Recommend me a DSLR for circa £300

sinbaadi

As in description.  Phones do the point-and-shoot thing well enough these days, I'm just looking for something a bit more serious (but I don't have a fortune to spare). 

ThePrettyDamned

Nikon d3300 or canon equivalent. They're decent. 

Or, if you want  bigger, bulkier but weather sealed etc try an older model - like a d300.  I use a d200 and while its precise, quiet, smooth and amazingly well built the sensor tech is old - you won't pull much out of shadows and noise is fairly bad by iso 400.

All that said - are you quite a casual shooter? If so, have you seen the fuji xe2? Cracking thing. 

paul_c2

If you want to buy new then £300 will only get you the basic model of Canon or Nikon, which is probably good enough anyway but if you're quite happy to look at secondhand stuff, then going to the next model up offers advantages such as a flip-out screen (which can be very useful), more AF points, better continuous shooting etc. I have a Nikon D5100 and I also upgraded the lens from the standard 18-55 to an 18-140, which makes a big difference to the useability. I know I could have got a 55-300 lens but swapping would have been a PITA, hence the wider range.

If you honestly can't see yourself using the extra features the next model up brings, then you may as well buy as new as possible, possibly even seek out a brand new D3300 etc.

Nikon vs Canon? I'm not sure there's much in it, I went for Nikon because my dad has a Nikon DSLR too, so we're in theory able to swap lenses (he has more lenses).

paul_c2

To add: If you want to save a bit of money by buying secondhand but don't want to risk eBay etc, then be sure to check out London Camera Exchange. They're a chain of shops (not just in London) which sell both new and secondhand gear. For example:

https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-D5200-+-18-55-VR_159941.html

is in your budget. Or you could buy a D5100 body and an 18-105 lens separately for a decent setup for £310 or so: https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-D5100-Body-Only_159188.html and https://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Used/Nikon-18-105mm-AF-s-VR-F3.5-5.6_160318.html

holnrew

I had a Nikon D3200 (The D3300 is less good in low light and I like doing night photography. I had to sell it though unfortunately), I found it pretty good. I'll post some shots from Iceland I took with it.

holnrew

Tone71

I also have a Nikon D3200, takes some great pics.

paulnb57

I have a Nikon D7000, a bit more than your budget but very nice indeed....

strumjoughlamps

I would go mirrorless or possibly even premium compact.

Figure out what you want to shoot. Go shop and get a feel for the different brands.

Fortheloveofguitar

My wife is a professional photographer. 

She started out on a Nikon D3100 then upgraded to a D7000 then a D700 and now she's using a D750 and now she wants another 

She's got constant camera gas which works out well for me if I want gear too 

sinbaadi

Thanks all.
So is Nikon generally the choice brand even at the lowest price point?

I'm not against buying used but would not buy from ebay, thanks @PaulC2 for the link above, worth thinking about.

ThePrettyDamned

sinbaadi said:

Thanks all.
So is Nikon generally the choice brand even at the lowest price point?

I'm not against buying used but would not buy from ebay, thanks @PaulC2 for the link above, worth thinking about.

No. Nikon, canon and fuji all do great kit. 

There are reasons to pick - fuji have great out of camera jpg files with film simulation and they look really nice. Great lenses, too - the xe-2 can be upgraded to xe-2s specs via firmware too. 

Canon have the fastest lenses - more f/1.2 kit. Meaningless for most folks to be fair. A 56mm 1.2 fuji is cheaper and has the exact field of view and depth of field as an 85mm f/1.8 on full frame. So if you want backgrounds to melt, you're better off with longer lenses than ultra fast really. 

Nikon have the widest dynamic range sensors currently, and the flash system works better for strobe users (rear curtain works, unlike canon where it just doesn't unless it's a canon ttl flash). 

So... Frankly, pick one you like. To be honest, the fuji would get my vote. Just carry a spare battery. It's small, the lenses are excellent and the film sims really do great, great looking shots. 

fretmeister

Can you get something for £300 ish that would be fast enough for Grand Prix photos?

Drew_TNBD

As it happens I've got a Canon 650D that I'd flog for £300.

LoFi

fretmeister said:

Can you get something for £300 ish that would be fast enough for Grand Prix photos?

