What new simple DSLR?

[LEE]

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?

Lenses with a single f/number are rare (such as "Mirror" lenses).
The smaller the f/number means the more light passing through the lens.  small f/numbers = bigger money.
Before paying big money though you need to ask yourself what type of photography you are interested in*

*There's no point in paying £4,000 for f/1.2 if you are going to put it on a tripod and take landscape photos at f/8.

All DSLRs I know of control the shutter speed and aperture (and ISO if you like) based on the other settings you select yourself.

In shutter-speed mode you set the shutter speed you want (a fast one for action) and the camera takes care of the aperture (and ISO if you like).

In Aperture priority you set the aperture (a small number for background blur) and the camera takes care of the shutter speed (and ISO if you like).

There will be a Program mode which selects a combination that works, but may not be what you want (sometimes it's not a bad idea to leave your camera in Program mode, just so you can grab a shot in a hurry).  I tend to leave mine in shutter-speed mode at 1/250th second, because that is fast enough to freeze something if I need to grab a shot quickly. I let the camera worry about the aperture, I just want a sharp image without having to think.

Once you get to grips with the relationships of Shutter-speed / Aperture / ISO speed / Focal length of a lens then all the DSLRs allow you to set everything manually.
Normally, if I'm working in Manual, my camera is on a tripod and I have time to think.

Edit.  A £200 Ebay Canon 1200D or 100D (better) will do all this (as will Nikons and others at the same price-point.  It's just that I know Canon model numbers).

[Mrs Pingu]

As Lee says - the f number quoted on the lens is telling you the widest aperture it will open up to. They will all stop down to super tiny apertures like f22. If it's got 2 f numbers quoted it's a zoom and these tell you the max aperture at either end of the zoom range.

[Woofage]

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?

Yes. All lenses now have electronics in them to not only control the lens functions (focus and aperture plus more fancy stuff like image stabilisation [IS] where applicable) but also to report its status back to the camera (eg focal length of a zoom lens). All settings will be recorded in the EXIF data of each shot taken. Even phone cameras provide EXIF data. if you open a photo in a photo viewer or editor on your computer you'll be able to view this in the image properties.

[LEE]

With respect to Mirrorless (and electronic viewfinders).  They are full of incredibly useful stuff (such as focus peaking and zebra striping) but I'm really inclined to say "don't bother" at this stage.  At some point in future you may think, "I wish this camera had focus peaking and zebra striping" but most of us managed for decades without it.

By far the most important thing is to know what you want the final image to look like, before you put the camera to your eye, and be able to make it happen once you do.  Best to learn about "Histograms" and correct exposure first.  (Youtube is your friend)

No amount of tech can teach you how to choose a nice subject nor how to frame it or light it.  That's the "art" part.

What a decent, basic, camera teaches you is how to set up a camera to achieve the "arty" part you wanted.  That's the "techy" part.

I can do the techy part.. it's the arty part I struggle with and the part I envy most in people who have it.

It's why I'm not so bothered about sports/action/wildlife.  It leans too far toward the techy/equipment side of things for me.  Just a personal thing.

Modern cameras are full of amazing tech but there are really just about 5 things you need to get on top of, the same things Ansel Adams had to understand with his 10x8 plate camera.

[Wombat]

Lee neatly reminds us that the most important part of the photography process is not the camera or lenses, but you.  Its easily possible to take utterly crap photos on a Hasselblad H6D, and a person with a decent eye and technique can take amazingly brilliant photos on a very modest camera, but having some technology (not everything that exists, like my loony Sony) does make it easier to take advantage of a photo opportunity.

My phone can take some truly excellent pictures in the right circumstances, but I wouldn't fancy its chances at one of the dance events I regularly photograph.

I can't argue against the fact that you can get a decent secondhand kit far more easily with an SLR, 'cos there are thousands of the things about.  In fact I'd definitely recommend buying secondhand until you get a better feel for what you want to do with your photography in the future.  I've been driven to full frame by the need for excellent low light/high ISO noise performance, and trust me (and others far more qualified to say), the fancy back illuminated anti-aliasing filter-less, 42MP sensor of the Sony is certainly bloomin' brilliant.  Paying for it hurt, though 

[Ham]

also am I right in thinking

very rarely

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?

No, the f-number of the lens is the largest aperture possible, all lenses have a diaphragm to reduce the aperture,  most lenses are at their optimal "stopped" down towards the middle of the range, no matter how expensive. Even cheap lenses often provide acceptable results stopped down, but you do lose the shallow depth of field.

