# What's the best value DSLR on the market at the moment ??



## Guest (Jul 21, 2011)

As the title really; I have some spare pennies at the minute as it's been very busy at work so I am looking for a new DSLR, anyone got any suggestions??

It's to be used for photographing the cars for before & after shots, and will obviously get the odd run out with the family .... price wise: anything around the £500 mark

Ta :thumb:


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

Do you have any brand loyalty? If you're not bothered about having a Canon or Nikon, some of the Sony and Panasonic DSLRs are good value for money, but there aren't as many accessories available.

I'd spend as much as you can to start with, as you'll regret buying a low end model in a few months or years when you get into it properly. Most have good resale value too, so if it turns out DSLRs aren't for you, you usually don't lose to much money.


----------



## davies20 (Feb 22, 2009)

450d!!


----------



## masammut (Jul 13, 2011)

The canon 550d is definitely the best SLR for the money at the moment. I have one and its so easy to use, with 18MP resolution - stunning pictures all the way! Selling for £600 from Amazon with 18-55mm lens
Canon EOS 550D Digital SLR Camera: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics


----------



## hulla the hulla (May 20, 2009)

d3100 or d5100


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

masammut said:


> The canon 550d is definitely the best SLR for the money at the moment. I have one and its so easy to use, with 18MP resolution - stunning pictures all the way! Selling for £600 from Amazon with 18-55mm lens
> Canon EOS 550D Digital SLR Camera: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics


Was going to suggest the same, the 600D is a much better camera, but is nearly double the price and he might as well look at the 60D if he was spending that much.

It would be a good idea to go down to Jessops and have a play with all of them, as I did not get on with the Nikon menu system and the Canon felt more comfortable for me. There's not a lot in it picture quality wise at each price point, so it really comes down to usability and accessories.

The number of pixels means sod all though so don't fall for the 18Mpixels crap. You basically want the biggest sensor you can get.


----------



## nicks500 (May 12, 2011)

I keep posting this website because is accurate and always upto date and no grey imports... I love drooling over the things I cant afford

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Sony A580 with 18-55 kit lens can be had for £529

Basically at this price point the cameras from other manufacturers (such as Nikon 5100)share the same sensor so its the glass at the front which makes the difference to image quality.

Best thing to do to differentiate is to choose the one you like the look, hold and feel of as thats important!


----------



## masammut (Jul 13, 2011)

SteveyG said:


> Was going to suggest the same, the 600D is a much better camera, but is nearly double the price and he might as well look at the 60D if he was spending that much.
> 
> It would be a good idea to go down to Jessops and have a play with all of them, as I did not get on with the Nikon menu system and the Canon felt more comfortable for me. There's not a lot in it picture quality wise at each price point, so it really comes down to usability and accessories.
> 
> The number of pixels means sod all though so don't fall for the 18Mpixels crap. You basically want the biggest sensor you can get.


Well, I agree that the bigger the sensor the better as it will be more sensitive to low light, but what will ultimately make the real difference is the lens. Try an F/2.8 L lens and you will see what I mean.


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

And do you actually need an SLR? Maybe try micro four thirds or if you want the proper APS crop sensor some smaller cameras like SONY NEX have this too.


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

masammut said:


> Well, I agree that the bigger the sensor the better as it will be more sensitive to low light, but what will ultimately make the real difference is the lens. Try an F/2.8 L lens and you will see what I mean.


I have one L lens (the 24-70mm F2.8) and yes it makes a big difference, but my point was a higher pixel density is more likely to be detrimental to the PQ than better. However, the same pixel density on a larger sensor (which results in a greater number of pixels) makes a massive different.


----------



## Guest (Jul 21, 2011)

Brazo said:


> And do you actually need an SLR? Maybe try micro four thirds or if you want the proper APS crop sensor some smaller cameras like SONY NEX have this too.


DSLR would be a good choice for me I think as I am planning on doing a photography course shortly and want to be able to take the best possible shots I can, don't want to buy one then find out that when I get proficient with it that I will need to change it again .... plus I have a spare £500 I need to get rid of before the missus decides to buy something


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

masammut said:


> Well, I agree that the bigger the sensor the better as it will be more sensitive to low light, but what will ultimately make the real difference is the lens. Try an F/2.8 L lens and you will see what I mean.


the sensor size has little difference to its real-life usability. FF is difficult to use on occasion and the K5 / D7k walk all over the 7D in high-ISO world....

If you want value, try a Sony or a Pentax. The A55 is very impressive, as is the K5 - but budget and feel should matter.

Bret


----------



## nicks500 (May 12, 2011)

Be careful when buying an dslr, lens buying addiction(LBA somebody called it) can very expensive because the kit (18-55mm) lens is just the beginning, what happens when you want to do nature photography and want a fast big zoom lens £1800 says Mr Canon salesman


----------



## nicks500 (May 12, 2011)

bretti_kivi said:


> the sensor size has little difference to its real-life usability. FF is difficult to use on occasion and the K5 / D7k walk all over the 7D in high-ISO world....
> 
> Bret


Sorry Bret but I disagree, the biggest jump in usability was when I went to Full Frame, my wide angle lenses became 'proper' (?) wide angle lenses and the view finder was brighter and larger and my low light photography became less 'noisy'. I call that three real-life differences


----------



## nicks500 (May 12, 2011)

nicks500 said:


> Sorry Bret but I disagree, the biggest jump in usability was when I went to Full Frame, my wide angle lenses became 'proper' (?) wide angle lenses and the view finder was brighter and larger and my low light photography became less 'noisy'. I call that three real-life differences


But whether it is worth the price difference at the moment is up to the user


----------



## SteveyG (Apr 1, 2007)

^^ all true, however there's nothing worse than buying a low end DSLR only to find a few months later you're wishing you'd got the next one up...

