Hit me!

Just want something reasonable to take what might be considered "above average" photos - none of your £2k SLR with foot long lens' stuff. Just a reasonable compact SLR would be nice. Also tempted to look 2nd hand as well.

Have a look here Jase, top 5 cameras for under £100

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/advice/383625/top-5-budget-compact-digital-cameras-for-less-than-100.html

You've specified a "compact SLR". Do you really mean SLR? If so then you'll will only pick up a second hand one for that money, and quite an old model at that.

Assuming you're just after a digital compact model then there are literally hundreds to choose from and even £50 will buy you something that takes technically decent pictures. Don't be fooled by mega-pixels either. Any camera that you can buy these days has more than enough resolution.

In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that the thing that will affect your pictures most is the person behind the camera. If you've got an eye for composition and a feel for what makes a good picture then you'll get good results.

You won't get 'above average' photos for £100 jase, be fair lol. But anything made by a decent manufacturer ie Nikon, canon will give you a perfectly good photograph.

The Samsung MV800 in the thread I posted above has a good write up, here are a few more reviews

If you fancy spending a bit more, I am selling my Canon G10, this is basically an SLR in a compact body, all manual settings etc.

Above G10 would be a good shout as you have manual control over your photos to give that 'above average' snap (and I'd imagine/hope a slightly bigger sensor than a compact)

2nd hand Nikon D40.

A kind member has offered me a decent solution second hand - Think its a finepix HS-10. A little over my budget but seems a good place to start.

A kind member has offered me a decent solution second hand - Think its a finepix HS-10. A little over my budget but seems a good place to start.

theyre ok, bit hard to handle in low light, and a bit soft, with those its all about zoom

theyre ok, bit hard to handle in low light, and a bit soft, with those its all about zoom

It seemed reputed online and I am not after anything for professional shots. Just something to improve shots of my car detailing and other such things.

i would much rather spend on something like this with some kit already with it too - above average photos? definitely

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-350D-DSLR-Digital-SLR-Camera-battery-grip-Please-read-/221206975758?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item3380f6950e

It seemed reputed online and I am not after anything for professional shots. Just something to improve shots of my car detailing and other such things.

aye they are ok mate dont get me wrong, just the shots will be average though, i have had one

Edited 15 April, 201313 yr by Lofty79

and mine is coming with a few extras too I saw online they were sub £100 without any extras. I have a tripod too which might come in useful for getting nice steady shots.

and mine is coming with a few extras too I saw online they were sub £100 without any extras. I have a tripod too which might come in useful for getting nice steady shots.

aye the tripod will be essential, for a couple quid get yourself a remote control, that way you dont get any shake from pressing button.

try the canon ixus range. superb cameras.

I think there's some confusion here about what an "above average" photo is. Are we talking technically or artisitcally? If it's to do with technical quality then it's probably true that more expensive equipment will usually produce pictures of a higher quality. But who cares? When was the last time you looked at an image that made you go "Wow, that must have been taken with an expensive camera"? Exactly.

You go "Wow" because a picture grabs you, surprises you, stuns you, shocks you and just generally creates a reaction. Some of the finest photos out there will have been taken on inexpesive equipment, and there's no question whatsoever that some of the worst photos can probably boast thousands of pounds worth of gear behind them.

"Above average" pictures exist because people with above average skills took them. They saw great framing, found great lighting, spotted a fabulous subject or just got lucky. I'll repeat what I said earlier, in that you can genuinely capture brilliant images with a fifty quid camera.

Finally, I would add that certain conditions do require expensive kit, particularly expensive lenses. Those situations are almost always when there is very little light about and/or a very fast shutter speed is called for. This situation often crops up in sports and nature photography, and even then there are often ways and means to negate the need to spend thousands of pounds.

i agree, but, what a shame it would be if you got that shot, a show stopper, and it was poor? With bad distortion, soft lens, or noise issues from a tiny sensor.

If what you say is true then a pro could just have a point and shoot.

For that budget i would look for an old 6mp dslr with a 50mm fixed prime. they can be got for that, and the quality will be streets ahead, and the versatility of having a camera capable of many light conditions/moving objects etc means i would never buy a bridge again.

This looks like a lot of camera for the money

http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/panasonic-lumix-lz20-bridge-camera-black-16-mp-21x-optical-zoom-3-inch-lcd-only-1529445

I think there's some confusion here about what an "above average" photo is. Are we talking technically or artisitcally? If it's to do with technical quality then it's probably true that more expensive equipment will usually produce pictures of a higher quality. But who cares? When was the last time you looked at an image that made you go "Wow, that must have been taken with an expensive camera"? Exactly.

Honestly? All the time. I did it last night, infact. I am a pedantic and critical photographer (of myself just as much as anyone else's, and moreso!) and quality matters massively. Even using my own equipment I notice immediately when I'm flicking through a bunch of shots I've just taken and come across one taken with my more expensive lenses compared to my cheaper ones. Sure, I can get good shots with my other lenses but there is a noticeable difference when I use one that cost 6 times more. The clarity, sharpness, punch, just everything.

I agree that equipment isn't everything! You could have the most expensive camera in the world, but if you've no idea how the thing creates an image you're unlikely to get decent photos. However I think it's inaccurate to suggest equipment doesn't matter. As a general rule I'm unimpressed by shots from compacts, not because they are bad, just because its really hard to get a stunning image from one because they are very restrictive, and their lenses are small and comparatively cheap.

As above, it doesnt matter how well you compose the shot, or how good the subject is, if the camera is crap you are going to get a crap photo.

For the record, all this talk of type of lens etc is all good for the photographer who has it as a hobby/profession, but literally I just wanted something "better than a mobile phone" and I am sure I have got this with the HS-10.

It's a perfectly decent camera, use it, enjoy it, if you feel it lacking slightly later on work out what you are missing and move on. Don't fall into the trap that this years model is miles better than the last it probably isn't.

For the record, all this talk of type of lens etc is all good for the photographer who has it as a hobby/profession, but literally I just wanted something "better than a mobile phone" and I am sure I have got this with the HS-10.

I know jase, and you will! I don't know of any camera which is inferior to a mobile phone camera lol. Was just responding to the comment about equipment not mattering, as I don't feel that is the case. You will be able to get some nice shots and I believe you do have manual controls on that one anyway don't you?

I know jase, and you will! I don't know of any camera which is inferior to a mobile phone camera lol. Was just responding to the comment about equipment not mattering, as I don't feel that is the case. You will be able to get some nice shots and I believe you do have manual controls on that one anyway don't you?

Good question. Box arrived today, and not opened it yet. I know it has a manual twisty zoom thing like a "proper" lens.

Good question. Box arrived today, and not opened it yet. I know it has a manual twisty zoom thing like a "proper" lens.

These HS10's are very good at macro shots, a wee tip, zoom in to like 60-70mm and move back from subject as that eases the barrel distortion

Heres a few shots i took with my hs10 before i went dslr

i got a flash unit which allowed me to do some good indoor action shots too, and i have put in a full telephoto shot too