will try to upload a couple of the shots I took in the peak district on sunday in a howling blizzard : )
In reply to buzby:
At the risk of provoking apoplectic outrage from real photographers with lens bags and Canon shoulder straps, a dSLR won't help you learn anything more about photography than a pocket compact can.
> "... looking at getting my first dslr with a view of actually learning something about photography as opposed to just using the auto settings." <
At the risk of provoking apoplectic outrage from real photographers with lens bags and Canon shoulder straps, a dSLR won't help you learn anything more about photography than a pocket compact can.
In reply to buzby:
i got a 60d a year ago from the net,with it been an old model it wasnt expensive.
i got a 60d a year ago from the net,with it been an old model it wasnt expensive.
In reply to moffatross:
It will if that pocket compact doesn't have full manual controls and is a PITA to use.
OP: You could consider a mirrorless system which will be physically smaller. I got a Fuji XE1 and 18-55 lens for £450 from MPB a few months back. This is not much money for a setup which gets used by many pro photographers. If you have to have a SLR (and I much prefer them from a handling point of view) then there are plenty of bodies which were the business 5+ years ago (Nikon D300, Canon EOS 5D, many others) and are now pretty cheap but can still take the same good shots they always could. Make sure the lens is up to it too though, avoid cheapo kit zooms.
It will if that pocket compact doesn't have full manual controls and is a PITA to use.
OP: You could consider a mirrorless system which will be physically smaller. I got a Fuji XE1 and 18-55 lens for £450 from MPB a few months back. This is not much money for a setup which gets used by many pro photographers. If you have to have a SLR (and I much prefer them from a handling point of view) then there are plenty of bodies which were the business 5+ years ago (Nikon D300, Canon EOS 5D, many others) and are now pretty cheap but can still take the same good shots they always could. Make sure the lens is up to it too though, avoid cheapo kit zooms.
In reply to Removed User: >"It will if that pocket compact doesn't have full manual controls and is a PITA to use."<
The premise of the OP appeared to be an assumption that a dSLR camera was required to learn about photography by getting away from AUTO mode but ironically, most shots taken with dSLR's are taken on AUTO mode by users with a kit lens.
Many decent pocket compacts costing less than the OP's budget have good ergonomics, are fully controllable and most of them have faster/better/more versatile optics than you'll ever get for the price of a DSLR body and its kit lens, invariably so at the wide end with apertures of f/1.4 and f/1.8 not uncommon at 24 mm FF equivalent. Some of them have a ND filter built in too, arguably the next most useful thing after a decent, fast, wide lens that someone wanting to enjoy landscape photography can get their hands on.
The premise of the OP appeared to be an assumption that a dSLR camera was required to learn about photography by getting away from AUTO mode but ironically, most shots taken with dSLR's are taken on AUTO mode by users with a kit lens.
Many decent pocket compacts costing less than the OP's budget have good ergonomics, are fully controllable and most of them have faster/better/more versatile optics than you'll ever get for the price of a DSLR body and its kit lens, invariably so at the wide end with apertures of f/1.4 and f/1.8 not uncommon at 24 mm FF equivalent. Some of them have a ND filter built in too, arguably the next most useful thing after a decent, fast, wide lens that someone wanting to enjoy landscape photography can get their hands on.
In reply to buzby:
If you are interested I might be letting my Nikon D40 with 18-55 kit lens and 55-200VR lens go, also got a decent SB-600 flash for it too, I am swapping to a compact system I think, I don't use the SLR much. Probably 5 years old but perfect condition, probably only done 2-3k shots.
Drop me a line if you fancy it.................
If you are interested I might be letting my Nikon D40 with 18-55 kit lens and 55-200VR lens go, also got a decent SB-600 flash for it too, I am swapping to a compact system I think, I don't use the SLR much. Probably 5 years old but perfect condition, probably only done 2-3k shots.
Drop me a line if you fancy it.................
In reply to moffatross:
I disagree. On DSLRs it is often far easier and quicker to change settings than it is with a compact so learning to shoot manual or work out exposure compensation etc is a lot simpler. Also the view finder on a DSLR makes it far easier to get composition sorted, less distractions and you can see what you are photographing very clearly. I have a DSLR and an Olympus PEN csc (with a 17mm pancake lens) and for important stuff I always use the DSLR. Not because I'm a dinosaur but it is quicker and easier to get it right.
I disagree. On DSLRs it is often far easier and quicker to change settings than it is with a compact so learning to shoot manual or work out exposure compensation etc is a lot simpler. Also the view finder on a DSLR makes it far easier to get composition sorted, less distractions and you can see what you are photographing very clearly. I have a DSLR and an Olympus PEN csc (with a 17mm pancake lens) and for important stuff I always use the DSLR. Not because I'm a dinosaur but it is quicker and easier to get it right.
