Which 35mm SLR Camera?
11 July 2002, 09:34 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I want to buy a decent 35mm SLR camera with a lens that I can remove and swap for different types/sizes etc. I have a basic understanding of shutter speeds/focal lengths and all that, however I have no idea what is a good camera and what isn't. I have a reasonable budget (well I think so) of about £500 absolute max. Anyone got any tips/advice? I have spent a while trawling around the net but I have no idea what is a good buy and what isn't. Any advice gratefully received!
Cheers, Sean
Cheers, Sean
11 July 2002, 09:46 AM
#2
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Staffs
Posts: 23,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a newbie to the SLR market place back in February and went for a Minolta Dynax 5 with 25-80 and 75 to 300m lenses. I got it from my local Jessops shop as they did a good deal on price and 6 months 0% credit. 
http://www.virtualtraveller.org/dynax5review.htm is a good read.
"For people who want the beginnings of a camera system, and are likely to eventually buy some expensive lenses and other kit, I recommend the EOS 300. For people who just want the best camera for the money, I recommend the Dynax 5."
My final decision was down to the EOS300 and Dynax 5.
I asked on here when I was looking and good some very helpful advice from Josh, Hoppy, Andy C and a few others.
http://www.virtualtraveller.org/dynax5review.htm is a good read.
"For people who want the beginnings of a camera system, and are likely to eventually buy some expensive lenses and other kit, I recommend the EOS 300. For people who just want the best camera for the money, I recommend the Dynax 5."
My final decision was down to the EOS300 and Dynax 5.
I asked on here when I was looking and good some very helpful advice from Josh, Hoppy, Andy C and a few others.
11 July 2002, 09:54 AM
#3
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would buy Canon all day long. Their focusing is very fast and quiet. The spares are easy to get ( Try getting an Olympus fixed!!)
You could get a good second hand one from "Jacobs" or "Fords" with a one year guarantee... Why buy new??? Also when you want ot buy new/SH lenses it will be easier to buy Canon. An EOS 5 with a 28 -135 lens would be my Pickb for the money
You could get a good second hand one from "Jacobs" or "Fords" with a one year guarantee... Why buy new??? Also when you want ot buy new/SH lenses it will be easier to buy Canon. An EOS 5 with a 28 -135 lens would be my Pickb for the money
11 July 2002, 11:28 AM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd go old school and get an old Pentax or Nikon. None of this autofocus nonsense.
I got a Pentax spotmatic outfit for £75 quid in a charity shop with 2 lenses. A 50mm an a 150mm, a 2x convertor and macro tubes, also cable release, lens hood and bag.
The lens quality is what its all about, and the quality of the optics on Asahi pentax lenese from the 70s is outstanding.
I got a Pentax spotmatic outfit for £75 quid in a charity shop with 2 lenses. A 50mm an a 150mm, a 2x convertor and macro tubes, also cable release, lens hood and bag.
The lens quality is what its all about, and the quality of the optics on Asahi pentax lenese from the 70s is outstanding.
11 July 2002, 11:39 AM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: North Yorks, MY03 PPP, now run a Mondeo ST TDCI 06
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canon EOS 30 (with eye controlled focus) is an excellent SLR. I have the 28-105 and 100-300mm lenses, both give excellent results.
Build quality is better (IMO) than the EOS 300, which was the other model I considered. Larger body provides improved handling, try the models you like the look of, before you buy.
Dan
Build quality is better (IMO) than the EOS 300, which was the other model I considered. Larger body provides improved handling, try the models you like the look of, before you buy.
Dan
11 July 2002, 11:52 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've alway had cannon gear you get reasonable prices and good quality optics.
Nikons are the ultimate but there lenses are a fortune.
you might bear in mind that SlR digitals are slowly starting to come down in price and you can pick a good second hand slr kit for a couple of hundred while you wait for prices to come down
Ihave tried the top range fuji digitals but you cant change lenses and there is limited control over exposure
Nikons are the ultimate but there lenses are a fortune.
you might bear in mind that SlR digitals are slowly starting to come down in price and you can pick a good second hand slr kit for a couple of hundred while you wait for prices to come down
Ihave tried the top range fuji digitals but you cant change lenses and there is limited control over exposure
Trending Topics
12 July 2002, 07:40 AM
#11
BANNED
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 9,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eos 1 for that money is good.. But I would always check "Jacobs" or "Fords" first. They tend to be cheaper and check their S/H cameras out better ( iknow this for a fact...)
I Use 2 x EOS1V's with booster packs.They are fantastic. I also use a EOS 5 as I like its Little flash!!Try if your budget can run to it to get a 28-135 image stabilizing lens. These are great in places where you cant use flash etc.
And remember forget Kodak!!! Only Fuji will do
I Use 2 x EOS1V's with booster packs.They are fantastic. I also use a EOS 5 as I like its Little flash!!Try if your budget can run to it to get a 28-135 image stabilizing lens. These are great in places where you cant use flash etc.
