UKC

About to take the plunge into SLR, thinking of buying a Cannon 2000d - will be my first camera, doubt I will want to upgrade in a few months, seems a decent enough price for what I want - or am I wasting my money and better of buying something else for a wee bit more money? 

Thoughts on this, plus others in that price range please.

For an APS-C body and lens with a budget of around £400-500 I would go 2nd hand, looking at MPB or Ffordes or somewhere similar. The 2000d looks fine as a body if you're set on getting one new. I wouldn't pay any extra for the 18-55mm kit lens and would recommend getting a better EF or EF-S lens 2nd hand. 

For example, Ffordes have an EOS 5D III body used for £450 at the moment. It's a bigger full-frame sensor and stronger body but is also heavier, and you'd still have to get a lens.

You say this is your first camera? Why SLR?

Another place to look is London Camera Exchange (LCE) for 2nd hand cameras & advice. Had a few things from them over the years. A Nikon D500 is a bargain at present 2nd hand that is. Not as heavy or bulky as full frame but rugged build & waterproof seals so ideal in a mountaineering environment.

Sorry, first SLR camera

Thanks. Was going to explore other options eg APS-C mirrorless, or full frame. I don't use an SLR so happy just to read others comments.

Do you really mean dSLR or are you just using that as a generic term for an SLR type body?

IMHO Mirrorless is probably the way to go and worth considering, lots of options about.

I've not done the research as I'm happy with my Nikon D7000 (or D7200 can't remember now) but if I was starting again, I would likely go mirrorless.

All the benefits of SLR, smaller and lighter. Just uses a bit more battery, probably not a problem these days.

Main drawback, it's not been around long, so sourcing quality second hand stuff for a reasonable price may be tricky.

If you're not likely to be on the move with it much, I expect there's some DX/APS-C frame bargains to be had with SLR as people switch over.

What are you planning on using it for. My DX never comes on hikes with me. Too heavy. Maybe a mirolless would come on gentle hikes. Maybe? Point and shoots are so good these days it's hard to justify bringing it everywhere.

+1 for buying 2nd hand. I'm thinking of selling my 60d body and keeping the lenses for when I have the time to swap to a mirroless canon.

Check model and mount compatibility, though there will almost certainly be an adapter. I've an EF-RF adapter and it works perfectly with all the lenses I've tried so far.

A technicality, but a Canon 2000D doesn't have a standard centre pin in the hot-shoe. 

This means you are restricted to using Canon branded flash guns, which are much more expensive than godox / yonguno ones. 

If you want to do any portrait or cave photography with off-camera flash this is really annoying. 

Canon 250D is the same I believe. 

Consider buying a second-hand 550D/600D/650D/700D.

Wot he said.

Technology has come on in leaps and bounds with mirrorless cameras that you should be amble to get some great bargains.

Another feature is that mirrorless cameras are usually lighter and smaller because there is no need for the mechanism within a dSLR camera.

Those cameras are good value, no doubt.
But was much happier with my shots (especially action) when I moved to full-frame, mirrorless a few years ago. 
Basically just junked my aps c lenses and if I had to do it again I wouldn't buy any such lenses  in the first place.
 

I guess the first question has to be: what sort of things do you want to take pictures of? 

Thanks guys, lots of food for thought - will have a look at mirror less and also second hand 

It’s like buying ones first bike - loads of choices out there depending on what you want to use the thing for

I asked the same question on here about 9 months ago and had lots of helpful replies....it's a bit of a challenge getting your head around all the info when you start out....

I settled on a Canon 600d which I got from MPB website.....I've also bought lenses from there and it's been a great site for information and I've always had a good service. knowing what I know now 9 months later I might have made a different choice but I am happy with what I have and it's still a big learning curve...

I now have a 18-55,  a zoom going up to 200 and a 10-18mm lens which covers all that I need and I've really enjoyed the learning process etc.

I'd definitely say you could spend a lot of money and for those who have it as a prime hobby I could see why you would want good kit....I'm happy with what I have for my level but if you look on the photo section of UKC there are some really excellent photographers...