1
In reply to buzby:
The thing that makes the biggest difference with a DSLR is the lens you use. My advice would therefore be to get a second hand Canon 40D (built like a tank) and a Canon 17-40 F4 L lens. Canons *D and **D cameras are so intuitive to use, totally reliable and a lens like the 17-40 will give you stunningly sharp images and last forever. You could pick up the 2 for under £500 (most of that the lens). And don't let anyone tell you Canon L lenses are for full-frame.They are the only Canon lenses that work on full frame cameras but they work beautifully on APS-C sensors and they future proof you if you decide to go full frame.
The thing that makes the biggest difference with a DSLR is the lens you use. My advice would therefore be to get a second hand Canon 40D (built like a tank) and a Canon 17-40 F4 L lens. Canons *D and **D cameras are so intuitive to use, totally reliable and a lens like the 17-40 will give you stunningly sharp images and last forever. You could pick up the 2 for under £500 (most of that the lens). And don't let anyone tell you Canon L lenses are for full-frame.They are the only Canon lenses that work on full frame cameras but they work beautifully on APS-C sensors and they future proof you if you decide to go full frame.
In reply to moffatross:
thanks for the info so far, yep I know getting a dslr wont improve my photos if I've got sod all ability :>).
I was just thinking if im going to try and learn the basics of good photography and hopefully improve with experience then a decent camera would be a good start.
re using film wouldn't digital be better to learn with as I could see instant results and the failures would cost me nothing?
I like the look of the Nikon mentioned above. I take it with a limited budget id be better getting the best camera I can afford and adding lenses as I go and can afford it rather than going for a cheaper package of two lenses and a poorer camera.
thanks for the info so far, yep I know getting a dslr wont improve my photos if I've got sod all ability :>).
I was just thinking if im going to try and learn the basics of good photography and hopefully improve with experience then a decent camera would be a good start.
re using film wouldn't digital be better to learn with as I could see instant results and the failures would cost me nothing?
I like the look of the Nikon mentioned above. I take it with a limited budget id be better getting the best camera I can afford and adding lenses as I go and can afford it rather than going for a cheaper package of two lenses and a poorer camera.
In reply to moffatross:
I agree with you that buying a DSLR and using it on auto is a total waste. Little green rectangles should just be baished from DSLRs, especially when it is so easy to take a little more control by using AV. Plus most kit lenses are an abomination. Second hand is the way to go.
I agree with you that buying a DSLR and using it on auto is a total waste. Little green rectangles should just be baished from DSLRs, especially when it is so easy to take a little more control by using AV. Plus most kit lenses are an abomination. Second hand is the way to go.
In reply to buzby:
I'm using a Nikon D40x and have found moving to a DSLR a revelation. I love the size and handling, if anything I wish it was slightly bigger. I compromised on the body and splashed out on lenses - definitely the way to go. For me the DSLR format still makes the most sense. Its a joy to use and I therefore enjoy photography more.
I'm using a Nikon D40x and have found moving to a DSLR a revelation. I love the size and handling, if anything I wish it was slightly bigger. I compromised on the body and splashed out on lenses - definitely the way to go. For me the DSLR format still makes the most sense. Its a joy to use and I therefore enjoy photography more.
In reply to Dark-Cloud:
I was going to suggest that you buy a second hand dSLR, and somebody beat me to the punch.
I bought my mate a Nikon D40 minus a lens, a couple of years ago off ebay for under £100. I gave him a kit lens 18-55mm and he is still using it to this day with some amazing results.
Camera developers keep shelling out new products year on year, not because their old products were poor, but because they have to shift units. This means that there are some excellent bargains out there for cameras which are one or two generations old.
I personally, have stopped buying brand new digital cameras and now buy second-hand. Rather than ploughing all my money into a camera, with mainly software updates, I would rather invest my money into the best glass that I can afford.
You'll get far better results from a good quality lens than a kit lens bundled with a budget dSLR.
Don't worry about the badge on the side of the camera because nobody makes a duff dSLR.
> If you are interested I might be letting my Nikon D40 with 18-55 kit lens and 55-200VR lens go,
I was going to suggest that you buy a second hand dSLR, and somebody beat me to the punch.
I bought my mate a Nikon D40 minus a lens, a couple of years ago off ebay for under £100. I gave him a kit lens 18-55mm and he is still using it to this day with some amazing results.
Camera developers keep shelling out new products year on year, not because their old products were poor, but because they have to shift units. This means that there are some excellent bargains out there for cameras which are one or two generations old.
I personally, have stopped buying brand new digital cameras and now buy second-hand. Rather than ploughing all my money into a camera, with mainly software updates, I would rather invest my money into the best glass that I can afford.
You'll get far better results from a good quality lens than a kit lens bundled with a budget dSLR.
Don't worry about the badge on the side of the camera because nobody makes a duff dSLR.
In reply to buzby:
Lots of points made by lots of dSLR advocates and it looks like the UKC consensus is to go dSLR, so if you're going by a straw poll, why not ? It's probably worth considering (and although it sounds kinda trite) that whatever camera you've got with you will be the one that takes you the best pix and it'll be the one you'll learn quickest from too if it's got useful components like a wide lens (for landscapes) with a big aperture (for isolating objects in the field depth), a viewfinder (for composition), full manual controls (over exposure time, aperture and ISO), an ND filter (for longer exposure times in daylight) etc.