Not sure if serious, but just in case:

When people talk about the "speed" of a lens, they aren't referring to the shutter speed (which, at 1/1000th of a second, is more than fast enough for pretty much any application), but the amount of light that a lens lets in at a given focal length. "Faster" lenses let more light in, and give two main benefits: Ability to shoot in low light (more light in = shorter shutter speed for the same amount of light = less blur/camera shake) and shorter depth of field (meaning you can get your subject in focus with a pleasant blurry background).

If you mean "Will it take lots of pictures quickly when I hold down the button?", then the D3300 recommended will do 5fps (this surprised me - my 3100 will only do 3), rising to 12fps on the D5 (pro kit).

fretmeister

LoFi said:

fretmeister said:

Can you get something for £300 ish that would be fast enough for Grand Prix photos?

Not sure if serious, but just in case:

When people talk about the "speed" of a lens, they aren't referring to the shutter speed (which, at 1/1000th of a second, is more than fast enough for pretty much any application), but the amount of light that a lens lets in at a given focal length. "Faster" lenses let more light in, and give two main benefits: Ability to shoot in low light (more light in = shorter shutter speed for the same amount of light = less blur/camera shake) and shorter depth of field (meaning you can get your subject in focus with a pleasant blurry background).

If you mean "Will it take lots of pictures quickly when I hold down the button?", then the D3300 recommended will do 5fps (this surprised me - my 3100 will only do 3), rising to 12fps on the D5 (pro kit).

Yes - serious!

The admittedly cheap digi cameras I have owned had really bad shutter lag and the last time I looked at a camera (maybe 6 or 7 years ago) it was still a problem on cheaper models. So I used to dig out a film camera to take to the F1. And had the hassle of sending it off for development etc.



 

paul_c2

All DSLRs have a very good response time between pressing the button and the picture being taken, and can also (I think...not checked spec on all models) be programmed to take the shot anyway, or wait until the autofocus is in focus (I have mine set to take straight away). This is one area they excel compared to compact digital cameras. Another area they are good at is the power draw while on but not being used is very low, because they typically don't need to power the screen to show the shot or any other info - handy stuff can be shown with much less power within the viewfinder. This means you can leave them on....well pretty much all the time if you want. Also they tend to have higher capacity batteries, due to being bigger so being able to accommodate a physically larger one. And of course, there's no lag with extending a lens out, etc.

I don't know if decent bridge or MILC cameras have addressed these areas but its obviously worth a look if you are serious.

Regarding "fast shooting", there's several areas which could be defined as measures of speed: shutter lag; autofocus speed; amount of light onto the photosensor (ie aperture of lens), ISO sensitivity meaning shutter speed can be very short for a given aperture and exposure; and continuous shooting speed. DSLRs tend to be good at all these aspects, obviously a £5000 top-of-the-range camera is going to have more capability than a £300 basic model though.

Gagaryn

I bought an EOS 650D on eBay recently to cure my want of a DSLR. I'm pretty happy with it, you'll pick up a body for a couple  of hundred or less secondhand and there is plenty choice of reasonably priced lenses - the kit lens is pretty shit so wouldn't pay more to get a deal with that included.

ThePrettyDamned

Remember you *cannot* freeze action faster than the flash sync speed - generally 1/250th of a second or less. Any faster speeds can freeze action at the same speed as the flash sync but expose only a slit of the sensor at a time. 

But luckily, sync speeds of 1/200th can freeze lots of things well. Another method is using a very fast flash - not good for formula one. 

For focusing, you need to switch to manual and rattle off a few shots if you want it to shoot without hunting for focus. 

ThePrettyDamned

Note that some ancient dslrs, like the nikon d70,  have a true flash sync of 1/4000th or 1/8000th as it flashes the entire sensor. Modern sensors cannot do this. 

sinbaadi

I'm just a casual shooter hoping to return to a bit of hobbyism.  

It's often the case that you are forced to choose between discounted old models and new lower-end models which are around the same price point.  Then I get bogged down in thinking I need this or that feature, and then it's a "for just a little bit more I could have XYZ" story.  For example the D3300 can be had for £399 with the VR lens (do I need that?  It's just 20 odd more) and the Nikon accessory pack.

Are the kit lenses really that worthless?