[Dibdib]

also am I right in thinking

very rarely

...As another photography noob, it seemed like a fair question to me and, IMO, didn't warrant this level of un-excellence.

[sojournermike]

My thoughts on Lee's five things:

1. Where to stand
2. Where to point the camera
3. When to press the shutter release
4. Where to focus
5. What aperture and shutter speed to use

Only the last are really 'techy' and they're subjective.

Enjoy whatever you buy.

Mike

[Ham]

also am I right in thinking

very rarely

...As another photography noob, it seemed like a fair question to me and, IMO, didn't warrant this level of un-excellence.

  which is why I answered it simply and hopefully understandably. Oh well.

ETA - I could have added that all electronic lenses matched to a camera range do tell the camera their maximum and minimum aperture, and let the camera set the aperture, they also allow focussing at maximum aperture for maximum brightness and clarity of focus, closing the lens down as part of the shutter release sequence, all such also  have a "Depth of Field Preview" feature to see what the eventual photo will look like with the aperture closed. You (almost always) lose this particular communication and feature set when you use a lens from another range through an adaptor.

[Dibdib]

also am I right in thinking

very rarely

...As another photography noob, it seemed like a fair question to me and, IMO, didn't warrant this level of un-excellence.

  which is why I answered it simply and hopefully understandably. Oh well.

Not before having the above, frankly unnecessary, little dig. Which is why I quoted that, and not the actual answer.

[LEE]

My thoughts on Lee's five things:

1. Where to stand
2. Where to point the camera
3. When to press the shutter release
4. Where to focus
5. What aperture and shutter speed to use

Only the last are really 'techy' and they're subjective.

Enjoy whatever you buy.

Mike

I'd happily go with those 5 (though I may throw in another one that crosses the arty/techy divide) 

4b. What focal length lens to use. (It has such a big bearing on look of the final image)

This is the best demonstration of the effect of focal length I've seen:

Mike Brown on Focal Length.  His Channel is excellent for people wanting to learn about photography, both Arty and Techy.

[clarion]

If I have to use a single focal length, I prefer 42mm, which happens to be the true normal view.  40mm is fine, which I have on a few cameras, and 35mm  is what I was more used to from my Minoxes and SLRs.

[frankly frankie]

... 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.
...
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.

IMO it's not really about best bang for buck though.  The first consideration is, what will you be prepared to carry around on a regular basis?  My own answer to that is 'not much'.  The lens you cite is a bit of a monster, and there are several approximately equivalent lenses available in the m4/3 system (Panasonic or Olympus) that are a fraction of the size and weight of that Tamron. 

Although the cheapest Panasonic bodies are not particularly cheap, you can currently buy the GX-80 which is their most advanced model to date, for £509 (despite currency chaos, this is a remarkable price for what it is) or for just £40 more fitted with a decent wide-normal zoom lens (which you may never use).  This camera may feel too small for your big hands.  The Olympus EM10-II is comparable in price and capability and size but is more DSLR-like in appearance and handling.  Pansonic and Olympus bodies and lenses are cross-compatible so it is a quite mature ecosystem in total.

Personally I rarely carry more than 2 lenses on any one outing (one on the camera, one in a pocket) and more often than not I don't use the 2nd lens at all.  I find changing lenses 'in the field' a bit more faff than I care for, and to be honest I'm usually happier toting a compact.

[noisycrank]

If I have to use a single focal length, I prefer 42mm, which happens to be the true normal view.  40mm is fine, which I have on a few cameras, and 35mm  is what I was more used to from my Minoxes and SLRs.

A more technical take on this can be found in the landscape Institute Advice note on the use of photography in landscape and visual assessment.
http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/Contribute/LIPhotographyAdviceNote01-11.pdf

Sorry almost completely off topic. I have been resisting the urge to suggest an ebay film SLR which can be picked up for pocket money prices but couldn't resist this.

[LEE]

Going back to the original post you can do a lot worse that the standard 18-55mm kit lens that comes with most entry-level bodies. They are dirt cheap on Ebay.

No, it won't be amazing but it will most likely be very light  and (going back to the adage "the best gear is the gear you have with you") I still keep mine as my "I don't mind if it takes a few knocks" lens, for example, if I go for a walk in the woods I may put it on the Canon 100D. It makes for a compact and light setup.

