Looking for a digital SLR on a budget

[Monty]

I've had the urge all of a sudden to purchase a digital SLR to do the occasional or opportunist 'fotting' during my PNBs at work. I am under no illusion that these cameras can be rather expensive pieces of kit, but I'd rather not spend a small fortune on something I may only use if and when I see something of interest. I have no real plans to go out on the hunt for traction around the country (I enjoy my creature comforts far too much for that kind of thing!

So I was wondering if someone could suggest a reasonably priced digital SLR that might suit my needs?

Cheers,

Monty

 

[Bevan Price]

Depends on what your budget is. Jessops have Canon EOS 1100D on offer at under £300 (with a "cash-back" arrangement - pay £302, but get back £30 when you register it with Canon). You will need to pay extra if you want a camera case, lens filter or spare batteries, etc. The 18-55 mm kit lens may not be the best in the world, but it should be adequate for most purposes, and you can always upgrade later if you want.
http://www.jessops.com/
They also offer a Nikon D3100 at £329. Either model should provide most of the basic needs for rail photography.

 

[JohnB57]

BP's recommendation is sound - both the Canon and Nikon are really good cameras that will last years and excellent value on this deal. I'd go for the Canon, but it's the brand I use. See how they both feel and take it from there.

Don't be tempted by the bundle deals though - for cases, batteries etc you'll do better for less with careful surfing. Jessops make more on the accessories than the camera itself and things like filters and batteries are not OEM, they're cheap own brand.

And don't bother with protection filters anyway. They're not necessary and never improve a photo, only degrade them by varying degrees from hardly noticeable to quite a lot, depending on cost. Better to spend money on a lens hood and a decent size bag.

Of course, if you have a bigger budget, the world's your lobster...

 

[GB]

And don't bother with protection filters anyway. They're not necessary and never improve a photo, only degrade them by varying degrees from hardly noticeable to quite a lot, depending on cost. Better to spend money on a lens hood and a decent size bag.

Depends on who you talk to. The opinion on protection filters are pretty much split down the middle.

They have saved my lens a couple of times where a hood has not been practical. I personally do no see any image derogation but I'd rather have a little bit of that then ruin a £900 lens!

As for the OP, do you really require a DSLr for your needs? Perhaps look at a bridge camera?

 

[JohnB57]

Depends on who you talk to. The opinion on protection filters are pretty much split down the middle.

They have saved my lens a couple of times where a hood has not been practical. I personally do no see any image derogation but I'd rather have a little bit of that then ruin a £900 lens!

As for the OP, do you really require a DSLr for your needs? Perhaps look at a bridge camera?

Errm - not really. Filters degrade images, no dispute, no argument. But if you spend maybe £40 for a decent B&W 58mm clear, you probably won't notice the difference. I must admit that I use B&W on my gear mainly through habit, but also because it provides additional weatherproofing on my L lenses. But anything cheaper than B&W or similar is a waste of money and if the picture is marginal or critical, I take the filter off.

Oddly, in 45 years taking pictures, I have never had a situation where the filter has saved my lens but plenty where the hood has helped. My point really though was that the bundled filters are not worth the money and will affect picture quality and even AF performance.

On bridge cameras, I also use Sony NEX and they are simply not the right tool for the job. Using a screen in bright light is unreliable and battery life pretty short. DSLRs are simply the best thing - ask Paul Bigland!

 

[GB]

Errm - not really. Filters degrade images, no dispute, no argument.

I didn't say they don't degrade images, I said I personally don't see it. Perhaps because I didn't go down the cheap route.

On bridge cameras, I also use Sony NEX and they are simply not the right tool for the job. Using a screen in bright light is unreliable and battery life pretty short. DSLRs are simply the best thing - ask Paul Bigland!

I don't need to ask Paul Bigland, I know full well the capabilities DSLrs bring. The point was that if you are only going to be using it sporadically (ie on PNBs or when the odd time takes your fancy) bridge cameras might be an option.

You shouldn't rule it out purely based on your model or your requirements.

 

[JohnB57]

I didn't say they don't degrade images, I said I personally don't see it. Perhaps because I didn't go down the cheap route.

I don't need to ask Paul Bigland, I know full well the capabilities DSLrs bring. The point was that if you are only going to be using it sporadically (ie on PNBs or when the odd time takes your fancy) bridge cameras might be an option.

You shouldn't rule it out purely based on your model or your requirements.

Agreed then. Cheap filters = poor results. You have no experience of them, I have loads, plus stacks of anecdotal evidence.

I haven't ruled out bridge cameras on anything other than experience and I know the various models available and the differences between them - I use mine regularly but never for sports/action/rail. The fact remains that an LCD screen is unreliable in bright sunlight and an EVF lags slightly and is not as bright as an optical viewfinder. On top of this, a high end large sensor bridge with similar lens costs at least double the price of either of the DSLRs recommended above, so why would it be a better option for the OP's requirement?

 

[GB]

Who said anything about high end large sensor bridge cameras?

 

[Donny Dave]

Your best idea will probably be to go to a large photography shop (for example, WEX Photographic in Norwich), and talk to the staff their about what your after and what you'll be using it for. They then will be able to advise you of something suitable, plus the added benefit of being able to check out the camera's there.

 

[Temple Meads]

If it's primarily for sporadic 3 quarter shots you might be best off with an advanced compact (like the Canon SX160 IS), it'll fit into a pocket, and won't break the bank to buy.

If you want perfect image quality then go for an SLR, but do consider whether you'll use it enough to make an SLR worth it.

 

[Monty]

Thanks for your opinions and sugguestions chaps I'll certainly keep it mind when selecting a camera. May have to wait until my next pay cheque though.