Here's my thoughts on pros/cons and it'd be interesting to know if any of the dSLR advocates agree/disagree with them.
A dSLR's strength is that it has some extra focus tracking technology that allows it to shoot more frames in sharp focus faster, and in lower light than other types of digital cameras, although in respect of landscape photography, not so much of a benefit perhaps ? Its weakness for climbing/hiking/skiing etc is that it is bigger and heavier, and while some obviously see its larger size and heavier weight as giving a handling advantage, it just depends if you mind lugging it about. A dSLR from Canon or Nikon will also give you a big choice of quality modern lenses ... if you can afford them.
A compact's strength is that it fits in your pocket and having an integrated and versatile all-in-one lens also means you can't change its lens. Despite what some might have you believe, its viewfinder can be very good indeed. However it has a smaller sensor than a mirrorless or dSLR so the pix you take will have less latitude for cropping or tweaking if you don't get them absolutely right.
A mirrorless camera's strength is that it can do everything a dSLR can wrt lens interchangeability and is smaller/lighter than a dSLR and has a short lens to sensor flange distance that can be used to mount all sorts of weird and wonderful adapted lenses. That means you can access the whole of ebay's 1950's to 1990's lens stock and buy a lens that may have cost a month's wages back in the day for £25 or so, but you'll have to manually focus, manually control aperture etc. Modern lens choices are more limited though and even the best won't let you take action shots as reliably as a dSLR will with a modern AF lens.
Lots of points made by lots of dSLR advocates and it looks like the UKC consensus is to go dSLR, so if you're going by a straw poll, why not ? It's probably worth considering (and although it sounds kinda trite) that whatever camera you've got with you will be the one that takes you the best pix and it'll be the one you'll learn quickest from too if it's got useful components like a wide lens (for landscapes) with a big aperture (for isolating objects in the field depth), a viewfinder (for composition), full manual controls (over exposure time, aperture and ISO), an ND filter (for longer exposure times in daylight) etc.
Here's my thoughts on pros/cons and it'd be interesting to know if any of the dSLR advocates agree/disagree with them.
A dSLR's strength is that it has some extra focus tracking technology that allows it to shoot more frames in sharp focus faster, and in lower light than other types of digital cameras, although in respect of landscape photography, not so much of a benefit perhaps ? Its weakness for climbing/hiking/skiing etc is that it is bigger and heavier, and while some obviously see its larger size and heavier weight as giving a handling advantage, it just depends if you mind lugging it about. A dSLR from Canon or Nikon will also give you a big choice of quality modern lenses ... if you can afford them.
A compact's strength is that it fits in your pocket and having an integrated and versatile all-in-one lens also means you can't change its lens. Despite what some might have you believe, its viewfinder can be very good indeed. However it has a smaller sensor than a mirrorless or dSLR so the pix you take will have less latitude for cropping or tweaking if you don't get them absolutely right.
A mirrorless camera's strength is that it can do everything a dSLR can wrt lens interchangeability and is smaller/lighter than a dSLR and has a short lens to sensor flange distance that can be used to mount all sorts of weird and wonderful adapted lenses. That means you can access the whole of ebay's 1950's to 1990's lens stock and buy a lens that may have cost a month's wages back in the day for £25 or so, but you'll have to manually focus, manually control aperture etc. Modern lens choices are more limited though and even the best won't let you take action shots as reliably as a dSLR will with a modern AF lens.
Post edited at 21:58
In reply to buzby:
I would definitely get a dslr but obviously use it on manual and aperture/shutter priority settings rather than point and shoot auto.
Be aware you will quickly buy into a lens system and effectively get committed to one manufacturer. So do take a bit if time to work out what you want, ideally.
The conventional wisdom is to some spend more on lenses than the camera body (hence comments about avoiding kit lenses and going for pro standard canon L series lenses). I think that's certainly true once you get to know what direction you're going in but I think there's something to be said for cheap and cheerful initially ie a kit lens or two on a pretty basic body. Then you can work out what you fancy getting longer term.
It's possibly worth saying that, in the good old days, most people will have learnt with an slr body and a solitary 50mm lens. I'd certainly suggest having one fixed fiscal length lens. A 50mm on a crop body is also not a bad portrait lens. Most manufacturers have a decent if cheap 50mm lens. Canon have two really good and relatively cheap 50mm's (the f1.8 being a particular bargain).
Personally, I'd maybe not bother with a long lens initially, but have a mid range zoom (eg kit lens on body) plus something like a cheap 50mm which should give you much better picture quality, be 'faster' (ie good in low light), enable you to better play with shallow depth of field shots and learn to frame a shot without being lazy in the way that a zoom encourages.
Certainly a second hand one or a new but older model on a good deal might also make sense.
But the canon 700d plus kit mid range zoom comes in at just over £500. Then add on the 500mm f1.8 for less than £100. You'll probably be using the 50mm long after the kit lens...
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-canon-ef-50mm-f1-8-ii-lens/p12814
Just my own thoughts.
