Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Budget camera buying advice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Budget camera buying advice

    Hi everyone,
    I am currently looking at upgrading my camera from a Nikon D50 to something a little better. I am looking for a Body for under 300.
    I want to move away from Nikon due to the lens compatibility (AF-S for newer bodies = more expensive lenses). I am particularly grasped by Canon bodies. I have the following options -
    Canon 100D/SL1 ~
    Canon 1300D/T6 ~ 300
    Sony A68 ~
    Nikon D7100 ~
    Canon 7D ~ 420
    [All including lenses]

    Here's a speadsheet with the specs on https://www.dpreview.com/products/co...tDir=ascending

    Despite being older the 7D is very convincing. If you have any suggestions, or comments or even own/ed one of these then please feel free to let me know.

    Cheers
    Adam
    Last edited by Adam Quinn; 2019-01-20, 19:41. Reason: Prices include lenses now

  • #2
    Mirror reflex are technically survivals of the film era, coming from the last century.
    If you start from a blank page, look at the future : mirrorless cams (Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad, Sigma, Fuji... Canon or Nikon who are trying to get on the band wagon with stratospheric prices) give less weight, smaller stuff, affordable prices and much greater possibilities. For Panasonic and Olympus, the "Micro 4/3" standard offers a very large range of lenses.

    Comment


    • #3
      Look for a used Canon Rebel or, as you mentioned, get the 7D. I use one and it is fantastic.
      Or a used 5D Mk II (my dad uses one and it produces fantastic photos for its age.)



      https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
      https://www.instagram.com/crosswind_...ography/?hl=en

      Comment


      • #4
        Look at used cameras/refurbs. I got my two lense D3400 kit for $300 less than the price of a new one by going with a refurbished camera. They work just like new and if there is something wrong with it they will usually tell you.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by zomeu View Post
          Mirror reflex are technically survivals of the film era, coming from the last century.
          If you start from a blank page, look at the future : mirrorless cams (Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad, Sigma, Fuji... Canon or Nikon who are trying to get on the band wagon with stratospheric prices) give less weight, smaller stuff, affordable prices and much greater possibilities. For Panasonic and Olympus, the "Micro 4/3" standard offers a very large range of lenses.
          Mirrorless lenses don't have viewfinders, correct?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by CrosswindPhoto View Post
            Look for a used Canon Rebel or, as you mentioned, get the 7D. I use one and it is fantastic.
            Or a used 5D Mk II (my dad uses one and it produces fantastic photos for its age.)
            I does look incredibly good. I'd rather go used and pay less and get better quality out, I don't see the benefit in paying 200 more and knowing it's brand new, my camera is nearly 14 years old and it still works, the 7D also boasts a variety of extras such as 19 focus points to 9, waterproof, 8 fps continuous. As for the 5D it is 200 more than I'm looking at unfortunately.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Michael Rodeback View Post
              Look at used cameras/refurbs. I got my two lense D3400 kit for $300 less than the price of a new one by going with a refurbished camera. They work just like new and if there is something wrong with it they will usually tell you.
              I certainly wouldn't go new, everything seems overpriced when you look at used. That 1300D is actually 320 for 18-55mm lens and a 70-300mm lens.

              Comment


              • #8
                "Mirrorless lenses don't have viewfinders, correct?"

                False, obviously. Hard prejudices are hard to kill...
                The most recent electronic viewfinders give better images than optical ones, they allow keeping a constant view during bursts with tracking focus, they allow to see the image even in very low light and give all the informations about settings.
                Mirrorless systems offer generally five axis stabilization of body AND lens, which is impossible with reflex. The benefit can be around five or six stops. An Olympus OM-D EM1 MkII can shoot at 1/2 sec handheld without any waste.
                Inform you, try it yourself (Sony Alpha 7R-III for example, or Panasonic G9 or Olympus EM-1 II or EM-10 III...)
                To try is to adopt, and anyway within the five or six coming years, no mechanic mirror reflex will be produced anymore, even by Nikon or Canon.

                https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...50___1187_1177

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adam Quinn View Post
                  ...the 7D also boasts a variety of extras such as 19 focus points to 9, waterproof, 8 fps continuous...
                  The 7D should also have a bigger buffer size than the other Canons you listed, which would come in handy if you wanted to shoot RAW continuous.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by zomeu View Post
                    "Mirrorless lenses don't have viewfinders, correct?"

