What new simple DSLR?

[Ben T]

I am after a recommendations for a DSLR that is fairly easy to use and will just "do the right thing" automatically for most of the complicated things.
I want to be able to manual focus but understand that this is a feature of the lens.


For instance - I would like "auto-ISO", and "auto-aperture-size" setting if such things exist.
I get the idea that the size of the aperture and the exposure time affect the shot, but I have no idea what, quantitatively, these values these should be for any given shot. Does anybody? So if the camera body can decide that for me, that would be good.

Also, I think I would like one of those with a pop-up flash,  but am prepared to be told  why I shouldn't if they're crap.
Most of the usage would be outdoors but would also like to use it for taking pictures of inanimate objects indoors for selling on ebay purposes.

Would like  to try some nature photography so ability to point, zoom, possibly manual focus, and shoot, quickly would be good. Also availability of a not too expensive zoom lens.

[mike]

Go to John Lewis [or a jessops if there's one nearby] chat to the assistant and fondle some of the main brands (canon / nikon / pentax / olympus ?) in your price range, and see which controls feel most natural to you. 

It's quite hard to buy a bad one, and all will do auto-everything. 

I'm pretty sure most lenses let you switch to manual focus, the constraint will be that the focussing screen in the cameras are not as good as old film cameras (not without spending quite a lot more for a full-frame dSLR)

Built in flashes are a bit rubbish for anything other than fill-in flash in daylight, but 3rd party add-on flashes arent that expensive or difficult to use.  Same for zoom lenses, there are some quite good ones available for not too much cash, or you can find a bundle deal with a standard zoom, longer zoom and a prime for < 500 quid (https://slrhut.co.uk/product/ID1603C5/google?gclid=Cj0KEQjw88q9BRDB5qLcwLXr7_sBEiQAZsGja5HoboJ0Bsgu9bZmr59k_qB-leXPOKRzLesGPgiw33caAiXB8P8HAQ was the first one I found as an example, I havent done enough research to see if it's a good deal or not)

[Ben T]

Great, thanks, good to know.

[fuaran]

Or look at a mirrorless / Compact System Camera. They could do all of that stuff, some may be easier for auto modes.

And maybe better for manual focus, as they can magnify they image to see if it is sharp, plus focus peaking on some models.

[Ham]

The industry wide standard control knob of P-A-S-M gives you all the control/auto priority you're asking for, so any will do what you want.

Your main decision is canon/nikon vs 4/3 & Micro 4/3 vs All The Rest

Canon/Nikon have a massive market share, and they are both good. If you only bought HP printers you should buy one of these

4/3 & Micro 4/3 (Olympus, Panasonic) have the edge on size, they are much smaller than anything else. While 4/3 gives true optical SLR, m4/3 is smaller still with electronic viewfinders for the most part. As an extra bonus because of the smaller sensor the magnification factor is higher (2x) which gives you more bangs for bucks lens-wise

All The Rest - each of them normally have a USP that has value, not easy to generalise.

The on-camera flash is as bad as Mike says, but any modern sensor can take indoor photos flashless at high ISO with acceptable quality. Get a tripod if you really want to improve those.

[Biggsy]

All DSLRs offer all the modes you want, Ben.  Auto aperture is known as shutter priority or Tv.  The opposite and perhaps more popular with photographers is aperture priority or Av.  ISO can be auto or manual with both.  Also they'll be full auto and full manual modes.

[LEE]

Why do you want a DSLR?

I'm not being stroppy, it's just that they may not be optimum for your needs. Mirrorless may suit you (smaller package for a start).

I'm a die-hard Canon person, looking to buy a new Canon DSLR but I see clear advantages in Sony products for certain applications.

However... you just can't go wrong with a Canon/Nikon/Sony. 
They are fairly similar at any given price-point and even £300 entry-level cameras compete well with Pro-cameras of a decade ago.

You need to remember though that the camera is still, after all these years, just a box to put a lens on.  Lenses are where it can get specialised and expensive.

Have you considered a "Bridge" Camera with a superzoom?
The Canon SX60 would be my go-to choice (because I like Canons) for a general purpose camera. 
It's not a DSLR but it has most of the controls of a DSLR that you mention plus a zoom lens that gives you everything.

