Help please!

[richardh8828]

so are you trying to say the sony A200 is crap for a first proper Dslr?

[postcardcv]

Originally Posted by richardh8828

so are you trying to say the sony A200 is crap for a first proper Dslr?

I'm certainly not saying that and I don't think anyone else on here would either - the A200 is a very capable camera and I'm sure you'll get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I was just agreeing that you can read as much as you like about differnet brands and models (often written by those who use it and have a definite bias) but nothing beats getting to a shop and seeing which you prefer.

[gordon g]

Originally Posted by postcardcv

I'm certainly not saying that and I don't think anyone else on here would either - the A200 is a very capable camera and I'm sure you'll get a lot of enjoyment out of it. I was just agreeing that you can read as much as you like about differnet brands and models (often written by those who use it and have a definite bias) but nothing beats getting to a shop and seeing which you prefer.

I'd second that. It is very hard to buy a bad entry level dslr these days. They are all capable, all offer manual and semi-auto modes, all have enough pixels to print easily at A4. The differences as far as the bodies go are down to ease of use, handling etc - and to tell that you really need to handle the camera.
There might be some advantage of some brands over others in terms of lenses and accessories, though. Konica-minolta had backwards compatability with it's older lenses, some of which were superb (and very cheap secondhand). I dont know if that has been continued with Sony, which bought K-M out - someone on here will know for sure.

[yelvertoft]

Originally Posted by gordon g

Konica-minolta had backwards compatability with it's older lenses, some of which were superb (and very cheap secondhand). I dont know if that has been continued with Sony, which bought K-M out - someone on here will know for sure.

Sony models certainly are compatible with the later K-M accessories and lenses.

Richard, I'll say it again, ANY of the models you are interested in will offer all the features you need, and produce perfectly good pictures. Go into a shop, have a play with them, buy the one you get on with the best, FROM THAT SHOP, and go out and take pictures with it.

Whichever camera you choose, it will not make you any better or worse a photographer.

[andy153]

Richard, here is an example of how hung up we get - I'm a Nikon fanatic, have been for over 30 years so I would recommend a Nikon D60 and wash my mouth out before mentioning any other brand, But truth be told, there are some very good cameras in your price range, If you go to Jessops you can get your hands on most of them so do that and see what suits you sir!! Do not be fooled by the sales persons mega pixel myth - most 4 to 10 MP will give you very good results up to 16" x12" print size. The thing to concentrate on is the quality of the lenses. Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus Leica, all make good "glass" and have been doing so for years. Some Sigma and Tamron lenses are very good as well. Get a camera that YOU feel comfortable with and does what YOU want - as for a tripod - you can spend more than your budget to get a good one; and a poor one is a waste of money ( example - The Arca Swiss Ball Head alone on one of my tripods cost over £200, weighs over 1lb and that's without any legs!) .

[richardh8828]

im now starting to think of buying an advanced compact?
like a canon G10 or something..
or is that not a good idea?
to be honest ill be stick with whichever stock lens i buy for a DSLR...
like i just want a camera thats good quality with manual controls esp of shutter speed..
how slow can a canon G10 go?

[miketoll]

Advanced compact or DSLR? Depends what you want from a camera. The compact is light to always have with you and will take excellent photos in reasonable light. The DSLR is far more versatile (especially as you gradually add lenses, flash gun and other bits and pieces over the years) and will inherently give higher quality, especially in poor light but rather bulky to take out casually. The G10 is a fine camera capable of superb results but ISO 800 is the maximum you can set for reasonable quality without too much noise but 400 is better and the lower settings better still. For the specification of the G10 have a look on Canons website. http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod...ex.asp?specs=1

[richardh8828]

i think its more me to be honest..it has 15secs max shutter speed which is enough...
takes good photos... fun and serious...a wide lens (im a landscape junkie)
and easily carried..
easy to use..
fully manual..
what you think?

[gordon g]

The most important thing is that you think you will have it with you. There's no point in owning a bells and whistles camera if it never leaves the cupboard. As Mike says, dslrs are more flexible, mainly because of interchangeable lenses, but if a G10 meets your needs and you like the feel of it, go for it!

[richardh8828]

i would use the G10 alot more...easier to use and can fit in my pocket...
has alot of great features eg 15sec time delay...face recognition...wide angle lens etc..

but i dunno if its worth the £350 to me personally..

i think i will go for it..