I would definitely get a dslr but obviously use it on manual and aperture/shutter priority settings rather than point and shoot auto.
Be aware you will quickly buy into a lens system and effectively get committed to one manufacturer. So do take a bit if time to work out what you want, ideally.
The conventional wisdom is to some spend more on lenses than the camera body (hence comments about avoiding kit lenses and going for pro standard canon L series lenses). I think that's certainly true once you get to know what direction you're going in but I think there's something to be said for cheap and cheerful initially ie a kit lens or two on a pretty basic body. Then you can work out what you fancy getting longer term.
It's possibly worth saying that, in the good old days, most people will have learnt with an slr body and a solitary 50mm lens. I'd certainly suggest having one fixed fiscal length lens. A 50mm on a crop body is also not a bad portrait lens. Most manufacturers have a decent if cheap 50mm lens. Canon have two really good and relatively cheap 50mm's (the f1.8 being a particular bargain).
Personally, I'd maybe not bother with a long lens initially, but have a mid range zoom (eg kit lens on body) plus something like a cheap 50mm which should give you much better picture quality, be 'faster' (ie good in low light), enable you to better play with shallow depth of field shots and learn to frame a shot without being lazy in the way that a zoom encourages.
Certainly a second hand one or a new but older model on a good deal might also make sense.
But the canon 700d plus kit mid range zoom comes in at just over £500. Then add on the 500mm f1.8 for less than £100. You'll probably be using the 50mm long after the kit lens...
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-canon-ef-50mm-f1-8-ii-lens/p12814
Just my own thoughts.
In reply to buzby:
Not all kit lenses are an abomination, the Nikon 18-55vr is a great lens on a cheaper body as is the 55-200.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr...
One thing you should do is to go into a shop and handle cameras from different manufacturers. This would let you see what they are like to ergonomically.
You could pick up a Nikon D5200, and the above 2 lenses from ebay for £460 new.
Not all kit lenses are an abomination, the Nikon 18-55vr is a great lens on a cheaper body as is the 55-200.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_18-55_3p5-5p6_vr_n15
http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/246-nikkor-af-s-55-200mm-f4-56g-if-ed-dx-vr...
One thing you should do is to go into a shop and handle cameras from different manufacturers. This would let you see what they are like to ergonomically.
You could pick up a Nikon D5200, and the above 2 lenses from ebay for £460 new.
In reply to buzby:
Get a Pentax, excellent weatherproofing, and you can use old lenses dating back to the 60's without needing an adaptor. Great for picking lenses up cheap.
I've got the K-5, and it's great.
Get a Pentax, excellent weatherproofing, and you can use old lenses dating back to the 60's without needing an adaptor. Great for picking lenses up cheap.
I've got the K-5, and it's great.
In reply to buzby:
Before you buy you need to tell us what you want to take pictures of and in what sort of light, because that will influence our advice. For example, if you want to take pics of your mate ten feet below you on a multipitch then you don't need a DSLR. If you want to take shots of racing cars zooming towards you then you do.
Before you buy you need to tell us what you want to take pictures of and in what sort of light, because that will influence our advice. For example, if you want to take pics of your mate ten feet below you on a multipitch then you don't need a DSLR. If you want to take shots of racing cars zooming towards you then you do.
In reply to buzby:
If you decide to light weight the fuji X-E1 is very good for interchangable lens system, mines going on ebay shortly excellent considition low actuations 18-55mm lens with UV filter all boxes etc etc etc £500 message me if interested
If you decide to light weight the fuji X-E1 is very good for interchangable lens system, mines going on ebay shortly excellent considition low actuations 18-55mm lens with UV filter all boxes etc etc etc £500 message me if interested
In reply to Toerag:
In the OP, buzby said 'landscape shots'. But totally agree, for moving things in sharp focus, a dSLR has an advantage And other than the larger sensor to allow more tweaking of shots if/when you mess up that comes with a mirrorless or a dSLR, there's arguably not much advantage to carrying all the extra weight for landscapes ? Better perhaps to get one of the large sensor pocket cameras like the Panasonic LX100 or Sony RX100, either of which I'd lust after.
Here are some landscapes taken with a small sensor pocket camera and that weighs next to nothing ...
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7410/16380702182_8b21ad958a_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/16195706097_76a30fee32_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7308/16195370179_0eeb191b76_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7541/15852040722_6b33148449_h.jpg
Here are some shots taken with a mirrorless camera and ancient £25 ebay lenses ...
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7286/16281795419_9ce1f6e415_h.jpg
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8629/15751342996_4a4667d1da_h.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5601/15536071085_a903f01a85_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7519/15424524674_43a2d12ed7_h.jpg
> "tell us what you want to take pictures of and in what sort of light" <
In the OP, buzby said 'landscape shots'. But totally agree, for moving things in sharp focus, a dSLR has an advantage And other than the larger sensor to allow more tweaking of shots if/when you mess up that comes with a mirrorless or a dSLR, there's arguably not much advantage to carrying all the extra weight for landscapes ? Better perhaps to get one of the large sensor pocket cameras like the Panasonic LX100 or Sony RX100, either of which I'd lust after.