I'd definitely look at second hand ...some of it is virtually new and offers a real discount in cost...good luck..

This is very true, the advantages of the more expensive kit are often minimal for most people, for instance focusing in the gloom, tracking fast objects, massive files (often a disadvantage) and are combined with a much heavier body.

Your system is comprehensive, unless you want to do birds and wildlife as you say. Getting a tripod or a flash with a flexible head might give you more opportunities.  

Time and thought are likely to improve photos the most. I have recently reviewed some pictures from a very busy day before Christmas and scolded myself that I hadn't just slowed down and taken a little more time although the recipient was happy enough. 

One of our parish has a mirrorless + lenses for sale.

If its still available and in your price range, snap his hand off as its an excellent camera with two lenses that will probably do you for many years before you think of getting sucked into extra lenses.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/for_sale+wanted/panasonic_g9_and_lenses-7...

Is it still necessary to say dSLR?

I just say SLR these days.

In the unlikely event I want to talk about a film SLR I would just say a 35mm SLR.

Probably not but a modern mirrorless isn’t an SLR so thought it would be worth asking if he actually meant SLR!

Whether Nikon or Canon or whatever, go entry level to start - they are very good. Posted similar a while back (probably on a thread referenced above), I recently upgraded from the entry level Nikon to a D810 (£700 second hand MBP).  Wished I’d stuck with my D320, waited a year and used the £700 to go mirrorless (Lemming is right - it’s the way to go). Going entry level dslr will get you used to the settings etc. I chat to loads of wildlife photographers - almost all moving away from dslr. Coz I’m a chatty sociable type, they often let me have a go with their set up and I’m sold. A significant number say the lightweight-ness of their set up has helped them get back into photography (they were using big heavy lenses though).  

You have to be careful to compare like with like. 'Mirrorless' is not necessarily lighter than SLR if you have the same sensor size, e.g.,  a Canon 600mm f4 RF (mirrorless, FF) lens weighs more than the 600mm f4 EF (SLR) lens. The weight advantage comes only comes in short focal length lenses - and in the body to a small extent. The reason wildlife photographer like 'lightweight mirrorless' is more to do with the availabilty of decent MFT system with sensor that are half the size of an FF sensor and hence don't need such long focal length to fill their frames with the subject. I have a mirrorless MFT G9 & 400mm for wildlife and yes, it's much lighter (and cheaper) than a Canon EF/RF body with an 800mm lens. The downside (that I willing to live with) is noise. The MFT sensor is much noisier in poor light than my FF 6d. So it's not a case of mirrorless-is-better-than-SLR, it's just a different set of compromises. Which is 'better' depends on circumstances.

I'm honoured 😀

I have a Flagship Mirrorless Panasonic GH6 (Now a year old but still top price) which is a hybrid camera and cost me a small fortune. The photos were good, and I was happy with them.

However this week I bought a second-hand Panasonic G9, almost a quarter of the price. It came out late December 2017 and was their Flagship Stills Camera at the time. Panasonic have not yet released an upgrade to that camera.

I've played with it this week using the exact same lenses and "Fek me" its awesome and blows the more expensive camera out of the water with the image quality that I have captured this week.

Going one gen back with cameras does not equal inferior image quality or inferior products.

I now see why people rave about the Panasonic G9 so much on this site.

It is also a very capable video camera and rivals the GH5 and just a step behind my current GH6.

Mirrorless is the future.

Can I ask which lens(es) you're using with the G9? 

From my limited (but growing) knowledge, you’re right. And regarding noise, I’ve heard similar. I’m developing an obsession with getting good barn owl shots, and hopefully my set up will pay dividends (watched a pair hunting last week, but was getting almost dark).  

I have lenses that go from 12mm all the way to 400mm

12-35 f2.8

35-100 f2.8

100-400 f4-f6.3

and some others

Tricky! MFT (like the G9) are great for birds in good light, but is going to struggle at dawn/dusk. An FF sensor would be much better but of course then you have the big/expensive lens problem. APS-C is perhaps a good compromise?  Still, what's life without challenges!

