Yeah, that's a D200-level weather-sealed camera. The previously mentioned cameras are toys compared to that (some maybe with better IQ, but nonetheless).
It's just not a metal body, like the D200 (it does have a metal frame).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'Best' dSLR - Student - Advice/Recommendations?
- Thread starter LERsince1991
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, that's a D200-level weather-sealed camera. The previously mentioned cameras are toys compared to that (some maybe with better IQ, but nonetheless).
It's just not a metal body, like the D200 (it does have a metal frame).
Looks like a pretty good offer
Just wondering why it would be any better? In what way?
Looks like a pretty good offer
Just wondering why it would be any better? In what way?
For me, to move from a D80 to a D200, or K100D to K10D (GX-10), the weather sealing is reason enough.
They also have it with the 18-55 alone for £320. I'd get both, they're so cheap.
Why do I think this is a good deal? What's a similar price? The EOS 1000D? As has been said - a toy by comparison, build, interface, viewfinder, will all be superior. This also has built in IS. If this was my budget - this is what I would get. Pentax lenses also seem to be cheaper than Can/Nik equivs and are pretty darned good.
Ultimately though, any of the SLRs you could buy are fine, the images out of any of the Canons, Nikons, Olympus, Pentax, Sony... are great. Hence it coming down to build and price.
Why do I think this is a good deal? What's a similar price? The EOS 1000D? As has been said - a toy by comparison, build, interface, viewfinder, will all be superior. This also has built in IS. If this was my budget - this is what I would get. Pentax lenses also seem to be cheaper than Can/Nik equivs and are pretty darned good.
Ultimately though, any of the SLRs you could buy are fine, the images out of any of the Canons, Nikons, Olympus, Pentax, Sony... are great. Hence it coming down to build and price.
Did you mean to suggest that I had made an "any one is great" statement and that it was wrong? I stand by it, I don't think anyone of general usage and talent would have trouble with any of them, and seriously, are you suggesting the D3 is not astounding?
This information should end the discussion of which brand is right for the OP. He has three Canon EF lenses already, and he can get a huge discount on a new Canon from a Canon employee. He's on a student budget. Therefore he should get a Canon. Anyone starting from scratch with no lenses and no brand-specific discount should consider all brands, but the OP has one obvious choice here.
As for whether to get the 1000D or 450D, I think you should feel the grips on both before deciding. That slick, un-rubberized grip of the cheaper camera could be very bothersome.
I'm seriously considering getting that samsung but aren't the macro lenses really expensive for it (and most cameras)?
The absolute cheapest lens you could get for macro is about £275 and is the Sigma 50mm macro. I would say that you should stick with canon if you can get those discounts and already have lenses available to you.
I bought my first DSLR a few months ago. Not very good yet but check out http://www.flickr.com/delicacy to get an idea of what the D60 can do. (Some photos are from my phone-cam).
I've liked it so far although I'm a little bummed that it doesn't do autobracketing. Research that to see if its important to you before u make a purchase.
I've liked it so far although I'm a little bummed that it doesn't do autobracketing. Research that to see if its important to you before u make a purchase.
Ah. That would be the deal braker for me which is a shame. My macro lens isnt that great as it needs an attachment for it be a macro lens. Its a 100mm-300mm which isn't ideal but it does the job. Would have preffered a smaller macro lens.
Alumac, those pics look pretty cool.
Thanks everyone here! amazing help
So its down to the Canon 1000D or 450D. I guess If I can get the 1000D for £230 I'll go for that. it's probably not worth the extra £105 (if I can get the discount) for the 450D.
Which If I can get would be amazing
I will probably post here when I get one so you all know
Cheers.
I'm not trying to be disparaging but I don't think the 100-300 or the 35-70 that the OP has are very good. I actually have the 35-70 myself (inherited) it's built very nicely but optically so-so. The 28mm may be good but it's easily sold. None of these lenses are macro lenses. The 18-55 and 50-200 mm lenses with the pentax will almost certainly give results better than these two pre-existing EF zooms.
Of course, if you want to stick with them, I am sure that you will have a lot of fun, but quality is not a reason to.
Edit - I also have the sigma 50mm macro, it is massively better than any 'Macro' zoom I have used. Plus, you can screw close up filters onto any zoom.
Of course, if you want to stick with them, I am sure that you will have a lot of fun, but quality is not a reason to.
Edit - I also have the sigma 50mm macro, it is massively better than any 'Macro' zoom I have used. Plus, you can screw close up filters onto any zoom.
You're almost certainly correct, but he'll also get the kit lens with the 1000D, and it easily competes with the Pentax kit lens. So he'll have a really good 18-55, plus some longer zooms and a fast prime, all for £230 (about $340). Hard to beat that!
Ya I agree its not a good 'macro' lense, it is however a hell of a lot cheaper than any macro lense, going on your prices. Personally I would have liked to get new lenses with the new camera but if I can't get a macro lense for less than the camera itself I may aswell get a Canon to use these lenses
Attachments
You're almost certainly correct, but he'll also get the kit lens with the 1000D, and it easily competes with the Pentax kit lens. So he'll have a really good 18-55, plus some longer zooms and a fast prime, all for £230 (about $340). Hard to beat that!