Here are some landscapes taken with a small sensor pocket camera and that weighs next to nothing ...
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7410/16380702182_8b21ad958a_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/16195706097_76a30fee32_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7308/16195370179_0eeb191b76_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7541/15852040722_6b33148449_h.jpg
Here are some shots taken with a mirrorless camera and ancient £25 ebay lenses ...
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7286/16281795419_9ce1f6e415_h.jpg
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8629/15751342996_4a4667d1da_h.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5601/15536071085_a903f01a85_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7519/15424524674_43a2d12ed7_h.jpg
Post edited at 12:14
In reply to buzby:
I started off with a Nikon D5000 to learn the basics and it was a really good camera to learn with. It came with the standard kit lense (18-55) and to be honest it was awesome.
There seems to be pleanty of D90's about second hand if your going that way and if you do by second hand you've protected your money better if you do decide its not for you.
I started off with a Nikon D5000 to learn the basics and it was a really good camera to learn with. It came with the standard kit lense (18-55) and to be honest it was awesome.
There seems to be pleanty of D90's about second hand if your going that way and if you do by second hand you've protected your money better if you do decide its not for you.
In reply to buzby:
I think there's real value in getting a basic film SLR from Ebay (serviced if possible — light seals can be problematic) and learning to shoot in full manual.
Something like a Pentax MX or K1000, with a quality 50mm lens, can be found for peanuts. When you have no option of using automatic settings or a zoom lens, you really have to think about exposure and composition.
I may not be the best source of objective advice on this as a Pentax MX is currently my main camera, but since getting it my photography has improved enormously. Film and development isn't actually that expensive, either.
I think there's real value in getting a basic film SLR from Ebay (serviced if possible — light seals can be problematic) and learning to shoot in full manual.
Something like a Pentax MX or K1000, with a quality 50mm lens, can be found for peanuts. When you have no option of using automatic settings or a zoom lens, you really have to think about exposure and composition.
I may not be the best source of objective advice on this as a Pentax MX is currently my main camera, but since getting it my photography has improved enormously. Film and development isn't actually that expensive, either.
In reply to moffatross:
I asked more or less the same question as the OP on here a bit over a year ago: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=571847
I ended up going the CSC route and getting a Fuji XE1 with the 18-55 kit zoom (by all accounts exceptional for a kit lens). I have been extremely happy with my decision. The camera has been a real pleasure to use and I am slowly learning a bit about more serious photography. I've recently added the XC 50-230 zoom which is incredibly light and very good and I increasingly covet a prime landscape lens. The whole lot weighs only about 1kg and I carry it unless I am doing technical climbing (even scrambling and for general mountaineering it is fine having it accessible over my shoulder).
However, I soon realised that the photos from my old small sensor compact when climbing were really shown up by the Fuji's image quality when I put a set of photos together from a trip, so I splashed out on an RX100 (Mk1). In most lighting conditions, it's image quality holds its own with the Fuji and it has pretty much all the same functionality, but the experience of taking photos without a viewfinder and constantly having to dive into fiddly menus rather than having pretty much everything at my fingertips with my eye at the viewfinder simply does not compare; I really only use it as a deluxe point and shoot when climbing. Both cameras are brilliant, and now exceptional value with the arrival of the XE2 and RX100 (Mk2 and 3), but if you are serious about photography, go for a CSC (or a DSLR if you feel you need the stuff which they can do which a CSC cannot and you feel it is worth the extra weight and bulk)
Of course, if money is no object get an XE2 and an RX100 (Mk3) which has a viewfinder!
> Better perhaps to get one of the large sensor pocket cameras like the Panasonic LX100 or Sony RX100, either of which I'd lust after.
I asked more or less the same question as the OP on here a bit over a year ago: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=571847
I ended up going the CSC route and getting a Fuji XE1 with the 18-55 kit zoom (by all accounts exceptional for a kit lens). I have been extremely happy with my decision. The camera has been a real pleasure to use and I am slowly learning a bit about more serious photography. I've recently added the XC 50-230 zoom which is incredibly light and very good and I increasingly covet a prime landscape lens. The whole lot weighs only about 1kg and I carry it unless I am doing technical climbing (even scrambling and for general mountaineering it is fine having it accessible over my shoulder).
However, I soon realised that the photos from my old small sensor compact when climbing were really shown up by the Fuji's image quality when I put a set of photos together from a trip, so I splashed out on an RX100 (Mk1). In most lighting conditions, it's image quality holds its own with the Fuji and it has pretty much all the same functionality, but the experience of taking photos without a viewfinder and constantly having to dive into fiddly menus rather than having pretty much everything at my fingertips with my eye at the viewfinder simply does not compare; I really only use it as a deluxe point and shoot when climbing. Both cameras are brilliant, and now exceptional value with the arrival of the XE2 and RX100 (Mk2 and 3), but if you are serious about photography, go for a CSC (or a DSLR if you feel you need the stuff which they can do which a CSC cannot and you feel it is worth the extra weight and bulk)
Of course, if money is no object get an XE2 and an RX100 (Mk3) which has a viewfinder!
