Digital photography

Get a second hand D100. Then spend the rest of your money on second hand lenses. Spend as much as you can afford on the lenses, not the body. The guys at http://www.apertureuk.com/ will sort you out.

d80 (autofocus)/d60 + second hand lenses.

Second hand 1st gen tokina 12-24 I believe will come way under 400..likewise a sigma, but the tokinas are nicer.

D100>d80/d60.

Nobody* needs *more than 6mp. Prints from my D100 blew up to A3 really well.

Some horrendous digital photography newbie questions for you... Which DSLR for £600? Nikon D5100 or Canon 600D? I used to have a Canon film SLR and liked the controls a lot. I was OK, but student finances and cost of film made for slow progress. I'd also like a wide/super wide lense - I take it there's no way short of £400 to get one? ANy advice from those with more knowledge and experience gratefully received.

simple! buy my lenses and get as good body you can for the rest

http://www.lfgss.com/thread79964.html

D100>d80/d60.

Nobody* needs *more than 6mp. Prints from my D100 blew up to A3 really well.

It's not about the px though is it. I couldn't really get on with a tiny review screen myself, plus the size difference, in my opinion, is worth the £.. Especially on a first dslr which you might want to take everywhere..

I used to be of the same thinking, its not about how many megapixel, but the quality of the pixels.

I have an archaic canon 20d (2004-2006 semipro body) which boasts a mighty 8MP but until quite recently I was really happy with it.
But now, finally, even absolute bottom end DSLR's show it up in every respect.

Its not the pixel count, its the ISO range (mine tops out at 3200, but not really usable beyond 1600) and the ridiculous brightness/contrast (right terms?) range. A modern camera, even a basic one will make your life a lot easier.

HOWEVER, there is a catch22. Which is now digital sensors are lightyears on from where they were even 4-5years ago, lenses have not, and bottom end kit lenses, are mostly exactly the same as what was supplied with a 2002-2004 age body. So whats happening now is these much more advanced sensors are heavily limited by the quality of glass most people are putting infront of them.

Also worth noting the 18-55IS (or the tele, or the 17-85IS) kit lenses that canon supply are some of the worst excuses for lenses I have ever come across, expect to have to replace them very quickly. Partly from being optically, 'limited', and partly because they will likely mechanically fail pretty quick too.

For a wide angle, cheapest one worth a damn is the Tokina 11-16/2.8 All the others are incredibly unsharp with suspect build quality*

*Truth. I've never ever come across a sigma 10-20 (not new one) where the elements are aligned properly, they always have a corner that is more vignetted than the others, and i've used/borrowed/stolen about 15 of them from different people/sources.

I can second the sigma issues.

My Tokinas on the other hand are solid, and still going strong after a few years of abuse. I'd however recommend the 12-24, since 11-16 is much wider/less useful than you imagine.. I'm looking at the 16-50 now, but apparently it has some issues.

needs to be posted

actual proof of all the gear no idea.
Not a decent piece of glass in sight! So much better to have less crap and more L glass.

So much better to have less crap and more L glass.

No idea what the actual context of this picture is but to be fair he's written at least several pieces saying exactly that.

It's an odd picture because usually he preaches the "just go take photos" thing. I prefer to get my info from dpreview anyway.

Aye, I prefer DPreview but I just google image searched and although I didn't read the article it was something about doing a comparison between cameras. None of them were the D7000 so I didn't care after that.

needs to be posted

Kirth?

Aye, I prefer DPreview but I just google image searched and although I didn't read the article it was something about doing a comparison between cameras. None of them were the D7000 so I didn't care after that.

Maybe you won't want to hear this. I bought a D7000, used to have a D80 but dropped it off a wall. The difference is enormous and, I think, a counterbalance to the "it's all about the lenses" dogma. Using the same lenses the pictures are sharper, the grain is grain rather than noise, the focusing is better (the 3D tracking is amazing), the metering is better, the ISO range/low light ability is much better, the controls are better, the flexibility is better, the U1/U2 presets are incredibly useful, it has 2 card slots. And it shoots video - though not very well, I think.
All in all it makes it easier to take a greater variety of pictures. The reaction I got to my pictures (admittedly not from people who wake up screaming in the middle of the night having had a bad dream about barrel distortion) when I started using the D7000 just confirmed it, Same (cheap-ish) lenses, better camera, better photos.

fuck off

Excuse me?

/jealousy

Ah. I had to suffer an injury to get the (insurance) money for the camera if that makes you feel any better

It does, cheers ;)

Anyone interested in a 600d? With kit lens and bag? Not sure how much to ask for it either.

Get a second hand D100. Then spend the rest of your money on second hand lenses. Spend as much as you can afford on the lenses, not the body. The guys at http://www.apertureuk.com/ will sort you out.

If you'd said D90 then maybe, but D100? Come on... Yes investing in good lenses is the thing to do, but not at the expense of a better sensor, better autofocus, better handling - basically 6 years of digital camera improvements between those two models, and 10 since the D100 was released. There's a sensible middle ground for the DSLR purchaser in 2012, and the D100 is nowhere near it.

HOWEVER, there is a catch22. Which is now digital sensors are lightyears on from where they were even 4-5years ago, lenses have not, and bottom end kit lenses, are mostly exactly the same as what was supplied with a 2002-2004 age body. So whats happening now is these much more advanced sensors are heavily limited by the quality of glass most people are putting infront of them.

Also worth noting the 18-55IS (or the tele, or the 17-85IS) kit lenses that canon supply are some of the worst excuses for lenses I have ever come across, expect to have to replace them very quickly. Partly from being optically, 'limited', and partly because they will likely mechanically fail pretty quick too.

For a wide angle, cheapest one worth a damn is the Tokina 11-16/2.8 All the others are incredibly unsharp with suspect build quality*

Not always true. The 18-55 supplied with low-end Nikon kits is a very capable lens, even wide open.

needs to be posted

Plug!

It needs a caption. 5 DSLRs, only photographs the kids.

Some horrendous digital photography newbie questions for you... Which DSLR for £600? Nikon D5100 or Canon 600D? I used to have a Canon film SLR and liked the controls a lot. I was OK, but student finances and cost of film made for slow progress. I'd also like a wide/super wide lense - I take it there's no way short of £400 to get one? ANy advice from those with more knowledge and experience gratefully received.

For £600? Canon 5D mk1. Fo shizzle.

What's that? Do I know anyone that's selling one? Well, it just so happens...