They are plenty good enough to find your feet with.

For a compact DSLR setup though, it's hard to beat my 100D and 40mm "pancake" (40mm bought used from this forum).  I may get the 24mm "pancake" at some point because that gets me a super-flexible 38mm equivalent focal length.

[sojournermike]

If I have to use a single focal length, I prefer 42mm, which happens to be the true normal view.  40mm is fine, which I have on a few cameras, and 35mm  is what I was more used to from my Minoxes and SLRs.

A more technical take on this can be found in the landscape Institute Advice note on the use of photography in landscape and visual assessment.
http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/Contribute/LIPhotographyAdviceNote01-11.pdf

Sorry almost completely off topic. I have been resisting the urge to suggest an ebay film SLR which can be picked up for pocket money prices but couldn't resist this.

I have a couple of 40mm (equivalent!) lenses - one is a 40 fixed lens scale focus camera and the other the Fuji 27. It's, in many ways my favourite single fov lens. 35 is sometimes just a bit too wide and 50 is nice, but feels slightly telephoto like. For my slr I don't have a 40 or a 50, but as I use that really for tripod stuff, I tend to use either 27 or 35 as carry round on the fuji and add the 18 if I actually want to carry an extra lens.

Mike

[sojournermike]

My thoughts on Lee's five things:

1. Where to stand
2. Where to point the camera
3. When to press the shutter release
4. Where to focus
5. What aperture and shutter speed to use

Only the last are really 'techy' and they're subjective.

Enjoy whatever you buy.

Mike

I'd happily go with those 5 (though I may throw in another one that crosses the arty/techy divide) 

4b. What focal length lens to use. (It has such a big bearing on look of the final image)

This is the best demonstration of the effect of focal length I've seen:

Mike Brown on Focal Length.  His Channel is excellent for people wanting to learn about photography, both Arty and Techy.

Good point. I tend to only carry one lens at a time, so that falls away as an option!

My view tends to be that perspective is usually the important element and that is managed by where you stand. Focal length then just manages the crop. Also, as I tend to use lenses in the slightly wide to normal range, i can move more easily. My view is that zooms make sense at the long end and I'm not very good with ultrawides. I only seem to make 'effects' picturess with them (though I'll be trying again next week weather permitting).

MIke

[T42]

Another consideration: I don't know about Canon, but entry-level Nikon SLRs do not have built-in focussing motors. Not a problem if you buy a kit, because the lens included will have a motor, but if you later buy older lenses without motors then autofocus won't work.

Better buy a used up-range model that does have a motor.

[LEE]

My lovely Olympus XA2 had a fixed 35mm f/3.5 lens in a shirt pocket sized body.

It's taken me a few decades to end up with a digital version of my old favourite film camera that I'm truly happy with (it actually has a small zoom but I've customised it to boot up in 35mm focal length).

The beauty of a fixed focal length ("Prime" lens) is that you learn to know what you will see through the viewfinder without having to compose it. 
It's nice to be so comfortable with a camera I think, and let your feet do the zooming.

I do like to be out and about with something in the 28-40mm range.

I think the thing that disappoints "newbies" the most about DSLRs is just how little "Telephoto reach"  they have.
It costs silly money to compete with the telephoto end of even basic compact zoom cameras*

*Some bridge cameras have a telephoto reach that is Science-Fiction.  Around 1600mm lately I think.  If you wanted that for your DSLR you'd need to remortgage and ask some friends to help you carry it home.

[Woofage]

For a compact DSLR setup though, it's hard to beat my 100D and 40mm "pancake" (40mm bought used from this forum).  I may get the 24mm "pancake" at some point because that gets me a super-flexible 38mm equivalent focal length.

I looked up that model - it's impressively small but still extremely capable. In fact it's only slightly bigger than my Lumix G6 (clicky to camerasize.com)

I bought my cheap Nikon body (D3300) because I already had a 55-200 lens that I was using to photograph birds etc using the work camera. If I didn't already have this I may well have thought about a used 100D.

[Ben T]

... 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.
...
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.

IMO it's not really about best bang for buck though.  The first consideration is, what will you be prepared to carry around on a regular basis?  My own answer to that is 'not much'.  The lens you cite is a bit of a monster, and there are several approximately equivalent lenses available in the m4/3 system (Panasonic or Olympus) that are a fraction of the size and weight of that Tamron. 

