I'm after a low price camera, ideas?

[iCantThinkOfAName]

2 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

Then the A5000 would most likley be a lot better since that does 1080p at least and is able to adapt old manual focus lenses that wont cost much. It will also be cheaper to buy stuff like stabalizers for it since its smaller and lighter but you will be lacking an mic input and hot shoe, remember that. 

Do you think the best idea would be to actually test the camera out in store before purchasing? Make an informed decision based on reviews then actually try it out to see if it suits my needs?

[xQubeZx]

1 minute ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

Do you think the best idea would be to actually test the camera out in store before purchasing? Make an informed decision based on reviews then actually try it out to see if it suits my needs?

Yes, you should do that with pretty much everything you buy. Read reviews, see if you can try it out and so on. Compare it to others and all that. 

[cc143]

The following comments apply to most mirrorless systems, but I have seen them mostly through the a6000, some may seem petty or things you already know, but still. 

 

1. Battery Life is appauling! it lasts 2 hours at most! 

2. Native lenses are expensive(more so than other brands) and AF adapters are crap! Also, no used offerings and limited 3rd party support to date. 

3. EVF is just not so good on it, its too small (in my opinion), laggy and just insufficient. 

4. Ergonomics are too off. I understand its smaller and that is the point, but truly, its worse than some point and shoots, I cant use it for longer periods, although granted I have pretty huge hands. 

 

I'm sure Ill remember more when I go home and pick it up. 

[xQubeZx]

10 minutes ago, cc143 said:

The following comments apply to most mirrorless systems, but I have seen them mostly through the a6000, some may seem petty or things you already know, but still. 

 

1. Battery Life is appauling! it lasts 2 hours at most! 

2. Native lenses are expensive(more so than other brands) and AF adapters are crap! Also, no used offerings and limited 3rd party support to date. 

3. EVF is just not so good on it, its too small (in my opinion), laggy and just insufficient. 

4. Ergonomics are too off. I understand its smaller and that is the point, but truly, its worse than some point and shoots, I cant use it for longer periods, although granted I have pretty huge hands. 

 

I'm sure Ill remember more when I go home and pick it up. 

Okey thank you for you opinion. But image quality wise? And like AF speeds? If we compare that is it good? I want a really small camera and I'm okay with the expensive lenses. (Or well kinda since I want the small formfactor body I'm stuck with them)

[cc143]

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

Okey thank you for you opinion. But image quality wise? And like AF speeds? If we compare that is it good? I want a really small camera and I'm okay with the expensive lenses. (Or well kinda since I want the small formfactor body I'm stuck with them)

With the same lens, MF and the advantage of focus peaking on the sony, I got much sharper images, with the same SS, Aperture and ISO with my 15.9mp EOS 50D, I don't believe I still have them though. 

 

AF speeds with native lenses, or at least my kit 16-50mm are quite fast, although tracking moving subjects is better on a DSLR. That's not to say performance is not adequate given the convenience of a csc, although keep in mind that the 16-50mm I consider significantly crap! 

 

Adapted lenses are a differente story, with an af adpter you are better off using manual focus, I have the cheap commlite, but I hear the metabones one isn't worth the extra cash. Also, you are limited to single AF, but you still get face detection. In general, it will hunt for it, going through the focal range of the lens once or twice, it might indicate focus, while it isn't in focus, and sometimes will just not focus at all. 

 

Also, the buffer on the thing is just awful, it will take too long to save a small number of small images, during which you can't review or power the camera down, I believe you can still take pictures though, although mine gets particularly laggy at that point, my sd card could be to partially blame, but its not something I havent seen reported by others, even on the a6300 and potentially (on paper) on the a6500.

[xQubeZx]

1 minute ago, cc143 said:

With the same lens, MF and the advantage of focus peaking on the sony, I got much sharper images, with the same SS, Aperture and ISO with my 15.9mp EOS 50D, I don't believe I still have them though. 

 

AF speeds with native lenses, or at least my kit 16-50mm are quite fast, although tracking moving subjects is better on a DSLR. That's not to say performance is not adequate given the convenience of a csc, although keep in mind that the 16-50mm I consider significantly crap! 

 

Adapted lenses are a differente story, with an af adpter you are better off using manual focus, I have the cheap commlite, but I hear the metabones one isn't worth the extra cash. Also, you are limited to single AF, but you still get face detection. In general, it will hunt for it, going through the focal range of the lens once or twice, it might indicate focus, while it isn't in focus, and sometimes will just not focus at all. 

 

Also, the buffer on the thing is just awful, it will take too long to save a small number of small images, during which you can't review or power the camera down, I believe you can still take pictures though, although mine gets particularly laggy at that point, my sd card could be to partially blame, but its not something I havent seen reported by others, even on the a6300 and potentially (on paper) on the a6500.

I have to say I remember a few of the things you say with my A5000. Sadly I can't find an option that feels better in that price range and size. The A6500 or A7ii would be ideal except they are like twice my budget. I have looked a bit on the XT-1 but I don't really think it brings that many improvements over the A6000 for the 200US more I would have to pay. Especially since I have already invested in a few E mount lenses. 

[kirashi]

6 hours ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

Is this a good camera, this is about the price I would pay maximum. Thoughts?

https://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sku=SSLRCAN1100D1855B#.V_5r0o8rLIU

Canon has a misleading (in my opinion) marketing scheme when it comes to labeling their camera model numbers.

