What do we reckon?

[vRS_Pagey]

Entry level (ish) camera, just wanting to get back in to it really.....

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/80640/show.html

[harryweld]

Great cameras, I have a 550 and love it and o couple of people I know have 500. You say its entry level but let’s face it the spec is probably better than most professional cameras 10 years ago. If you do get back into it you will probably want to upgrade the lenses but to start out with at that price I think it’s a great deal.

It’s the same price as the EOS 1100 deal

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/83410/show.html?cm_vc=PPZ1

And you’re getting a better camera and that Tamron 70-300 and it’s not a great lens. I got one with my 550 and got rid of it as soon as I could afford to replace it.

[Loz]

Sorry, what?! The Tamron 70-300 is not a great lens?! I have one, Nikon fit, and I think it's AMAZING for £150!!! It's perfectly sharp and much better than what I expected for the price tbh. Not using telephoto all that often I figured I'd give it a go, rather than splash out on the Nikkor one that I would rarely use. I have used it mostly for animal shots, and I think it's brill. It also has a macro function, whilst it's not a patch on my Nikkor 105mm dedicated macro, it still works to a reasonable degree. Can't comment on the cameras as I'm Nikon all the way, but I wouldn't let the inclusion of a Tamron put you off if you preferred the other camera.

examples from mine:

[harryweld]

Sorry, what?! The Tamron 70-300 is not a great lens?! I have one, Nikon fit, and I think it's AMAZING for £150!!! It's perfectly sharp and much better than what I expected for the price tbh. Not using telephoto all that often I figured I'd give it a go, rather than splash out on the Nikkor one that I would rarely use. I have used it mostly for animal shots, and I think it's brill. It also has a macro function, whilst it's not a patch on my Nikkor 105mm dedicated macro, it still works to a reasonable degree. Can't comment on the cameras as I'm Nikon all the way, but I wouldn't let the inclusion of a Tamron put you off if you preferred the other camera.

examples from mine:

If you paid £150 then you have a different version to the one Jessops do with these kits. I got mine with my EOS 550 and at the time the 70 – 300 they were including it the kits was being sold separately for £95 and it wasn’t very good. The chromatic aberration in areas of strong contrast were very bad. If you had a tree in the picture with the sky then there were prominent magenta and green lines down each side of the braches if you made any form of cropping or enlarging of the image. I did get some great shots with it but I was never totaly happy

Edited 7 March, 2012 by harryweld

[Loz]

Mine was from Jessops, I believe they have a 'new' version of this lens out, but I can't see why it would be worset hat the old one. Perhaps you just got a bad copy? Either way, I wouldn't avoid Tamron based upon one bad experience. I believe the same can happen with any of these third party lenses. I've never had a Sigma myself, but heard similar sorts of stories.

[vRS_Pagey]

Great cameras, I have a 550 and love it and o couple of people I know have 500. You say its entry level but let’s face it the spec is probably better than most professional cameras 10 years ago. If you do get back into it you will probably want to upgrade the lenses but to start out with at that price I think it’s a great deal.

It’s the same price as the EOS 1100 deal

http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/83410/show.html?cm_vc=PPZ1

And you’re getting a better camera and that Tamron 70-300 and it’s not a great lens. I got one with my 550 and got rid of it as soon as I could afford to replace it.

So are you saying the 500 is a better camera than the 1100? Not sure what lens come with the 550, it may be the Tamron......

[harryweld]

No I've just got the Tamron 18 -270 about a month ago and its a great lens, apature is a bit slow but then you have to look at the zoom range. Perhaps I got a bad a bad 70 -300 or the older model or perhaps I’m just too fussy lol.

Buy the wat some nice pics was it the South Lake Wildlife park.

Edited 7 March, 2012 by harryweld

[harryweld]

So are you saying the 500 is a better camera than the 1100? Not sure what lens come with the 550, it may be the Tamron......

Given the choice I would go for the 500. If you check the used price of a 500 body in a dealers shop its still more than the price of a new 1100 body.

http://www.mifsuds.c...EOS_Bodies.html

At £369 for a used body then £479 for a new one and 2 lenses sounds a good deal to me

Edited 7 March, 2012 by harryweld

[Decender]

The EOS 500D is a cracking camera. The lenses that come with that kit are OK. The Canon 75-300mm that comes with it isnt considered a great lens but to get you back into things it will be fine and lets face it you can always sell it on and upgrade at a later date.

I would however ask yourself what you are wanting to do with the camera. If you are intending to take full advantage of the video feature that the EOS cameras offer then I would seriously consider looking for the EOS 550D instead as the video features on that are far superior. Also the low light performance of the 550D it better than the 500D. At the end of the day though if you are just looking for something to use as a general everyday camera for holiday snaps, days out etc then its a cracking deal and you cant go wrong.

If you want any further details try checking the camera and reviews out on dpreview.com or ask on talkphotography.co.uk

Happy snapping

Dazz

[vRS_Pagey]

Thanks for the input guys, I just want to get a feel for the art again and it is mainly for holiday, days out and car shots. I haven't handled an SLR for 20 years since my A-level, then degree course - I still have the camera I used then, a Pentax P30T - unfortunately I had to pull out of the degree course for domestic reasons, but I always promised myself that one day I would try again.

