Digital SLR Camera Advice..

I am looking at the Canon 550D with stock 18-55mm lens as a christmas gift for my wife and I.
Just wondering if anyone has any opinions on this camera or better choices
Give me a computer and i can tell you everything about it, but when it comes to camera i understand the specs but have never owned anything of this style.

My wife loves her scapbooking and takes lots of photos for the family and dogs, but wants to get into some landscapes and bush photography during 4wd trips (I want lots of photos of the Patrol, HeHeHe). We don't want a heavy\large camera as we feel it will stay in the car. The 550D is much lighter than I had expected and easy enough to use in the point and shoot environment which it will be primarily used.

On a related note. what speed memory card should we be getting

Thanks in advance
ScottyB

G'day Scotty B,

My camera knowledge unfortunately is confined to the film age :-). There are others more knowledgeable who'll jump in soon no doubt.

The solution I came up with for loverly wife was to upgrade her pocket digital, and also get an SLR. The pocket digital is an ama2ing thing, and now seems to live permanently in her handbag. The SLR comes out when she is feeling arty :-)

We went with the Canon brand for the SLR because a friend of the loverly wife also has a Canon and the thought was they could swap bits on joint outings. The pocket is a Sony.

I bought a Canon 500D about 12 months ago, and have found it great to use and easy to learn with. I'm sure the 550D would be no different.

I bought my gf a Nikon D3100 twin lens kit (18-55mm & 55-300mm) for her birthday. I got advice from a friend who does a lot of photography, he recommended that camera and to use:
http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au
She was absolutely rapt and it is a great camera, the other thing I organised was a 3 hour introductory course which I got through zizzle. It only cost $39 ea (I went too, didn't want to but she insisted - glad she did in the end) and I would definitely recommend it, just do get an idea of what does what. We also got some really handy info about what settings to turn on and off etc.

Just like anything else, probably more personal choice than anything, I bought my Cannon EOS300D because I grew up using my old mans Cannon (film) and I put it through some tough 4x4 outings.

What ever you choose, I would recommend getting a twin lens deal ( 18-55mm & 55-300mm ) bit more 2 purchase up front but buying lenses are very expensive 2 purchase afterwards. I got 18-55mm & 55-200mm in my deal and 2 this day I am still kicking myself I didn't get 18-300mm.

SLR's aren't heavy and even with a twin lens kit they arn't that bulky, ( wouldn't leave something like that in my car though ).


In regards to what speed memory card...... depends what your taking photo's of.......... any action shots, 4x4 action, sports etc.............the faster the better. Still shots a slow card will be fine.

This is only based on my knowledge of camera's and I'm no photographer.

Maybe you should PM 04OFF, he knows how 2 use a camera.

Cheers

Todd

I bought a 550D twin lens kit earlier this year. It is great entry level DSLR camera, and for me as a novice I couldn't be happier with the results.

Here is a pic of sunrise over Lake Eyre taken in April this year, note the camera is pointed directly at the sun!

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a44...zen2011890.jpg

Before going for a DSLR I'd suggest checking out some of the great mirrorless cameras out there now. They do all that you'd do with a DSLR, but are smaller & easier to cart around.
If you can live without the niceties of the very latest offerings there are new mirrorless cameras out there which will give a lot of bang for the buck for around $1k or less..... new & with a couple of lenses.

Eg Sony A6000 - check it out along with comparable others.

I bought the A6500 - much the same camera but 2 generations on & with 'in camera' optical stabilisation (which I wanted) & 4k video (which I didn't). '

One reason I wanted to upgrade was for better low light performance. The following photo isn't special in anyway, just a 'run of the mill' example of a handheld snapshot at 1/60th second as I was walking around Launceston's Automobile museum under not particularly bright artificial lights. No editing. Sooner or later you will want to do some editing & having a camera which can shoot Raw rather than just JPG's will allow you to do far more. This photo could be enhanced in lots of ways but the downside they are big files. The original of this is around 24Mb.

http://www.nissanpatrol.com.au/forum...2018/04/17.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuppa

Before going for a DSLR I'd suggest checking out some of the great mirrorless cameras out there now. They do all that you'd do with a DSLR, but are smaller & easier to cart around.
If you can live without the niceties of the very latest offerings there are new mirrorless cameras out there which will give a lot of bang for the buck for around $1k or less..... new & with a couple of lenses.