                    False, obviously. Hard prejudices are hard to kill...
                    The most recent electronic viewfinders give better images than optical ones, they allow keeping a constant view during bursts with tracking focus, they allow to see the image even in very low light and give all the informations about settings.
                    Mirrorless systems offer generally five axis stabilization of body AND lens, which is impossible with reflex. The benefit can be around five or six stops. An Olympus OM-D EM1 MkII can shoot at 1/2 sec handheld without any waste.
                    Inform you, try it yourself (Sony Alpha 7R-III for example, or Panasonic G9 or Olympus EM-1 II or EM-10 III...)
                    To try is to adopt, and anyway within the five or six coming years, no mechanic mirror reflex will be produced anymore, even by Nikon or Canon.

                    https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...50___1187_1177
                    I think given current prices it may well be my next camera, when a camera says continous 3fps, does that mean at 1/100th of a second it will do 3 1/100 shots in a second then stop? My current camera is 2.5fps and I've no idea what that means, it seems clear that highers fps is better for sport photography.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Quebec Golf View Post
                      The 7D should also have a bigger buffer size than the other Canons you listed, which would come in handy if you wanted to shoot RAW continuous.
                      Bigger buffer size?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Adam Quinn View Post
                        I think given current prices it may well be my next camera, when a camera says continous 3fps, does that mean at 1/100th of a second it will do 3 1/100 shots in a second then stop? My current camera is 2.5fps and I've no idea what that means, it seems clear that highers fps is better for sport photography.
                        It is how many photos the camera can take in second. It can't necessarily be maintained continuously because of memory limitations (buffer size and memory card write speed). When shooting an aircraft in motion, for example, it can be advantageous to have the ability to get more shots. Higher FPS lets you do that.

                        Edit: and oh yeah, if the shutter speed is set quite slow (long exposure for example) then the advertised max FPS will, of course, be impossible to achieve.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Adam Quinn View Post
                          Bigger buffer size?
                          It's internal camera memory. It's where pictures go after you've captured them but before they have been written to the memory card. Buffer size is important because if you are shooting at a high rate (high FPS) and large file size, you may be creating data at a faster rate than can be written to the memory card. Bigger buffer means more seconds of shooting before it's full and the camera can't take any more pictures.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Quebec Golf View Post
                            It is how many photos the camera can take in second. It can't necessarily be maintained continuously because of memory limitations (buffer size and memory card write speed). When shooting an aircraft in motion, for example, it can be advantageous to have the ability to get more shots. Higher FPS lets you do that.

                            Edit: and oh yeah, if the shutter speed is set quite slow (long exposure for example) then the advertised max FPS will, of course, be impossible to achieve.
                            So lets say I shoot 1/250th and camera has 8fps continuous, the camera will shoot for 1 or 2 seconds, theoretically? I just want to be able to get burst shots, with my camera now I can get a shot on rotation, a shot parallel and a shot from behind, I wish I could get 5 or 6 shots from the aircraft moving from rotation to past me, hard to describe what I mean...

                            Originally posted by Quebec Golf View Post
                            It's internal camera memory. It's where pictures go after you've captured them but before they have been written to the memory card. Buffer size is important because if you are shooting at a high rate (high FPS) and large file size, you may be creating data at a faster rate than can be written to the memory card. Bigger buffer means more seconds of shooting before it's full and the camera can't take any more pictures.
                            So the 7D has a considerable higher buffer speed?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Adam Quinn View Post
                              So lets say I shoot 1/250th and camera has 8fps continuous, the camera will shoot for 1 or 2 seconds, theoretically?
                              1/250 isn't slow enough to limit burst speed, it would take a shutter speed closer to 1/8. FPS is a mechanical thing with the shutter and mirror, the camera should be able to sustain it indefinitely, but you would run into memory issues (buffer and card write) within a second or a few depending on file size.

                              Originally posted by Adam Quinn View Post
                              I just want to be able to get burst shots, with my camera now I can get a shot on rotation, a shot parallel and a shot from behind, I wish I could get 5 or 6 shots from the aircraft moving from rotation to past me, hard to describe what I mean...
                              That's perfectly clear. I photographed an aircraft landing the other day and ended up with 35 shots. At any rate, more fps and a bigger buffer size is just what's needed for that type of application.

                              Originally posted by Adam Quinn View Post
                              So the 7D has a considerable higher buffer speed?
                              The 7D has twice the speed (fps) and twice the buffer size of the 100D or 1300D.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X