I'm currently fighting the urge to buy a macro lens.


----------



## nicks500 (May 12, 2011)

SteveyG said:


> ^^ all true, however there's nothing worse than buying a low end DSLR only to find a few months later you're wishing you'd got the next one up...
> 
> I'm currently fighting the urge to buy a macro lens.


No I am agreeing with you, my rule of thumb is buy the best you can afford, spend the maximum amount you were going to use and if there is a much better one (which there normally is) and proportionally its only a few quid more see if you can buy that instead, buy once and buy the best not buy cheap then buy again and again


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

cheapest FF I can come up with is a Sony 850, so I'd say the argument for FF is moot.
I also disagree on the "best" argument; glass is far more useful in the long term, so my suggestion is to get a cheap-ish body, hit the limits of that, and then upgrade. It'll take a lot more time than most believe.

Bret


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

bretti_kivi said:


> the sensor size has little difference to its real-life usability. FF is difficult to use on occasion and the K5 / D7k walk all over the 7D in high-ISO world....
> 
> If you want value, try a Sony or a Pentax. The A55 is very impressive, as is the K5 - but budget and feel should matter.
> 
> Bret


Pretty much this.

IMO, The best VALUE *NEW* DSLR at the moment is the Nikon D7000.

However, that is twice your budget. I would actually go for the Canon 500D.

The trouble with Nikon is that the low end cameras use lenses that are for various reasons, expensive and scarce second-hand and they can only AF with these lenses. The Canons can use a much cheaper, wider variety of lenses.

Now if you want to talk a VALUE DSLR and you're not bothered about used. the Nikon D200 with lens will be circa £500 now and it will be all the camera you need. Until you know what you need IYKWIM.

As far as the rest goes. Lenses are where the quality is. But, only if you know how to use them.

500D 18-55 IS Kit would be a really good starting point.

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1018.html


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Nikon D7000 with kit lens is the same price roughly as Pentax K5 with Kit Lens and the Pentax is generally better reviewed.


----------



## Nemo (Jun 4, 2011)

Cool thread, here I was looking for bird cack damaged laquer advice and see this ( also thanked someone with my fat fingers and phone Internet) anyhow also looking at DSLR and considering the canon 550d at £600 in Currys et


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Brazo said:


> Nikon D7000 with kit lens is the same price roughly as Pentax K5 with Kit Lens and the Pentax is generally better reviewed.


I haven't read any K5 reviews. I have to much invested in Nikon gear - I will now thanks.


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

It got the Gold star over at DPreview, Nikon 7000 got silver and a few % less. TBH theres little between the two and when I buy one thats the decision I will enjoy making!


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Actually its rumoured the Pentax K5 has the same sensor as the Sony 580 so maybe I'll save myself £500 and get that!


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

I believe Nikon use Sony Sensors too (D7K?).

It's HOW they use them that differs.

I just had a look at the Pentax Lenses and there are some holes in the range. Though that never seems to bother Bret.

At the end of the day, Michelle Roux is a great chef no matter what pan he cooks with.

Wierd family i have. I have Nikon, my Dad has Canon (but was a Pentax SLR user) and my Sister in Law has a Sony.


----------



## Brazo (Oct 27, 2005)

Gruffs said:


> At the end of the day, Michelle Roux is a great chef no matter what pan he cooks with.


This is it at the end of the day, too many pixel peepers about. Theres little you can't do with an entry level dslr and a kit lens as long as you know its limitations.

You only have to look at some of the great images taken throughout history and you aren't struck by what camera was used!!


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

No - I'm usually struck by SWMBO's hand when looking at _those_ images :thumb:


----------



## nicks500 (May 12, 2011)

bretti_kivi said:


> cheapest FF I can come up with is a Sony 850, so I'd say the argument for FF is moot.
> I also disagree on the "best" argument; glass is far more useful in the long term, so my suggestion is to get a cheap-ish body, hit the limits of that, and then upgrade. It'll take a lot more time than most believe.
> 
> Bret


So why did you bring up the conversation about full frame in the first place and the comment "FF is difficult to use on occasion" The thread was about £500 dslr's, all I did was react to your statement.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

because the arguments go:
- fewer MP is "better" for low light
- FF is the only way to go for high-ISO performance

neither of which is necessarily true. Yes, they are under some circumstances, but the improvements in sensor tech are coming along very nicely indeed, such so that I have a 100% viewfinder and usable ISO well past 6400, and that in APS-C.

The D7k, 580 / A55 and K5 all use the same ExMOR sensor IIRC, and it's simply treated differently in the different cameras. The signal is clean as hell (I've seen pics retrieved from 5 stops underexposure) and my biggest problem is making sure I've not overexposed anything - everything else can be found in PP.

Bret


----------



## crf529 (Jun 29, 2011)

K-r's pretty bloody awesome value. Can't be touched by Canikon in that price range


----------



## GIZTO29 (May 8, 2009)

Guys, ive read through the comments and all i think is....Mark must be very confused! Why is there mention of Full Frame etc, he has no knowledge of DSLR and wants advice on what to buy for around £500. Keep it simple is my first thought....


----------



## MR Ray (Jun 29, 2007)

Gruffs said:


> I believe Nikon use Sony Sensors too (D7K?).


I heard it was the other way around but this is what I heard :thumb:


----------



## MARKETMAN (Aug 22, 2006)

why not buy second hand... some bargains out there... a Canon 40d can be bought for around £300.00 for a non abused one .. a few years old but still a cracking camera..then put the rest to some nice glass:thumb::thumb:


----------