In reply to buzby:
Like the poster above I'd suggest at least looking at a CSC. I use a Sony NEX-6 and love it. You can pick one up for under £500, but allow more to buy good lenses like the 50mm prime and the 10-20mm wide. You can use different lenses, and it's fully manual (as you want to learn how to use the settings properly), but it's also small and light. I can carry the camera with the kit lens in a small pouch on my harness while climbing quite comfortably. Because it's small it's easy to be bothered to take it with you. Anyway, you'll know your own needs and this is probably irrelevant given that I'm ignoring your recommendation for a DSLR..... oh well.
Some sample images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/105585253@N07/
Like the poster above I'd suggest at least looking at a CSC. I use a Sony NEX-6 and love it. You can pick one up for under £500, but allow more to buy good lenses like the 50mm prime and the 10-20mm wide. You can use different lenses, and it's fully manual (as you want to learn how to use the settings properly), but it's also small and light. I can carry the camera with the kit lens in a small pouch on my harness while climbing quite comfortably. Because it's small it's easy to be bothered to take it with you. Anyway, you'll know your own needs and this is probably irrelevant given that I'm ignoring your recommendation for a DSLR..... oh well.
Some sample images: https://www.flickr.com/photos/105585253@N07/
Post edited at 16:40
For the avoidance of confusion, the CSC referred to in the two posts above is the same as 'mirrorless'. I think that dSLR will quietly shuffle aside when CSC/mirrorless focussing catches up because its extra mechanicals, prism, mirror and hard to clean/access sensor have no intrinsic benefit. Hopefully Canon/Nikon etc will design their mirrorless replacements to accept their current dSLR lenses, everybody will be happy and people can just carry on calling them dSLR's in the same way many folk assume CSC/mirrorless cameras are.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Yep, the Panasonic LX100 has a viewfinder but should have said Sony RX100 iii, not just RX100 (which indeed has no viewfinder).
I have the accessory viewfinder on my small sensor pocket camera and it's pretty special, articulating upwards through 90 degrees which makes framing macro shots etc super easy. I hope articulating viewfinders eventually find their way into all new cameras, but as most people haven't used one, nobody really knows quite how nice they are to have.
Yep, the Panasonic LX100 has a viewfinder but should have said Sony RX100 iii, not just RX100 (which indeed has no viewfinder).
I have the accessory viewfinder on my small sensor pocket camera and it's pretty special, articulating upwards through 90 degrees which makes framing macro shots etc super easy. I hope articulating viewfinders eventually find their way into all new cameras, but as most people haven't used one, nobody really knows quite how nice they are to have.
In reply to buzby:
OK, I'm no great photographer either but I would like to get better, time willing. I bought a Canon 1100D - strictly entry level - DSLR 2 years ago and I love it. As well as the ability to experiment with all menu settings, and add different lenses, I feel that I am learning a system - Canon - where the knowledge gained will be applicable to more upmarket Canon models when the time comes. My personal tip: Make sure you can buy a 'real' book that describes your camera - and do it. Pdf manuals may be fine for reference, but they're rubbish for learning.
OK, I'm no great photographer either but I would like to get better, time willing. I bought a Canon 1100D - strictly entry level - DSLR 2 years ago and I love it. As well as the ability to experiment with all menu settings, and add different lenses, I feel that I am learning a system - Canon - where the knowledge gained will be applicable to more upmarket Canon models when the time comes. My personal tip: Make sure you can buy a 'real' book that describes your camera - and do it. Pdf manuals may be fine for reference, but they're rubbish for learning.
In reply to buzby:
Canon, Nikon, Sony, whatever makes very little difference. All interchangeable lens cameras on the market today are better that you need as a beginner. What is far more important is how well it feels when you are using it. For this reason CSC isn't my first choice camera. I don't like the electronic viewfinder and the camera is small in my big hands making it difficult to use, particularly with gloves on. For this reason my main camera is a pro sized DSLR brick weighing a tonne, obviously not for everyone but I'm happy. For this reason decide on what you like rather than the unwashed masses on an internet forum.
I like canon personally and if you are thinking of the 1200D I'd say consider getting a used 60D instead. Same sensor but packaged in a better body making accessing the controls easier and thus letting you change things around more easily. Used cameras are generally safe buys and will save you lots of money, particularly when it is a generation old like the 60D and replaced with a tangibly better camera.
Canon, Nikon, Sony, whatever makes very little difference. All interchangeable lens cameras on the market today are better that you need as a beginner. What is far more important is how well it feels when you are using it. For this reason CSC isn't my first choice camera. I don't like the electronic viewfinder and the camera is small in my big hands making it difficult to use, particularly with gloves on. For this reason my main camera is a pro sized DSLR brick weighing a tonne, obviously not for everyone but I'm happy. For this reason decide on what you like rather than the unwashed masses on an internet forum.