Eg Sony A6000 - check it out along with comparable others.

I bought the A6500 - much the same camera but 2 generations on & with 'in camera' optical stabilisation (which I wanted) & 4k video (which I didn't). '

---

Thanks Cuppa. I just read an article that said mirrorless might not perform well in low light conditions. If that's true I'd be put off them somewhat as early morning/evening pics are good to take.

https://www.beachcamera.com/blog/dsl...se-whats-best/

I do note your mirrorless photos have genarally been excellent, but cant remember a low light one. Have you had any "cons" experience with yours?

Agree with what Cuppa has said above. I was given a Canon 550D with twin lense kit for my 50th birthday, and we now have canon macro, telephoto, wide angle etc, but whilst we have the armoury to shoot just about anything with great effect - members of a camera club, so run in manual, shoot in raw, editing etc, the bag gets bloody heavy. My daughter bought a canon mirrorless and its so small, and the lense range is unbelievable, has really high resolution and isn't much bigger than a mobile phone. Its rated at 18mp, which for shots blown up to say 300 x 450 is fine, depending on ISO of course. I have toyed with the higher precision 5D MK3 and the new 7D but can't see how a mere mortal with slowly failing eyesight is going to actually get any better with a camera cost 7 times what mine did. I would recommend staying with the factory lenses unless you get a specific referral otherwise. Go for the units with internal stabilisation for sure. Sigma do make very good lenses however there are definitely differences between the quality of some lenses, but thats only when you get a highly trained professional micro review then compare. Going for a full frame camera is great if you are really going to get serious and maybe blow up images to large size of go down the publishing route. We have a couple of guys in the club with them, but honestly, whilst they are good photographers, most of the difference occurs within the editing ie photoshop or similar.

Another vote for mirrorless from me... I went for the Olympus M5 when I retired my old steam driven 20Kg DSLR but any mirrorless would do if you don't like Olympus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plasnart

Thanks Cuppa. I just read an article that said mirrorless might not perform well in low light conditions. If that's true I'd be put off them somewhat as early morning/evening pics are good to take.

https://www.beachcamera.com/blog/dsl...se-whats-best/

I do note your mirrorless photos have generally been excellent, but cant remember a low light one. Have you had any "cons" experience with yours?

---

I reckon that difference is something of concern to top end professional photographers 'as a general principle'. However I would be surprised if you found Mirrorless low light performance an issue. Mine manages perfectly well to capture low light images just to get a record of something. To get quality artistic low light images will require a tripod as even though the image stabilisation allows me to had hold down to 1/30th second with care, there are times when slower speeds are needed. Much the same would apply to DSLR's I reckon. I suspect any difference might be hard to discern to any but the very experienced photographer. As yet I haven't tried much of this, but the remote control will help when I do. I used that photo of the car above 'cos I know if I had tried to take it with my old Canon (Superzoom) I would have had to have taken it on a far slower shutter speed on a tripod, not just 'clicked it in passing' as I did & it would have still been grainy. I reckon it's reasonably clear for a shot requiring ISO6400, & the image in the EVF when taking wasn't problematic at all.

You can drive yourself nuts (well I can) reading camera reviews. There are so many fantastic cameras out there these these days minor issues tend to get focussed on (pun intended :) ) It wouldn't be too hard to find reviews online to contradict or dismiss the concerns raised in the blog you linked to.

