Hey all, after some advice on a new camera. Im looking to buy in the next few months and will have around 400/500 to spend. Ive only ever had average digital cameras and looking to get something a bit better, any advice would be great!! Cheers!

A bridge type camera covers all bases but may not give you the overall control that an SLR can. In saying that, to get an SLR with a mega zoom would cost an arm and three legs so you have to weigh up what you'd mainly use it for!

Id be using it for everything really mate, im going on trips to le mans and the nurburgring next year so want to take some good pictures on route and when im there and probably use it for a lot of other stuff aswell to be honest. id quite like to learn how to take photos properly, not just point and push the button haha, if that makes sense?

I think that I'd still go for a bridge camera as they offer panoramic shots as well as extreme zoom ones. Most now allow SLR features but maybe not as in depth as a true SLR.

Sometimes they offer higher frames per second than even more costly cameras in addition to macro. All in one convenient package.

Let's see what others think?

Will deffinatley look into a few cameras anyway mate, I'm not clued up about them at all so will be a learning period aswell haha! Thanks for the advice and replies though, appreciate it a lot!

Get a basic Nikon DLSR and use the money for an extra lens.

 

Buying something with too many new features will make the learning curve too steep and by the time you have learnt all there is to know about your new camera and its abilities - it will probably be time to replace and upgrade it anyway!!!

 

Dont forget some cheap "skylight" filters to protect the glass of the new lenses.

That would be the front element then GG.  

 

Spend as MUCH as you can on the lens, as that will give you a STUNNING photograph.

Nikon or Canon, as stated above invest in lenses.

 

 And remember, buying a camera does not make you a photographer, it makes you a camera owner 

Nikon or Canon, as stated above invest in lenses.

 

 And remember, buying a camera does not make you a photographer, it makes you a camera owner 

 

Being a Japanese tourist makes you a camera owner!!!

As others have said, depends on what you want it for. A DSLR will give you the most control, but you you may end up needing several lens and not want to carry all these around with you. A bridge camera might cover all the bases you require in one package. I bought a Panasonic FZ200 earlier this year and think it is very good for what it is (decent zoom lens at constant F2.8, panarama mode, 200fps video).

Cheers for all the replys! Will go and have a look at a few different cameras and see whats what! Id quite like to learn how to use a camera properly in the long run, but we will see haha!

Bear in mind as well that there are some bargains to be had second hand if you don;t want breand new - SLR's are expensive new but much cheaper S/H and provided they are working OK will still take grewat pictures etc.

I have Canon DSLR stuff and can thoroughly recommend them as a fine bit of kit But in all fairness, Nikon is probably equally as good and from what I read, Sony is also the maker of fine cameras and a few decent lenses. The main thing to remember if you go down the DSLR route (I recommend it) is that you will probably be with that maker for the next umpteen years as once you invest in better lenses you kinda get stuck with the brand.

 

Canon probably still have the best lens range, but their excellent range of top end lenses are the preserve of professionals and very keen amateurs (mucho expensivo)

 

There are plenty of great deals for a basic DSLR and kit lenses out there that will just about fit into your budget, but you will find the immediacy of a DSLR is compelling once you get used to it. For shots where quick reactions are required, nothing else can cut the mustard and you get the bonus of finding out what all the basic photography tools and methods are . You can get much of this from a bridge camera, but I found once I bought my first DSLR, I never looked back and anything else just seems to frustrate with it's inadequacy. Don't get me wrong, bridge cameras can take a fine photograph (the person taking the picture is definitely the most important bit of camera kit), but once bought, that's your lot. You can't get a faster lens, or a wider lens. The accessories will be very compromised too.

 

So I would definitely recommend going down the DSLR route. I don't know anyone who has ever regretted it apart from my 80 year old father who struggles with switching the heating on, never mind a piece of high tech

Edited 11 November, 201312 yr by Lady Elanore

My old Nikon DSLR goes from "Off" to taking a photo in ~1 second (2 seconds in "Auto" mode), and it doesnt mind being left switched on for months at a time when I put it away "on" by mistake.

Either Canon or Nikon as above. One thing not mentioned is that (certainly for Canon) all professional lenses will be full frame, while you'll have a smaller sensor with a 1.6 conversion rate so although the ff lenses will give excellent results on a non full frame dslr your paying for lens quality at the outer part of its coverage you'll not use so unless you intend going full frame in the future might be worth checking out whats on offer from both camps first if you intend putting a kit together. FF lenses are typically bigger and heavier too and have filter sizes over 72mm... ouch

I don't think that saying Canons pro lenses are Full Frame is strictly true imho. The Pro lenses are designed to work equally with all EOS Canon cameras (ie their current digital DSLR range). You actually get many advantages with using pro Canon lenses on a crop frame DSLR (Canons none professional camera range of DSLRs) and this is also true of Nikons pro lenses too.

 

A crop frame camera doesn't use the outer part of the pro lens capability, but rather uses mostly the sweet spot of the middle. There is usually less distortion, vignetting, fringing etc in this sweet spot, so a crop sensor only uses the 'best bit of the pro lens'.

 

Another advantage is, the most expensive lenses tend to be fast (ie low f numbers like f2.8 or lower) and/or long lenses (200mm and upwards). With a crop camera, in my case the Canon 7d, I get to use a pro grade 70-200mm lens as a 112mm-320mm lens. That would cost considerably more if the lens was actually a 112-320mm f2.8 to start with. The downside is wide lenses aren't too common, although Canon do a very nice 10-22mm and Sigma do a 8-16mm one.

 

Also crop frame cameras are becoming very demanding of lenses as their (for arguments sake) 20mega pixel image uses only part of the lenses field of view, whereas a full frame's 20mega pixels is spread out over the whole of the lenses view. I believe this is one of the (admittedly less important) reasons that Canon is currently updating nearly all it's Pro lenses at the moment. In Some ways this means a crop frame camera really needs a pro lens more than a pro camera

Edited 12 November, 201312 yr by Lady Elanore

The main thing to remember if you go down the DSLR route (I recommend it) is that you will probably be with that maker for the next umpteen years as once you invest in better lenses you kinda get stuck with the brand.

 

A very valid point - I have stuck with Nikon for as long as I can remember (at least the last 25 years) and kit that I bought back then still works fine despite copious abuse and much is interchangeable (for example the lenses still have the same mount so at a push can be used with newer digital kit if needed etc.).  So view whatever you pruchase now as a long term investment.