Although the cheapest Panasonic bodies are not particularly cheap, you can currently buy the GX-80 which is their most advanced model to date, for £509 (despite currency chaos, this is a remarkable price for what it is) or for just £40 more fitted with a decent wide-normal zoom lens (which you may never use).  This camera may feel too small for your big hands.  The Olympus EM10-II is comparable in price and capability and size but is more DSLR-like in appearance and handling.  Pansonic and Olympus bodies and lenses are cross-compatible so it is a quite mature ecosystem in total.

Personally I rarely carry more than 2 lenses on any one outing (one on the camera, one in a pocket) and more often than not I don't use the 2nd lens at all.  I find changing lenses 'in the field' a bit more faff than I care for, and to be honest I'm usually happier toting a compact.

Thanks. How is the GX-80 better than the slightly cheaper G7 ?

[Woofage]

Thanks. How is the GX-80 better than the slightly cheaper G7 ?

The G7 is older. Prices tend to fall over time.
Also, I'm pretty sure that the GX-80 has in-body image stabilisation which is probably a first for Panasonic (maybe the GX8 does, I don't know). Although both Olympus and Panasonic produce micro 4/3s systems and thus lenses and bodies are all interchangeable, the key difference between the two manufacturers' approaches is that Olympus has the image stabilisation in the body whereas Panasonic puts it in the lens. I don't know the pros and cons of each approach but, for example, if you pair a Panny body and and Oly (or legacy) lens you won't have any IS.

I like the look of the GX-80. I still use an old Lumix GF1 (Panasonic's first m4/3 rangefinder style camera) and the GX-80 has been described as its descendent. Although the GF1 is really ancient by digital camera standards (no wi-fi, no touchscreen, "only" 12MP) it is an absolute joy to use and produces very acceptable results.

[frankly frankie]

The last 3, possibly 4 Panasonic introductions have had in-body stabilisation, with the newest models now offering dual (body and lens combined) stabilisation.  Reputedly the best Olympuses are still better for IS though, if you like long lenses or have shakey hands, look to Oly rather than Pana.  Another improvement introduced with the GX-80 is a new shutter mechanism, much less prone to vibration.   Other than that the choice between the GX-80 (or the larger GX8) and the G7 is mainly one of style and handling, with the G7 you would probably be more inclined to shoot with the viewfinder, SLR-style, with the GX-80 you'd definitely use the rear screen a lot more, like a compact.

[Biggsy]

Ben, regardless of whether it has a mirror or not, you're not bothered about the camera being small, so think whether you really want a camera with a small sensor, smaller than APSC, which tends to mean less depth-of-field control at least.  Some find APSC even rather small for that, hence the resurgence of full-frame cameras (which I'm not suggesting you get, but it makes a point).

As for optical viewfinders, presumably you've had a go with your family members' DSLRs to know whether you'd enjoy one despite any disadvantages.  I still enjoy mine (although it helps that it's a relatively large and bright one for the format, thanks to Pentax), despite being interested in EVFs, too.  You get to know from experience what the exposure will be like, and you can switch to live LCD view on the very rare occasion the viewfinder is too dark.  Lenses for my DSLR: I have hundreds to choose from from the last fifty years.

That's all my say.  Hope you get a decent model whatever the kind of camera.  Maybe consider a discontinued model to get a level up from what you'd otherwise afford.

DSLR viewfinder size data: www.neocamera.com/article/viewfinder_sizes

[Ben T]

Had a look at the Canon DSLR and that Tamron lens in the flesh and it really is massive, and heavy.
So I'm thinking I might not discount size/lightness as a factor. I'm now considering  this http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/panasonic/lumix-dmc-g7-compact-system-camera-in-black-14-140mm-lens-96733/show.html as a serious option as the fact of a single lens quite appeals, I can't get out of my head that constantly having the 'which lens shall I take with me today' indecision will be annoying. If I was professional and photography was the primary/only purposeof being out that wouldn't be an issue, I'd just take both, but it's not, it's often 'just a day out' primarily with photography along the way.

What's  that  camera/lens combo like then? That lens is 400 quid on its own so it seems like good value.

They do the GX-80 with a 45-150mm lens which has got the in-camera image stabilization but hasn't got a moveable screen and the lens starts at 45mm rather than 14mm ... .am I right in thinking that lens wouldn't be quite as good for shots of subjects that are fairly close to me?