For me Mirrorless won out over DSLR as I wanted a quality camera without bulk & weight & the mirrorless options were way above my amateur skill level, giving me 'room to grow'. I have no doubt that it is possible to buy cameras which may do some things better, but if the weight & bulk means that they get left in the van it defeats the purpose. Your priorities will be different.

I have zero regrets about my choice & as yet have not found any boundaries that I have found limiting. That may come, but the same could be with any camera. I'm looking forward to learning a lot more about landscapes & lens choice out in the deserts.

Bottom line is that if you buy any modern 'prosumer' camera whether DSLR or mirrorless you will get something pretty good & any shortcomings your choice has will only become apparent with experience, & by the time you have gained that experience you will be ready & better informed to purchase it's replacement. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuppa

I reckon that difference is something of concern to top end professional photographers 'as a general principle'. However I would be surprised if you found Mirrorless low light performance an issue. Mine manages perfectly well to capture low light images just to get a record of something. To get quality artistic low light images will require a tripod as even though the image stabilisation allows me to had hold down to 1/30th second with care, there are times when slower speeds are needed. Much the same would apply to DSLR's I reckon. I suspect any difference might be hard to discern to any but the very experienced photographer. As yet I haven't tried much of this, but the remote control will help when I do. I used that photo of the car above 'cos I know if I had tried to take it with my old Canon (Superzoom) I would have had to have taken it on a far slower shutter speed on a tripod, not just 'clicked it in passing' as I did & it would have still been grainy. I reckon it's reasonably clear for a shot requiring ISO6400, & the image in the EVF when taking wasn't problematic at all.

You can drive yourself nuts (well I can) reading camera reviews. There are so many fantastic cameras out there these these days minor issues tend to get focussed on (pun intended :) ) It wouldn't be too hard to find reviews online to contradict or dismiss the concerns raised in the blog you linked to.

For me Mirrorless won out over DSLR as I wanted a quality camera without bulk & weight & the mirrorless options were way above my amateur skill level, giving me 'room to grow'. I have no doubt that it is possible to buy cameras which may do some things better, but if the weight & bulk means that they get left in the van it defeats the purpose. Your priorities will be different.

I have zero regrets about my choice & as yet have not found any boundaries that I have found limiting. That may come, but the same could be with any camera. I'm looking forward to learning a lot more about landscapes & lens choice out in the deserts.

Bottom line is that if you buy any modern 'prosumer' camera whether DSLR or mirrorless you will get something pretty good & any shortcomings your choice has will only become apparent with experience, & by the time you have gained that experience you will be ready & better informed to purchase it's replacement. :)

---

Haha you bugger cuppa, editing your post with information that answered my subsequent reply. But thats ok mate you have agiven great advice and having met you i know youre a good guy! Thank you for great info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the evil twin

Another vote for mirrorless from me... I went for the Olympus M5 when I retired my old steam driven 20Kg DSLR but any mirrorless would do if you don't like Olympus

---

I was perhaps naively hoping to keep purchase down to $600-ish, as I'm really just a hack, but wanting to take the next step from point and click.

Is there anything sub $700 that could be recommmendable? I may very well be delusional but not having a clue in this field I wouldnt be surprised!

I'm hearing buy better and grow into it. Is that the general sentiment?

What about 2nd hand, could that be a goer?

We have the Canon EOS Rebel T5 with 18-55 and 75-300 lenses. That is more than we need for anything except macro and extra long shots. The 300 is quite a long lens. The outfit is kinda bulky when you include spare batteries and charger.
Traveling we still also use an Olympus pocket camera, 5megapixle plus for pocket convenience. It easily produces sharp A4 size colour prints on our Epson printer.
Smaller is more convenient, they all work great.