If the consensus is the 500D will do the basic job then that's the one I will go for.

[Loz]

No I've just got the Tamron 18 -270 about a month ago and its a great lens, apature is a bit slow but then you have to look at the zoom range. Perhaps I got a bad a bad 70 -300 or the older model or perhaps I’m just too fussy lol.

Buy the wat some nice pics was it the South Lake Wildlife park.

Lol, I'm quite fussy too, I once sent a lens back as I wasn't happy with it. I'm sure the Nikkor 70-300 is better, but for the price I really can't argue with it. I only use it occasionally.

The bottom two were south lakes, the top one was Blackpool zoo the other year.

[mike101010]

Entry level (ish) camera, just wanting to get back in to it really.....

http://www.jessops.c...80640/show.html

Id say find a used 40d . Its not made from plastic !

[vRS_Pagey]

What about this?

[mike101010]

I wouldnt buy a SLR that isnt a canon or a nikon . Its harder to get lens's used and also harder to upgrade .

why dont you find a used 40d maybe?

[vRS_Pagey]

I wouldnt buy a SLR that isnt a canon or a nikon . Its harder to get lens's used and also harder to upgrade .

why dont you find a used 40d maybe?

I only looked at the Pentax as I have my old Pentax P30T lens which will fit, but tbh I don't think they will be up to the task. Keep your eyes peeled for a used 40d and post the details, does it have image stabilising?

[harryweld]

A question was asked in this months Photo Plus, should someone go for a new EOS 550 or a used EOS 40. Basically they came up with the 40d has a much better construction and would probably take a knock better than a 550. On the negative side it is now an old, relatively, camera and the technology on the 550 (more mega pixels, high iso and better processor) would probably result in better picture quality. It also pointed out that the 40d has no video if you wanted that.

In conclusion the 550 would edge it on image quality and video, while the 40 has a stronger bigger body with a more pro feel to it. You takes your pick

The main differences between the 500 and the 550 are 18 mega pixels against 15 and the video frame rates are higher on the 550

Edited 12 March, 2012 by harryweld

[hertsnminds]

As well as the technical specs consider at least 2 other points:

How the camera feels in your hand

How easy the menu system is to navigate (try changing a couple of settings)

No point in buying a camera you find cumbersome to hold and a pain to change a setting you switch all the time.

Before buying go into a camera shop and try them out (with all the lenses you plan to buy as this changes balance and weight).

[alkip]

Just to add to the shouts for you to get yourself a 40D I just got myself a used one not to long ago and it's absolutely fantastic, as mentioned though if you want video capabilities, which I didn't, it doesn't have them.

I've stuck 2 or 3 pics up in the pictures thread from a recent trip to Bath and Tetbury.

[mike101010]

Video is pretty pointless for most people .

[vRS_Pagey]

I think I would use the video function quite a bit......

[faboka vrs]

We have the older 400d. Still a great bit of kit. I'm more of a prime lens fan now. Love the 50mm mk2 and it's cheap.

[Loz]

Video is pretty pointless for most people .

I know what you mean, if a photographer wants a camera, they want a camera, not a camcorder. Once I upgrade I'll end up with video, and whilst I like the idea of being able to product DOF on a video,m I really can't see what I'll use it for... a few vid clips of the dog perhaps... hardly rivetting stuff lol! I didn't let video function sway me for any of my previous camera purchases.

[harryweld]

Only used the video a couple of times on my camera as well but I thought I would point it out as to some people it may be wanted.

[ukcruiser]

Getting on the line of video...

I'm a professional photographer, shooting a Nikon D3 and D3s out of the studio, and a D3x in the studio... I've looked at changing to the new D4 (£4800 body only) and had one on order, which arrived on wednesday this week, but after much deliberation, i cancelled my order, because, it's aimed so highly at Video! (+ the new card format that only Sony make, and the new battery size, that's more expensive, yet holds almost half the shot-capacity of the old ones!)

i LOVE my Nikon's - as someone has pointed out, they do take a good beating (over 300,000 frames on my D3 and still going strong!) but do get to hold them all. Personally, i dont like non-fullsize camera bodies, and they are even worse if they have the battery pack on - they feel so awkward to hold, hence having a range of single-digit Nikon series.

The D40x should be a good camera, but have you thought of a V1 or J1 series? - we're looking into buying one for "Silent" shooting, in church's etc as they can be used with an adaptor, to take F-mount lenses.

You could also pick up a 2nd hand D90 and 18-105 VR lens for that sort of monies...

Al.

[vRS_Pagey]

Thanks for all the input guys, but I have decided to go for a Nikon D3100, it comes with a 18-55mm VR lens and a Tamron 70-300mm zoom, I understand what has been said about this lens but I had a play with the camera/lens yesterday in Jessops and I was more than happy, bearing in mind what I want it for, to start with I think I have made the right choice.

Should all be with me in time for my visit to the BTCC at Brands!