And remember forget Kodak!!! Only Fuji will do
12 July 2002, 07:52 AM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And remember forget Kodak!!! Only Fuji will do
12 July 2002, 10:39 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd vote for a Canon, simply because they have one of the best ranges of lenses in terms of selection, optical quality and features. Their image stabilised lenses are fantastic for allowing much slower shutter speeds (2 or even 3 stops on some models) than would normally be usable without visible camera shake. Nikon have one or two as well.
When you buy the camera body, you're buying into a complete system of lenses and accessories - many of which will probably outlast the camera itself. A quality lens will last forever even if the camera body it's attached to wears out or becomes obsolete.
Andy.
When you buy the camera body, you're buying into a complete system of lenses and accessories - many of which will probably outlast the camera itself. A quality lens will last forever even if the camera body it's attached to wears out or becomes obsolete.
Andy.
15 July 2002, 03:53 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all your replies, much appreciated .
I have just bought a Canon EOS300 with an EF28-90 F4/5.6 USM lens from Jessops. It was priced at £299. However they were doing the same camera in a "special kit" with a non USM lens for £249 with a free tripod and kitbag, these were out of stock though, so they did the USM one with the tripod and kitbag for the same price (£249) with free 2 day delivery ! How cool is that.
So thanks again for the recommendations (including Jessops), now I have to learn how to use it!
Sean
.I have just bought a Canon EOS300 with an EF28-90 F4/5.6 USM lens from Jessops. It was priced at £299. However they were doing the same camera in a "special kit" with a non USM lens for £249 with a free tripod and kitbag, these were out of stock though, so they did the USM one with the tripod and kitbag for the same price (£249) with free 2 day delivery ! How cool is that.
So thanks again for the recommendations (including Jessops), now I have to learn how to use it!
Sean
15 July 2002, 04:46 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just completed a photography course and have tried many 35mm SLR cameras recently. I have just bought a SH EOS5 with 2 USM lenses, one being IS (Image Stabiliser). All the gear was boxed, mint condition and only had 5 rolls of film put through it in 18 months...I paid £325 I have since bought a SH additional vertical grip for £39 from Jessops.
I went to the Barcelona GP in April and hired a 400mm lens for the week. The pictures are fantastic (all 9 rolls). So bargains can be had and the reason I bought SH was I will probably buy a digital Canon D60 in a few yrs, so it is the AF lenses that are important and of course work on both bodies.
Try www.ebay.co.uk and look under photography.
I have since bought a SH additional vertical grip for £39 from Jessops. I went to the Barcelona GP in April and hired a 400mm lens for the week. The pictures are fantastic (all 9 rolls). So bargains can be had and the reason I bought SH was I will probably buy a digital Canon D60 in a few yrs, so it is the AF lenses that are important and of course work on both bodies.
Try www.ebay.co.uk and look under photography.
16 July 2002, 08:08 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul, where did you hire your lens from? Was it expensive?
I came very close once or twice to buying the 100-400L IS lens, especially when Canon were doing the deal with the teleconverter, but I eventually realised that there was no way I was ever going to take £1400 worth of photos with it! I'd still love to have the use of one from time to time, though.
Andy.
I came very close once or twice to buying the 100-400L IS lens, especially when Canon were doing the deal with the teleconverter, but I eventually realised that there was no way I was ever going to take £1400 worth of photos with it! I'd still love to have the use of one from time to time, though.
Andy.
17 July 2002, 12:36 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 1998
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy,
The company is called Calumet
http://www.calumetphoto.com/default.taf?autoctry=UK&t=UK
I hired from their branch just 3 min walk form Euston, Drummond St. I found them extremly prfessional, helpful and curteous. They even gave me a weeks hire for the price of 3 days. I WILL use them again and their kit available is amazing. They let me try various lenses when I got there.
Hope this helps. It helped me enourmously. I too didn't want to spend £2-3k on a lens.
The company is called Calumet
http://www.calumetphoto.com/default.taf?autoctry=UK&t=UK
I hired from their branch just 3 min walk form Euston, Drummond St. I found them extremly prfessional, helpful and curteous. They even gave me a weeks hire for the price of 3 days. I WILL use them again and their kit available is amazing. They let me try various lenses when I got there.
Hope this helps. It helped me enourmously. I too didn't want to spend £2-3k on a lens.
17 July 2002, 05:08 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i second mark Os comment about fuji cant stand kodac or any other films especially "free" films .
It always annoys me when the assistants in processing shops try to hand me free films and i refuse them i aways tell them they are crap and they always tell me that there film isnt and cant believe that i am turning down such a fantastic offer.
No i just like my film colours turning out how i saw them in the first not with an horrendous "gold" coloured cast or orange etc
<rant off>.
It always annoys me when the assistants in processing shops try to hand me free films and i refuse them i aways tell them they are crap and they always tell me that there film isnt and cant believe that i am turning down such a fantastic offer.
No i just like my film colours turning out how i saw them in the first not with an horrendous "gold" coloured cast or orange etc
<rant off>.