Mirrorless are great. Probably the only draw back is that kit lenses to suit are often not at the same level yet as the bigger SLR platforms. So much depends on what you want to photograph. Mirrorlesses (is that even a word) big disadvantage is around speed of the response in the viewfinder. For most people that isn’t an issue. That and most mirrorless systems run on smaller sensors - this typically means less resolution and image detail. However, if you aren’t printing much it probably won’t matter!
Speaking as pro photographer.... The key thing is to select a camera that feels balances and “right” in your hand. And that has a menu and control layout you like and is intuitive to you. It’s more important to be in charge of the camera than it is how many MP it has etc.
I’d certainly look at the used market - but be careful about stolen or “gray import” stuff.
Cameras are like cars. They are worth nearly half what you paid by the time you get a new one home....

After our Canon turned 2 shit probably 2 years+ ago, we only recently decided 2 spend the money again on a camera.

I've always been a Canon man but decided against farking around with interchangeable lenses this time around and tried something different and went with a Nikon P900, while I do find the shutter a bit 2 slow for my liking for action shots, all I can say is that zoom is unbelievable

As you know my choice was a Sony. The A6000, is still well thought of, but for me out of those two choices the 16-50mm & 55-210mm lenses will be more versatile than those bundled with the Olympus. That would be my choice of the two, but I reckon either would be a good choice. The Olympus does have image stabilisation - not sure if it does much the same as on mine, but if it does it is well worth having. I can shoot 1/40th second hand held with sharp results.

It may be worth enquiring about the cost of the A6000 body + the 16-70mm lens. .... but as it's a Sony Zeiss lens it may be above your budget, but if you can afford it it is a very good lens. I have 5 lenses, but use the 16-70 90%+ of the time. It has lens image stabilisation as well as the in camera stabilisation. (God knows what that really means, but it seems to work!) I do have the 55-210 lens - it's actually one of the cheaper Sony lenses, but nevertheless is good quality & one & well worth having. I have added a x1.7 telephoto extender to it (an Olympus one) - a tad cumbersome but gives up to almost 360mm zoom, retains surprisingly good quality & for a fraction of the cost of buying a longer Sony Zoom.

Just on a side issue, whist in Tassie I trusted an old friend, an ex photo journalist, with my camera - just to let him have a look at it. Somehow he managed to get a droplet of what I suspect was beer onto the sensor after he removed the lens. I didn't discover it until several days later. Result was an ugly back spot on all my photos which took a lot of post editing to remove. Annoying & tediously time consuming.

I almost tried cleaning it myself having bought a sensor cleaning kit, but, sensibly I believe, chickened out & waited until we were home to get it professionally cleaned. I was worried that after almost 3 months on the sensor it may have been difficult to remove without expensive damage, but took it to specialists at 'Camera Clinic' in Easey St, Collingwood. Drove down there a couple of days ago & they did a fantastic job on it in an hour & cost was a very reasonable (I thought) $77. Can't recommend them highly enough.
http://www.cameraclinic.com.au/index.../imager-cleans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuppa

As you know my choice was a Sony. The A6000, is still well thought of, but for me out of those two choices the 16-50mm & 55-210mm lenses will be more versatile than those bundled with the Olympus. That would be my choice of the two, but I reckon either would be a good choice. The Olympus does have image stabilisation - not sure if it does much the same as on mine, but if it does it is well worth having. I can shoot 1/40th second hand held with sharp results.

It may be worth enquiring about the cost of the A6000 body + the 16-70mm lens. .... but as it's a Sony Zeiss lens it may be above your budget, but if you can afford it it is a very good lens. I have 5 lenses, but use the 16-70 90%+ of the time. It has lens image stabilisation as well as the in camera stabilisation. (God knows what that really means, but it seems to work!) I do have the 55-210 lens - it's actually one of the cheaper Sony lenses, but nevertheless is good quality & one & well worth having. I have added a x1.7 telephoto extender to it (an Olympus one) - a tad cumbersome but gives up to almost 360mm zoom, retains surprisingly good quality & for a fraction of the cost of buying a longer Sony Zoom.