Unless you REALLY know why you want a DSLR then they can be a bit of a disappointment.

What sort of photo are you imagining a DSLR will give you that a Bridge camera or Mirrorless wouldn't?

Most entry-level DLSRs have a pop up flash and they are all shit. Better than nothing I guess.. but, thinking about it, possibly not.

[Biggsy]

It's about the enjoyment of taking the photo as well as the photo.  Have a go in an old fashioned shop where they'll allow you to take your time - hopefully one that stocks Pentax as well as Canikony.

[Ben T]

Why do you want a DSLR?

Quite simply, because it will take better photos than my phone.

I'm not being stroppy, it's just that they may not be optimum for your needs. Mirrorless may suit you (smaller package for a start).

I'm a die-hard Canon person, looking to buy a new Canon DSLR but I see clear advantages in Sony products for certain applications.

However... you just can't go wrong with a Canon/Nikon/Sony. 
They are fairly similar at any given price-point and even £300 entry-level cameras compete well with Pro-cameras of a decade ago.

You need to remember though that the camera is still, after all these years, just a box to put a lens on.  Lenses are where it can get specialised and expensive.

Have you considered a "Bridge" Camera with a superzoom?
The Canon SX60 would be my go-to choice (because I like Canons) for a general purpose camera. 
It's not a DSLR but it has most of the controls of a DSLR that you mention plus a zoom lens that gives you everything.

Unless you REALLY know why you want a DSLR then they can be a bit of a disappointment.

What sort of photo are you imagining a DSLR will give you that a Bridge camera or Mirrorless wouldn't?

Most entry-level DLSRs have a pop up flash and they are all shit. Better than nothing I guess.. but, thinking about it, possibly not.

Without reading into it I want a DSLR because I know it will take better pictures than my phone (with plenty of scope to learn how to take even better ones still, which is an enjoyable learning experience). All my family have got DSLRs and they take great photos. I don't know enough about bridge cameras or mirrorless. Maybe they would be better, but they aren't widely known about enough. Maybe that's my loss - but I'm not comparing DSLR with any other type of camera other than what I've got now, largely because if I'm honest I haven't really got the inclination to do enough research to be able to trust that research - I don't want to start having doubts that 'should I have got a DSLR' a year or so down the line.
Reading into the pros and cons of each, I'm not that bothered about small size (it's not to use while cycling anyway) in fact I have quite large hands so chunky (deep) is probably good, and I like the idea of the WYSIWYG lag-free viewfinder approach especially if I want to play with, and build skills in, manual focus. Also, they don't seem that much cheaper. I've also read that battery life is worse with mirrorless.

Flipping that on its head, why should I want a bridge camera/mirrorless instead of a DSLR?

[fuaran]

Reading into the pros and cons of each, I'm not that bothered about small size (it's not to use while cycling anyway) in fact I have quite large hands so chunky (deep) is probably good, and I like the idea of the WYSIWYG lag-free viewfinder approach especially if I want to play with, and build skills in, manual focus. Also, they don't seem that much cheaper. I've also read that battery life is worse with mirrorless.

There are some fairly chunky DSLR-style mirrorless cameras if you want, eg Lumix G7, or Sony A7, or some of the Fuji.

For WYSIWYG, I think a good electronic viewfinder is more useful. It actually gives you full coverage of the image, most DSLRs only have about 95%. Plus it will show the effects of changing exposure settings, or white balance or colours etc, before you take the photo. And it can show you a bright image, in low light. Plus it can help with manual focussing. The lag is not noticeable with most modern electronic viewfinders.

Cost depends on just what you are comparing. Mirrorless is not necessarily cheaper. There are some cheap bottom of the range Canon/Nikons, but they are often crippled, with useful features missing. Whereas low-end mirrorless cameras are more likely to have those features built in (eg wifi, or USB charging, or 4K video).
Yes, battery life is usually worse. Though if the battery lasts for a few hundred photos, that's enough for a day out for me anyway. And it only takes a few seconds to switch to a spare.

Flipping that on its head, why should I want a bridge camera/mirrorless instead of a DSLR?