I must admit I'm surprised at the difference. Yes, smaller pixel, but only by 25%. Can you share some raw files from G9/GH6 of same target, same conditions, same lens?

Thank you. Are these Lumix lenses, or proprietary brands such as Sigma/Tamron? I'm in the market for a new camera and am struggling to navigate the options. Your suggestion of a second-hand G9 had me investigating, and it does seem like good deals on bodies are available, but only if I can get decent lenses. 

There are plenty of 'decent' MFT lenses and quite a few excellent ones. From my experience I can recommend the Panasonic Leica 12-60 F2.8-4 and the 100-400 F4-6.3. But as is often the case, it depends on what you want to do with it (wildlife, portraits, landscapes...) and how deep are your pockets.

These are my two lenses also, a great combo. Plan on picking up the Leica 15mm and Lumix 25mm and 43.5 at some point, just a pity they are not all weather sealed.

Where are you based? A photographer shooting in Nidderdale is always posting fantastic owl pictures, but does come up to there from elsewhere. If you are close it might be worth having a look. This is on Facebook, so might not be your thing and you do need to join the group!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/88920479682
https://www.facebook.com/groups/88920479682/user/512434244/

Yea sure, leave it with me for a while.

Panasonic make their lenses called Sumilux and then they have a licence with Leica to produce their own lenses to the standards that Leica put on their own kit. Leica then allow Panasonic to call the Lenses Leica lenses.

I have a mix of Panasonic , Leica and a single fully manual Laowa 7.5mm lens. All these lenses are incredibly pin sharp.

As an example that it is the camera rather than the lens which determines the sharpness of the lens, I have seen the difference using the exact same lens on four cameras from the same company. For example when I bought my Pznasonic GH4 camera I bought the 100-400mm lens.

I thought that this was one of those Bee's-Knees combos and thought that I had the best camera in the world with a pin-sharp lens. Then I got a Panasonic GH5 and could not believe my eyes at the step-up in image quality. This may have had more to do with the fact that the GH5 did not have an Anti-aliasing filter inside it.

And then I bought a Panasonic GH6 and went "Wow" as once again the image quality went up a further notch using the same lens. All three cameras were hybrid cameras primarily aimed at video work.

Last week I took a step back and dropped a generation, to a second-hand Panasonic G9, which is primarily a Stills camera, with excellent video capabilities, while its main focus was stills. Once again I used the exact same lens, 100-400, which was now getting on for five years old and was plesantly surprised to discover that the image quality surpassed Panasonic's most recent Micro FOur Thirds camera with an improved sensor.

My take-away from this slow progression of cameras isn't that lens built today are incredibly pin-sharp, its what device you attach them to and the ability to use the bit between your two ears that gets the best out of them.

If this camera and lenses are still for sale, bite their hand off.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/for_sale+wanted/panasonic_g9_and_lenses-7...?

I have this lens, the cheap plastic version. It is incredibly sharp and just as capable as my more spendy all-metal Leica 12mm prime lens. But I have only ever used it a couple of times and it sits unloved in my lens box.

Thanks for that - it clears up one point of confusion.

And many thanks for your very full reply - much food for thought.

Thank you, that's very helpful. I shall investigate further. 

This last point is the biggy (IMHO). Something like the G9 + Leica 12-60 is capable under lab conditions of producing pin sharp 80Mpx images (using the high-res pixel-shifting mode). Whether the photographer can manage that in the real (outdoor) world is quite another matter!

Finished work a bit early and went straight out for a mooch. Saw one barn owl perched quite high in a dead tree and it was magnificent. But the light was rubbish and it quickly went for a hunt. Saw it intermittently. I then saw it’s mate perched on a post. No photos, but brilliant. I am gradually sussing some of their patterns and I have a plan. Watch this space !  

I have not even experimented with the pixel shifting large files yet.

However I will play tomorrow with some landscape images.

Why is APS-C better than MFT in low light?

Asking as I have an APS-C.

Yeah it seems bargain for the money, i was tempted by the Leica 25mm MkII but its nearly 3 times the price and nowhere 3 times better from what i have seen, quite a noisy AF motor as well i think

I don't think there is a difference, well nothing as significant as FF.