17 July 2002, 10:52 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get a Nikon FM2, a design classic, with bullet proof build quality and will work anywhere. Will teach you how to take pictures instead of doing it for you. Won't fall apart at the first sign of real usage.
18 July 2002, 12:41 AM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Where age and treachery reins over youthful exuberance
Posts: 5,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt, shoot some stuff on that "crap" free film, scan it into your PC and print. I think you'll find the difference is not in the film, but the processing and printing. With print film, there's bu99er-all between brands.
Sebastian, I agree with your sentiment. But let's be serious - who in their right mind is going to buy an FM2 when you can get an EOS for less?
Regards,
Richard.
Sebastian, I agree with your sentiment. But let's be serious - who in their right mind is going to buy an FM2 when you can get an EOS for less?
Regards,
Richard.
18 July 2002, 02:23 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoppy
not the case where i take my prints ive tried both types of films fuji kodak and free at the same developers and the fuji colours are always immaculate and stand out a mile.
I had a chat with a pro shooting covers for a text book on art my sister was writing and he swears by fuji.
oh and i scan prints all the time if you mean negative scanning then i might agree with you but i cant justify the cost at the mo.
What set up do you use i have an agfa touchscan scanner and an epson photo 750 and i can scan and print easily up to 150% and you would need a magnifying glass to tell the difference betweeen a photo shop print and my prints
not the case where i take my prints ive tried both types of films fuji kodak and free at the same developers and the fuji colours are always immaculate and stand out a mile.
I had a chat with a pro shooting covers for a text book on art my sister was writing and he swears by fuji.
oh and i scan prints all the time if you mean negative scanning then i might agree with you but i cant justify the cost at the mo.
What set up do you use i have an agfa touchscan scanner and an epson photo 750 and i can scan and print easily up to 150% and you would need a magnifying glass to tell the difference betweeen a photo shop print and my prints
19 July 2002, 10:35 AM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Where age and treachery reins over youthful exuberance
Posts: 5,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt/Luke. Okay, I exaggerate to make a point. And that point is that the processing of neg film makes a massive difference - or rather it's the printing. And the fact that you might get great results from one film and poor prints from another at the same lab only goes to support my point and the printer is optimised for the most popular film.
Equally, you cannot simply say Fuji is better than Kodak as they both make dozens of emulsions, and not all of them are 'better' just like you can't say Nikon is better than Canon. Although people do.
I had some Fuji film processed at a one-hour lab in Italy last year. The results were diabolical. I got home and scanned a few negs and the prints are perfect in every way. Neg film is quite forgiving of exposure and processing as you can correct it with software (Photoshop Elements is a brilliant bargain).
I'm really not fussy about which neg film I use - I go for the right speed, not brand, for what I'm shooting. And if I end up with a decent pic, I'll scan the neg (Minolta Scan Dual which ChrisB has borrowed) and fiddle with it. Nothing fancy, but just to optimise the result. I guarantee you could not spot which film had been used by looking at the prints.
Having said all that, I'll admit that a lot of keen photographers shoot Fujichrome - usually Velvia for top quality or Sensia for more speed. If it's reversal film (slides/transparencies) then the film certainly does matter. A lot. Then stick a polarising filter on the front for absolutely knock-out colours and ultra deep-blue skies. Wonderful.
But that's history. I've just bought digital - Canon S40, which I'm relieved to read has just been voted "Best Digital Consumer Camera" by 33 European magazines (see August issue of Practical Photography for the other winners). But I'm only half way through the instruction book. Complicated little buggers, aren't they?
Best regards,
Richard.
Equally, you cannot simply say Fuji is better than Kodak as they both make dozens of emulsions, and not all of them are 'better' just like you can't say Nikon is better than Canon. Although people do.
I had some Fuji film processed at a one-hour lab in Italy last year. The results were diabolical. I got home and scanned a few negs and the prints are perfect in every way. Neg film is quite forgiving of exposure and processing as you can correct it with software (Photoshop Elements is a brilliant bargain).
I'm really not fussy about which neg film I use - I go for the right speed, not brand, for what I'm shooting. And if I end up with a decent pic, I'll scan the neg (Minolta Scan Dual which ChrisB has borrowed) and fiddle with it. Nothing fancy, but just to optimise the result. I guarantee you could not spot which film had been used by looking at the prints.
Having said all that, I'll admit that a lot of keen photographers shoot Fujichrome - usually Velvia for top quality or Sensia for more speed. If it's reversal film (slides/transparencies) then the film certainly does matter. A lot. Then stick a polarising filter on the front for absolutely knock-out colours and ultra deep-blue skies. Wonderful.
But that's history. I've just bought digital - Canon S40, which I'm relieved to read has just been voted "Best Digital Consumer Camera" by 33 European magazines (see August issue of Practical Photography for the other winners). But I'm only half way through the instruction book. Complicated little buggers, aren't they?
Best regards,
Richard.