Just on a side issue, whist in Tassie I trusted an old friend, an ex photo journalist, with my camera - just to let him have a look at it. Somehow he managed to get a droplet of what I suspect was beer onto the sensor after he removed the lens. I didn't discover it until several days later. Result was an ugly back spot on all my photos which took a lot of post editing to remove. Annoying & tediously time consuming.

I almost tried cleaning it myself having bought a sensor cleaning kit, but, sensibly I believe, chickened out & waited until we were home to get it professionally cleaned. I was worried that after almost 3 months on the sensor it may have been difficult to remove without expensive damage, but took it to specialists at 'Camera Clinic' in Easey St, Collingwood. Drove down there a couple of days ago & they did a fantastic job on it in an hour & cost was a very reasonable (I thought) $77. Can't recommend them highly enough.
http://www.cameraclinic.com.au/index.../imager-cleans

---

Thanks Cuppa. Appreciate your time and advice mate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cuppa

Before going for a DSLR I'd suggest checking out some of the great mirrorless cameras out there now. They do all that you'd do with a DSLR, but are smaller & easier to cart around.
If you can live without the niceties of the very latest offerings there are new mirrorless cameras out there which will give a lot of bang for the buck for around $1k or less..... new & with a couple of lenses.

Eg Sony A6000 - check it out along with comparable others.

I bought the A6500 - much the same camera but 2 generations on & with 'in camera' optical stabilisation (which I wanted) & 4k video (which I didn't). '

One reason I wanted to upgrade was for better low light performance. The following photo isn't special in anyway, just a 'run of the mill' example of a handheld snapshot at 1/60th second as I was walking around Launceston's Automobile museum under not particularly bright artificial lights. No editing. Sooner or later you will want to do some editing & having a camera which can shoot Raw rather than just JPG's will allow you to do far more. This photo could be enhanced in lots of ways but the downside they are big files. The original of this is around 24Mb.

http://www.nissanpatrol.com.au/forum...2018/04/17.jpg

---

Cuppa, if you want your photos to look good you are going to have to choose a better subject for the photo like this.

Attachment 74936

Must be a Ford/Holden thing I guess TPC? :) Something I never subscribed to, although I did like my old HQ Premier wagon & HZ ute more than the succession of XF's & XE's we had.
Of the photos the blue & white one wins the beauty stakes hands down in my eyes. No idea about the mechanicals & performance. Both before my time in Oz I think. (pre '87).

Did I just say something sacrilegious?

That's it Cuppa, you are to be deported! ;)

Bit late on this one, but with regard to the low light capabilities of 'Mirrorless' in general, this relates to the sensor size still. Sony is probably King as they have some great Full Frame Mirrorless, but it is all Pro level gear that costs a bomb.

I use the Olympus Micro Four Thirds sized sensor (smaller than Cuppa's Sony 6500) and although it has limitations, it can still produce some decent results. Below are a couple of examples for reference.


http://www.nissanpatrol.com.au/forum...2018/04/99.jpgP6030221 by Ben Kincade, on Flickr

http://www.nissanpatrol.com.au/forum...018/04/100.jpgMoon rising over the camp by Ben Kincade, on Flickr

http://www.nissanpatrol.com.au/forum...018/04/101.jpgNight skies after the storm by Ben Kincade, on Flickr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TPC

Cuppa, if you want your photos to look good you are going to have to choose a better subject for the photo like this.

Attachment 74936

---

Hmmm... so thats what an XU1 looked like from the side... not too bad I s'pose.

I only ever saw the front, for a few seconds, as it diminished in size in my rear view mirror.

I think there was a pic of the rear of one on the Morris Minor website for a while

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the evil twin

Hmmm... so thats what an XU1 looked like from the side... not too bad I s'pose.

I only ever saw the front, for a few seconds, as it diminished in size in my rear view mirror.

I think there was a pic of the rear of one on the Morris Minor website for a while

---

All the other contestants in the 1972 Bathurst got a good look at the back end of Peter Brocks XU1 as he lapped the rest of the field.

Attachment 74947