As well as the above, for mirrorless:
Lens can be smaller and lighter, especially with smaller sensors. This is useful if you want a long telephoto for wildlife, no need to carry a huge lens.
Easy to adapt older lenses, if you want to play around with manual features etc.
No mirror means you can have a silent shutter, and faster burst rates.

Mirrorless is the future. A year or so down the line, I suspect most brands will be replacing DSLRs with mirrorless.

[Woofage]

fuaran has it. Forget that SLRs exist for a moment. Why would anyone start a new camera design today by incorporating a complex and potentially unreliable mechanism to move a mirror out of the way every time a photo is taken? Although these systems work very well, the whole idea seems bonkers today.

You want WYSIWYG? EVFs do this better than optical as they not only give 100% of the view but also adjust for exposure. Try using an OVF when it's a bit dark.
You want manual? One of my m4/3 lenses even allows auto and manual focus at the same time. On an SLR you have to move a switch. A mirrorless camera will also allow you to mount a manual lens of any make with a c. £10 adapter. Auto zooming of the scene and focus peaking removes the need for a fancy focussing screen. TBH though, once you've got your head around how the various focussing options operate and how you engage them (shutter button half press, BBF etc) I doubt you'll ever need to focus manually.

Have you thought about video? SLRs suck at video whereas mirrorless cameras shine.

I think a lot of people blindly buy SLRs because they look a bit pro without thinking about what they really need from a camera.

BTW, I'm not biassed against SLRs - I use one at work and I own a basic Nikon D3300 which I take out sometimes. I just think that mirrorless is the future.

[T42]

fuaran has it. Forget that SLRs exist for a moment. Why would anyone start a new camera design today by incorporating a complex and potentially unreliable mechanism to move a mirror out of the way every time a photo is taken? Although these systems work very well, the whole idea seems bonkers today.

+1. I have a refurb Nikon D600 and I still watch out for the mirror mechanism splattering dust & oil onto the sensor. It doesn't, but the expectation is there.  Also, DSLRs (mostly) use weighty pentaprism viewfinders, or else a Heath Robinson arrangement of mirrors that would put an illusionist to shame.

If I had my DSLR money back I'd probably buy a Fujifilm X-Pro 2 or one of the Sony range - although I'm chary of Sony's user interfaces, the one on my wee RX-100 makes me swear.  There are simpler models in the Fuji X mirrorless range that are very good value, and the Fuji user interface that I know - the X100 - is really quite nice.

Funny how marketing wadgers are enamoured of the letter X. Makes it difficult for humans to keep track of makes & models.

[Ben T]

Hmmm, ok, worth considering then.
So which mirrorless one would be a good one to go for, and what would be a good zoom lens to put on it?

[seraphina]

I have a Panasonic Lumix GM1 which is a micro 4/3rds system.

I originally wanted a DSLR as I wanted something better than my phone, mainly for taking pictures of the kids; the phone just wasn't quick enough. However, the best camera is the one you have with you and I simply couldn't see myself lugging around a DSLR + bag of lenses etc.

Enter the micro 4/3rds system. All the benefits of an interchangeable lens system, and the GM1 has a smaller area than my phone without the lenses (it is a bit fatter, however). My main criteria was size - it had to fit into a handbag/changing bag/pannier that was already bulging and small enough to use one handed. In addition to the standard zoom, MrS bought an Olympus 25mm f1.8 lens which is superb for portraits (and to be honest, the lens that usually lives on the camera). It also takes good video, and has wifi to automagically put the pictures onto my tablet, and thence to Google Photos.

It really does flatter my limited abilities as a photographer (I am firmly in the "if I take enough photos at least one will be good" school of photography) but it is quick enough to catch good pictures of the kids doing silly things, and small enough to come everywhere. There is an excellent range of lenses available; the only problem is that most of the lenses are bigger than the actual camera body, which can make the GM1 somewhat unwieldly; the larger micro four thirds bodies don't have this problem.

I have played around with all the whizzy advanced features, so I do know what it can do, but for 99% of the time, I pick it up, point and shoot. A brilliant little camera.