I like canon personally and if you are thinking of the 1200D I'd say consider getting a used 60D instead. Same sensor but packaged in a better body making accessing the controls easier and thus letting you change things around more easily. Used cameras are generally safe buys and will save you lots of money, particularly when it is a generation old like the 60D and replaced with a tangibly better camera.
In reply to buzby:
http://slrhut.co.uk/product/ID1796C5/google?mkwid=Xhds2Bpk&pcrid=401413...
can anyone tell of there is anything wrong with this deal that im missing, the same camera on the same site and elsewhere is about the same price as the whole bundle shown in this deal.
doesn't seem right but I cant figure out the catch. thanks
http://slrhut.co.uk/product/ID1796C5/google?mkwid=Xhds2Bpk&pcrid=401413...
can anyone tell of there is anything wrong with this deal that im missing, the same camera on the same site and elsewhere is about the same price as the whole bundle shown in this deal.
doesn't seem right but I cant figure out the catch. thanks
In reply to buzby:
It's 'grey market' stuff. SLR Hut and others sell cameras boxed for a market outside the EU. It'll be new, and a bargain if you're prepared to compromise with a caveat on its warranty.
It's 'grey market' stuff. SLR Hut and others sell cameras boxed for a market outside the EU. It'll be new, and a bargain if you're prepared to compromise with a caveat on its warranty.
In reply to buzby:
Do some searches on SLR Hut reviews. I wouldn't go near them. Panamoz offer similar deals and have good feedback but it is, afaik, grey kit, with all the disadvantages that Moffatross describes (significant if you are splashing ££££s on it).
I bought quite a lot of high end camera/lens etc recently and went 2ndhand for much of it, saving hundreds and getting a warranty too.
Do some searches on SLR Hut reviews. I wouldn't go near them. Panamoz offer similar deals and have good feedback but it is, afaik, grey kit, with all the disadvantages that Moffatross describes (significant if you are splashing ££££s on it).
I bought quite a lot of high end camera/lens etc recently and went 2ndhand for much of it, saving hundreds and getting a warranty too.
In reply to Hannes: > "... CSC isn't my first choice camera. I don't like the electronic viewfinder and the camera is small in my big hands making it difficult to use, particularly with gloves on." <
Interesting. The electronic viewfinder on both my NEX7 mirrorless and Panasonic LX7 compact are both superb with colours, contrast and ease on the eye easily the equal of looking through a dSLR viewfinder with the benefit of all the (configurable) information you want on view in its 'HUD'.
As for ergonomics, the tri-nav controls on my Sony mirrorless provide two large and uncluttered thumb-wheels next to the shutter button for aperture and shutter speed, and another thumb-wheel for ISO just below. It really couldn't be easier to fully manually control that camera with gloves on. The Panasonic though, like any small camera is a bit more wanting ...
My eventual upgrade from the NEX7 mirrorless will be a Sony A7II mirrorless. It has a stabilised full frame sensor and will let me have even more fun with my old lenses
Interesting. The electronic viewfinder on both my NEX7 mirrorless and Panasonic LX7 compact are both superb with colours, contrast and ease on the eye easily the equal of looking through a dSLR viewfinder with the benefit of all the (configurable) information you want on view in its 'HUD'.
As for ergonomics, the tri-nav controls on my Sony mirrorless provide two large and uncluttered thumb-wheels next to the shutter button for aperture and shutter speed, and another thumb-wheel for ISO just below. It really couldn't be easier to fully manually control that camera with gloves on. The Panasonic though, like any small camera is a bit more wanting ...
My eventual upgrade from the NEX7 mirrorless will be a Sony A7II mirrorless. It has a stabilised full frame sensor and will let me have even more fun with my old lenses
In reply to Removed User:
Thanks chaps. I wouldn't say I know exactly what I'm doing with the NEX-6, but I think with a bit of an eye for composition and understanding aperture you can take reasonable shots. I leave white balance and ISO on Auto usually, and just fiddle with aperture, and occasionally shutter speed, depending on what I'm trying to do. I guess I'm just trying to say, with a half way decent camera you can get as deep into it as you like - if you want to manually set up every aspect of every frame you take you can......or you can just make a couple of adjustments and let the camera do the hard work. And then process the crap out of it in Lightroom of course
Thanks chaps. I wouldn't say I know exactly what I'm doing with the NEX-6, but I think with a bit of an eye for composition and understanding aperture you can take reasonable shots. I leave white balance and ISO on Auto usually, and just fiddle with aperture, and occasionally shutter speed, depending on what I'm trying to do. I guess I'm just trying to say, with a half way decent camera you can get as deep into it as you like - if you want to manually set up every aspect of every frame you take you can......or you can just make a couple of adjustments and let the camera do the hard work. And then process the crap out of it in Lightroom of course
1
In reply to moffatross:
Indeed interesting. To me even the best EVFs on the market are horribly laggy, poor colour rendition and grainy in the dark but better during the day. I class them as just about useful. The best mirrorless AF is on par with an entry level DSLR and often significantly worse, particularly when it comes to burst shooting. As for the ergonomics, have you had a play with one of the top end Canons everything else seems like an ergonomic nightmare.