To level the playing field I use software called Topaz Denise and it performs magic on my images cleaning up indoor shots. For me no need or desire to hurt my neck wearing a FF camera as a necklace.

I’ve read about Topaz. I’d always assumed it was a scam. A bit like the ‘lens tuning’ adverts I see on instagram.

Its awesome and worth every penny.

The problem with a 5D is the cost of decent lenses and the weight of them. I'd go mirrorless.

Yes, every option of body and lens is a trade-off: weight vs quality vs price vs flexibility. EF lenses are plentiful 2nd hand and can be cheaper than RF lenses which don't have such a large 2nd hand pool.

EF lenses work fine on the Canon full-frame mirrorless bodies with the EF-RF converter. 

At the risk of oversimplifying things, for a given sensor technology, exposure (shutter speed & aperture) and light level, the image noise will be inversely proportional to the pixel area simply because bigger pixels can collect more photons. FF typically will have less noise than APS-C and APS-C less than MFT. Whether the level of noise is a problem depends mainly on the light levels: In good daylight - not so much, but in low light the differences become more obvious.

It's not a scam, but there's a limit on what any 'noise reduction' post-processing can do before it starts 'inventing' stuff that isn't really there. AI-based noise reduction (like Topaz) takes the path of reducing the noise aggressively (which makes the images 'soft') and then guessing what detail might have been there that's been lost. Sometimes it guesses well, sometime less so. Either way it a guess and not necessarily what was actually there.

And whatever you use on a MFT image you can also use on an FF image

I have a theory that as people migrate from EF to RF, there should be a glut of good EF lenses on the market in the next few years. We live in hope.

Although that negates some of the size benefits of mirrorless, particularly with short focal length lenses.

This was put through the Topaz DeNoise and Sharpen washers.

It was a dark and noisy image.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/52067556125/in/dateposted/

Thanks.

Agreed, it negates some but not all. The R6 body plus EF converter are still smaller and lighter together than the ageing 5D MkI which was what I switched from. I'm using the same 30 year old EF lenses I already have which remain exactly the same size and weight as they were before .

For me, the driver to change bodies wasn't reducing weight but the more modern sensor with increased sensitivity and the more flexible focusing (eye-tracking, face-tracking) which are amazing. I don't need to upgrade lenses but if I had the cash I would try an RF lens next.

I managed to get another Wren today with only about two seconds of showtime before it exited stage left. It was between the sun and me making it a dark blob. Topaz cleaned up the noise nicely.

I find Topaz Sharpening too strong and stick with my trusty old Lightroom 5.7 for Sharpen Duties.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/the1lemming/52633994659/in/photolist-2oc5YSx

I cling to that theory and am still hopefully waiting. I actually sold a couple of L lenses that I wasn't using so much, partly because I anticipated they would plummet in value. It hasn't happened yet. 

My remaining EF lenses work a treat via the adapter, though I bought the control ring one thinking I'd assign aperture to it only to discover it doesn't support that function. I'll probably trade it in for the basic one which is also slightly smaller.

Ive actually met Topaz Denise, the jewel in Wigans crown.  And a very interesting back story about how she got her name.  
Stunning wren BTW, not easy to photograph.  

Agreed. My mirrorless G9 and my 6d are very different beasts for reasons nothing to do with mirrors. The G9 is more like a computer-that-takes-pictures and actually gets out more often. So many features - most of which I don't use. But there are times when only the 6d will do. 

My 6d is probably smaller than your old 5d - just checked: there's actually no difference in the body size between the G9 and 6d. Surprised me.

Agreed. I had a play with the Topaz suite (and some other AI-based post-processing tools) a while back. Denoise was OK if used sparingly, the others like Sharpening rarely gave convincing results - at least on my images.

Somewhat off-topic (but not too much): One AI photo tool I have found that work amazingly well is StarNet++. OK, a bit specialised - it separates stars from background in astro photos so that you can process them independently - but it really is so much better than anything else at that one job. It also is a job that does not synthesise or destroy data - it's just a classification job: perfect for AI.