[Woofage]

I think the main players in the mirrorless market are:
Olympus/Panasonic - the micro 4/3s system. Lots of choice or bodies and lenses plus some 3rd party lenses. I've got a couple of Panasonic bodies and a few lenses so I'm fairly familiar with this system.
Sony - larger sensor than m4/3 (I think it's APSC like most DSLRs but in the real world you'll struggle to notice any difference) but lens choice seems limited.
Fuji - don't know anything about Fuji. They look nice though. Probably more spendy than others.
Nikon - really small cameras but I don't think there's any proper compatibility with their DSLR lenses
Canon - I think you can use Canon DSLR lenses on these bodies with an adapter but when I looked at the bodies recently (had a fit of GAS*) I thought them rather limited both in terms of choice and capability (ie they looked a bit too point and shoot).

* gear acquisition syndrome. Applies to cameras, bikes (=n+1), musical instruments etc etc.

Regarding a zoom lens, most new bodies will come with one that will get you going, with a range from fairly wide (28mm equivalent in 35mm film speak) to "portrait" (around 80-85mm equivalent). It may well be the only lens you ever need for 90%+ of your photos. When bundled with a body, these lenses are virtually free so you may as well get one. As you gain experience, you'll get to know whether you need any more lenses and what type.

You wrote that you want to take photos better than your phone. Any quality camera will achieve this, whether it has interchangeable lenses or not. As others have suggested, go to a camera shop (Jessops is quite good, John Lewis have a selection of popular budget and mid-range gear, perhaps even larger PC World branches are worth a visit) and have a look and a fondle. Keep an open mind and identify what you like the look of then come back here for more info. Someone is bound to have some experience with what you're interested in.

[Ben T]

I had a look at jessops, and asked an advisor online.
He basically said sony and panasonic are good but canon and nikon are not that good at mirrorless.
Apparently all panasonic lenses fit all panasonic mirrorless, but the cheapest panasonic mirrorless body is 450quid.
Whereas all canon lenses (and some others) apparently fit an EOS 1300D (DSLR) and it's 300 quid.
Some sony mirrorless are cheaper than 300 but the lens compatibility is confusing. He also said the choice of zoom lenses isn't as good as with DSLR.
Prepared to be convinced, but struggling to see why I would choose either paying 50% more or having less choice of lenses?

(Also has to be said, much prefer online shopping - nearest jessops is meadowhell which I don't fancy. Also can't stand being told 'so and so is good but we don't have one in stock here', which leads to more fruitless driving around. If  it feels really wrong in the hand I can send it back.)

atm where I'm at is on paper I really like the look of this lens, from its description and its recommendation by jessops: http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/tamron/sp-70-300mm-f4-5-6-di-vc-usd-lens-canon-af-77950/show.html and am coming to the view that the lens may be more important than the camera. I've also read that DSLRs are good at blurring the background which is something I like. Not sure if that's true or whether mirrorless are also? So that's where I am at the moment but like I say prepared to be convinced.

[Woofage]

Apparently all panasonic lenses fit all panasonic mirrorless, but the cheapest panasonic mirrorless body is 450quid.
Whereas all canon lenses (and some others) apparently fit an EOS 1300D (DSLR) and it's 300 quid.

Olympus and Panasonic (Lumix) share the same micro 4/3 mount. Fair point about price; I hadn't looked. The Lumix camera will do more than the Canon though.

I've also read that DSLRs are good at blurring the background which is something I like. Not sure if that's true or whether mirrorless are also?

A blurred background means shallow depth of field as a result of a (relatively, it's all relative!) wide lens aperture (ie low F number eg f3.5). All cameras can do this so some extent. Set the control to aperture priority (mode A) and dial the lowest number available and see what happens. A larger sensor (eg APSC vs m4/3) will possibly help a little in this respect, all other things being equal. Cheap cameras and phones have tiny sensors and they struggle with producing shallow DoF.

[Wombat]

I agree that you need to ditch the preconception that "decent camera = DSLR" and that mirrorless is quite probably the way forward if you aren't already heavily into a DSLR system.  I went Sony, and we have a APS-C format A6000, which cost £500 (its newer brother is over £1k) and I have a full frame A7Rii, which is utterly brilliant (and also, not very cheap).