If you want grey market cameras I'd go HDEW cameras in the first instance (in the UK) then second Digitalrev (in Hong Kong) as they will take care of customs charges for you.
Indeed interesting. To me even the best EVFs on the market are horribly laggy, poor colour rendition and grainy in the dark but better during the day. I class them as just about useful. The best mirrorless AF is on par with an entry level DSLR and often significantly worse, particularly when it comes to burst shooting. As for the ergonomics, have you had a play with one of the top end Canons everything else seems like an ergonomic nightmare.
If you want grey market cameras I'd go HDEW cameras in the first instance (in the UK) then second Digitalrev (in Hong Kong) as they will take care of customs charges for you.
In reply to Hannes:
Totally agree, the image you'll see through an electronic viewfinder is quite compromised when it's very dark. But when it's that dark, the AF on any camera technology wouldn't work anyway, so you'd need a point light reference to be able to use either an electronic or an optical viewfinder for manual focussing.
Agree too regards AF, like I said a few posts back, fast focus tracking is the dSLR's current strength vs mirrorless, but maybe not such a biggy for the OP's 'landscape' requirements ?
As a bit of proof that darkness doesn't have to be a deal breaker, here are a few low light shots from my mirrorless camera, using ancient lenses & manually focussed through the EVF ...
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8629/15751342996_4a4667d1da_h.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5613/15605311968_38fe1111a6_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7577/15548003237_bf1090b877_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/16466267991_bbbd341044_h.jpg
Totally agree, the image you'll see through an electronic viewfinder is quite compromised when it's very dark. But when it's that dark, the AF on any camera technology wouldn't work anyway, so you'd need a point light reference to be able to use either an electronic or an optical viewfinder for manual focussing.
Agree too regards AF, like I said a few posts back, fast focus tracking is the dSLR's current strength vs mirrorless, but maybe not such a biggy for the OP's 'landscape' requirements ?
As a bit of proof that darkness doesn't have to be a deal breaker, here are a few low light shots from my mirrorless camera, using ancient lenses & manually focussed through the EVF ...
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8629/15751342996_4a4667d1da_h.jpg
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5613/15605311968_38fe1111a6_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7577/15548003237_bf1090b877_h.jpg
https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7435/16466267991_bbbd341044_h.jpg
In reply to buzby:
I have a Panasonic LX3 as my main "carry everywhere" camera and *had* an Eos 40D / 17-55 IS DSLR.
95% of my photos were taken on the LX3 - I just wouldn't take the 40D out with me very much, too big. I loved the ease of use and big, bright viewfinder, 8FPS etc.
So, last year I sold it and bought an Olympus EM-5 and it was the best decision ever. It's a M4:3 and handles just like a small DSLR, the viewfinder is great, lenses are small, superbly sharp and not horrendously expensive.
Unless photography is going to become your main "hobby" then I'd day you're better with something like that. The EM-10 can bough found for about £520 with the kit lens.
I have a Panasonic LX3 as my main "carry everywhere" camera and *had* an Eos 40D / 17-55 IS DSLR.
95% of my photos were taken on the LX3 - I just wouldn't take the 40D out with me very much, too big. I loved the ease of use and big, bright viewfinder, 8FPS etc.
So, last year I sold it and bought an Olympus EM-5 and it was the best decision ever. It's a M4:3 and handles just like a small DSLR, the viewfinder is great, lenses are small, superbly sharp and not horrendously expensive.
Unless photography is going to become your main "hobby" then I'd day you're better with something like that. The EM-10 can bough found for about £520 with the kit lens.
Post edited at 08:13
In reply to Hannes:
Which have you used? I really like the EVF on the Olympus E-M5 - especially for manual focus on legacy lenses as you can zoom in x 10 at the click of a button for more accurate focus. I always thought EVFs would be rubbish but was pleasantly surprised.
> What is far more important is how well it feels when you are using it. For this reason CSC isn't my first choice camera. I don't like the electronic viewfinder and the camera is small in my big hands making it difficult to use, particularly with gloves on.
Which have you used? I really like the EVF on the Olympus E-M5 - especially for manual focus on legacy lenses as you can zoom in x 10 at the click of a button for more accurate focus. I always thought EVFs would be rubbish but was pleasantly surprised.
In reply to Fultonius:
Same with the EVF on my Fuji XE-1 - very useful. The image is bright and clear and you can customise the information (histogram etc.) that you can see in it. If you go into any of the menus, you can see what you are doing without taking your eye away from it. It really only fails when it is too dark to see anything to take a photo anyway. It's difficult to see why I would want an optical viewfinder really.
> I really like the EVF on the Olympus E-M5 - especially for manual focus on legacy lenses as you can zoom in x 10 at the click of a button for more accurate focus.
Same with the EVF on my Fuji XE-1 - very useful. The image is bright and clear and you can customise the information (histogram etc.) that you can see in it. If you go into any of the menus, you can see what you are doing without taking your eye away from it. It really only fails when it is too dark to see anything to take a photo anyway. It's difficult to see why I would want an optical viewfinder really.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...