If he can get the 1000D and the kit lens for £230 it is the best deal, yes. I am not knocking this but making a decision based upon the existence of these lenses is perhaps unwise, the 100-300 is sure to disappoint. http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00QO4r seems to suggest it is not the best. I would say, probably, putting a reasonable close-up filter on the kit lens would give better results. I have a set of (fairly poor) close up filters myself and they provide quite a nice dreamy effect. Good ones I have no doubt can be excellent.
Do buy the canon with the kit lens (the IS one) as it is usually bundled as a bargain, though, the 28mm will make a nice 'standard' if primes are his thing.
Yes, I was also not sure how much value those lenses bring if they are old+consumer, not old+pro, and he won't be using all of them given his kit zoom.
Maybe he should be looking at how much he would get selling that old gear, and how much a used (maybe also old) lens like he wants costs.
And there's still too much speculation about that discount.
Maybe he should be looking at how much he would get selling that old gear, and how much a used (maybe also old) lens like he wants costs.
And there's still too much speculation about that discount.
Ah, So thats what created the 'dreamy' effect in my latest macro shoots (3 Films). I liked it... because its macro and it's something you can't see in life with the naked human eye, it works with the dreamy effect. It's only noticable when zoomed in though.
Ah didn't realise I would be able to 'convert' a normal lens to a reasonable macro lens with a cheap additional module lens.
There's a cheap trick that you can use to get macro-esque images as well. Take any pair of cheap binoculars, remove their front lens elements and tape them together. Then take a 52mm filter (for your 28mm lens) break out all of the glass and use electrical tape to tape the two lens elements together until they will fit inside of the 52mm filter. Once finished then simply screw your new filter onto the lens and you have a macro setup. (It works significantly better if you stop down to about f/8 and use a tripod)
I have used this before to get macro shots and it worked surprisingly well. (here is one shot that I took using a 50mm with that setup. It was only shot at f/4 so it wasn't optimally sharp and it was handheld which further lowered the sharpness, but it was pretty good I thought.)
Another way to get a cheap macro setup would be to take a wide angle lens and reverse it. Thus the front of the lens would be pointing at the camera and the rear would be pointing outwards. This works best with older lenses that have an actual aperture ring though, as you cannot stop down since the lens is not connected to the camera. (here is an example using this setup with a Canon 17-40mm /4. I had to put the ISO to the max to get a reasonable shutter speed, so mind the noise. Although this setup allowed me to get six times life size, in other words it was six times closer than a dedicated macro lens would allow you to focus. Again not the best picture, but I don't often stray into macro photography, I'm just a gearhead
)And the final cheap way to get a macro-esque setup would be to order extension tubes. They put distance between the lens and the camera and thus allow you to focus closer. There are two types of extension tubes, ones that have the electrical contacts and maintain the connection between the lens and the camera body, and those that don't. Here is an example of the latter, that doesn't, it is very cheap and will allow you to get macro shots. Here is an example of the former, which will retain the connection between the lens and camera, it is priced significantly more, so you'll have to decide if it is worth it for you.
I'd try those three in order, such as if you don't like the first, go to the second, then the third until you find the ideal setup for yourself within your budget. Hope this helps a bit
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Haha, more ways to go macro than I imagined.
What about an additional lens like the one pictured here? Could this be a 'neater' solution to get a macro lens?
sorry I'm not that knowledgeable of more advanced and general digital photography. only started doing a black and white film course at school with 100% manual cameras not so long ago.
What about an additional lens like the one pictured here? Could this be a 'neater' solution to get a macro lens?
sorry I'm not that knowledgeable of more advanced and general digital photography. only started doing a black and white film course at school with 100% manual cameras not so long ago.
Attachments
ive not read all of the thread, but i know you mentioned you didn't want a sony and you would like a canon to use the lenses with.
anyway i was helping a friend of mine choose a new camera and he was initially going for the nikon d60. i had a quick look around the net, and although i'm no photography expert, the sony a300 is slightly cheaper (at jessops) and has slightly better specs (longer lense, higher ISO, Live view, 9-point AF) with a flexible screen. check it out on jessops.
i know you initially dismissed the sony, but it seems like a good deal to me. like i said, i dont really know much about cameras so i may be completely wrong.
anyway i was helping a friend of mine choose a new camera and he was initially going for the nikon d60. i had a quick look around the net, and although i'm no photography expert, the sony a300 is slightly cheaper (at jessops
) and has slightly better specs (longer lense, higher ISO, Live view, 9-point AF) with a flexible screen. check it out on jessops.i know you initially dismissed the sony, but it seems like a good deal to me. like i said, i dont really know much about cameras so i may be completely wrong.
Haha, more ways to go macro than I imagined.
What about an additional lens like the one pictured here? Could this be a 'neater' solution to get a macro lens?
sorry I'm not that knowledgeable of more advanced and general digital photography. only started doing a black and white film course at school with 100% manual cameras not so long ago.
That is a close up filter, so it is essentially the same thing as the binocular trick. If you have a pair of binoculars laying around, steal the elements out of them before you go pay money for something that does the same thing. You may find that you're fine with the image quality of the free item and you saved yourself some money.