For anyone who says "those EVF's are rubbish, you can't beat a proper optical viewfinder" well, I'm sorry, but you are just plain wrong, or at least out of date.  The OLED viewfinder of my current camera, its predecessor, and Mrs W's cheaper mirrorless Sony is damn good, with more even lighting than any OVF I've seen recently (not tried recent Nikons but have tried several current Canons) and of course it still works in VERY poor light, and you can have as much or as little information displayed on it as you want.  Yes, it gets a bity noisy in truly appalling light, but a noisy image is far better than one so dark you can't see a bloody thing.  Focus peaking is nice, too.  Despite the expense, I do not regret for a moment, changing system.

[Ben T]

think initially it was a preconception but atm, having read a bit more into it, haven't seen any evidence that the lens choice value for money of DSLRs can be beaten by mirrorless. If you think it can please post links. Thanks for all the advice, much appreciated.

[T42]

Nikon - really small cameras but I don't think there's any proper compatibility with their DSLR lenses

There is, though, if you get an FT-1 adapter.  I have a couple of Series 1 bodies and I can use my 18-200mm with them.  3rd party lenses are a toss-up, though: my Tamron 70-300 doesn't work, but a chum's Nikon 70-300 does.

Even with the Series 1's own two basic lenses you can cover 27-300mm equivalent range, and a body and both lenses will fit a handlebar bag.

[LEE]

If you want to learn about camera controls AND get great photos you could do a lot worse than buying a used Canon 1200D from Ebay.

You can usually get a bag of camera + a couple of lenses for <£200
I use a Canon EOS 100D.  You can pick those up for <£200 used now.  I rate it very highly.

Then, in a year, you can Ebay it all for about the same money when your DLSR experience has taught you whether you want a better DLSR or another form.

It will probably cost you about £30 in depreciation and the results will be staggeringly good compared to a phone.

By that time, if you want mirrorless, there will most likely be a new generation of them on the market (allowing you to pick up the current generation cheaper).

The big advantage of a Canon DLSR is the range of lenses, new and used, that you can stick on the front without an adapter. 
You can pick up a used 50mm "portrait lens" for £50 that, used correctly, will amaze you (if you are used to selfies taken with a phone).

I'd be surprised if you bought a used kit that didn't include the 50mm f/1.8.

It's really got to the point where, image-qualitywise, you need to start "pixel-peeping" to spot the difference between the cameras from the big manufacturers.
A 10x8 print won't reveal much difference, if any.

Point the "Plastic Fantastic" Canon 50mm at someone's face, set it to f/1.8 and start shooting. You won't be disappointed.

Edit. I'm certainly not making any claims for this photograph apart from it's one of the first shots I took after I bought the 50mm f/1.8, and it shows the effect I want.

It's that shallow depth of field (blurred background), to isolate the subject, that most people associate with DSLRs.  It's not unique to DLSRs (even Phones can "spoof" it with software now) but a Canon off Ebay + a 50mm f/1.8 is a cheap way into it.

[Woofage]

Can't fault LEE's advice.

With the exception of 3 out of 4 of my m4/3 lenses, all my current kit was bought used or ex-demo. However, that was after owning a few other cameras so I knew what I was looking for. Technology moves so fast and the manufacturers are so keen to bring out new kit that there's no shortage of nearly-new used equipment.

The only thing I would add is to get the same brand as your family member with the best kit. You might be able to try other lenses, flashes etc.

[LEE]

The only thing I would add is to get the same brand as your family member with the best kit. You might be able to try other lenses, flashes etc.

So true.

My Dad has the Canon 300mm f/2.8* !!!!  I asked him to write it into his will for me. You can cut yourself on the images they are so sharp.

*RRP £5,000

[Ben T]

thanks LEE, I'm right in thinking f1.8 is a really wide aperture, so very narrow depth of field, yes?

also am I right in thinking that the f number is restricted by the lens, but the camera sets it, so the camera somehow 'knows' what f-number range the lens offers, and only lets you choose from within that range? so if you've got a lens with just a single f- number, you can't actually change it using the camera?

[T42]

Capable of shallow depth of field, but can also be stopped down for more.