Higher does NOT mean the camera is better - in fact, it's the opposite with Canon.

As seen in the following chart (copied from Wikipedia), the 1000-series cameras are actually Canon's lowest consumer offerings.

 

My 500D (commonly known as the T1i) is 5 years older than the current 1300D (known as the T6) and yet it's a better camera overall.

Spec for spec, the only thing you get with the 1300D is 3 more megapixels, which means nothing if you're not blowing shots up to poster size.

In fact, you actually drop from 3.4 shots per second to 3 shots per second.

 

Now, I'm not knocking Canon's other products here - some of the gear they make (along with Nikon) is top-notch.

Just be sure to do your research when it comes time to choose a camera, as model numbers can be deceiving.

I recommend the Canon 600D/650D/700D/750D models for video capabilities, alongside photography.

6 hours ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

Do you think the best idea would be to actually test the camera out in store before purchasing? Make an informed decision based on reviews then actually try it out to see if it suits my needs?

This is also very important - Sony makes amazing cameras for low-light photography, but I've seen some people want to throw them away because of how the menus work. Go to a store that has cameras on display and try out each brand.

Usually most brands camera menus will all operate similarly within a product range, so use that to your advantage when learning how to operate your camera. Some people start out with something really inexpensive, like say even $100 USD, just to learn the basics. Then they borrow a friends OTHER BRANDNAME camera, also in the same price range, and find out they HATE the way the menus are laid out.

[SamuelJE]

On 10/12/2016 at 8:35 AM, iCantThinkOfAName said:

Hello, I'm after a really cheap camera, like really cheap, about £150, I will be using it for some video taking pretty much weekly and will use it for taking photos. Do you think buying a used camera would be a good idea? Any ideas. I have no clue.

Thanks,

Max

I would recommend a Sony NEX 5N or 5T, Both fantastic cameras! Simply amazing for their price (250 ish 2nd hand here in NZ). Difficult to get hold of though, they sell like hot chips.

[SamuelJE]

On 10/12/2016 at 8:35 AM, iCantThinkOfAName said:

Hello, I'm after a really cheap camera, like really cheap, about £150, I will be using it for some video taking pretty much weekly and will use it for taking photos. Do you think buying a used camera would be a good idea? Any ideas. I have no clue.

Thanks,

Max

 

1 minute ago, SamuelJE said:

I would recommend a Sony NEX 5N or 5T, Both fantastic cameras! Simply amazing for their price (250 ish 2nd hand here in NZ). Difficult to get hold of though, they sell like hot chips.

Or if 30fps is fine for you (Absolutely fine really) then a Sony NEX 5 would do. They sell for 200-300 NZ, That's from 115 pounds up. Second hand that is, which is find, photographers typically look after their gear with excellence. 

[SamuelJE]

I'm keeping an eye on this atm http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=1177092528 (New Zealand Ebay basically). Fantastic camera! I own a 600d and work with a 5D and one of these, I'm a professional videographer. And this without a doubt is one of my favourite cameras for some areas of work, for what you'd use it for it would be perfect. Battery life is surprisingly good, but can't help to carry an extra with you, no matter what camera you use.

[iCantThinkOfAName]

On 10/12/2016 at 6:13 PM, cc143 said:

I have the a6000, I am not that happy with it to recommend, although tbh, its Sony's ecosystem in general that let me down the most, as well as the fact that features that supposedly the sony had over Canon or nikon, have been on Canons and Nikons for years. 

Then get the a5000 if you must buy a camera, you could pick up some cheap FD lenses and adapter off ebay for manual focus. I could even suggest you go with the body only a6000, even though it costs a bit more and get a cheap FD lens and adapter off ebay. 

I'm thinking of the Canon PowerShot SX510 HS, I can get one for £95 used, what do you think?

[cc143]

18 minutes ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

I'm thinking of the Canon PowerShot SX510 HS, I can get one for £95 used, what do you think?

I don't think powershots have manual focus, although I haven't seen one in over a decade. 

 

Rather than going point and shoot, save your £95, your phone's camera is good enough.

[iCantThinkOfAName]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

I don't think powershots have manual focus, although I haven't seen one in over a decade. 

 

Rather than going point and shoot, save your £95, your phone's camera is good enough.

Hold on, let me rephrase my question from the start.

How much am I looking at for a used camera with manual focus that can record 1080p 30fps?

[cc143]

7 hours ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

Hold on, let me rephrase my question from the start.

How much am I looking at for a used camera with manual focus that can record 1080p 30fps?

The a5000 is a good option for an amount close to what you want. You can;t do better at that price range. 

 

Its not the most expandable system, but if you want that you are looking at over double what you wanted to spend. 

[iCantThinkOfAName]

6 hours ago, cc143 said:

The a5000 is a good option for an amount close to what you want. You can;t do better at that price range. 

 

Its not the most expandable system, but if you want that you are looking at over double what you wanted to spend. 

is that a sony alpha?

[iCantThinkOfAName]

On 10/16/2016 at 2:38 AM, cc143 said:

The a5000 is a good option for an amount close to what you want. You can;t do better at that price range. 

 

Its not the most expandable system, but if you want that you are looking at over double what you wanted to spend. 

What about the canon 400d? What resolution does it record at, what frame rate, I cant find anything

[Bsmith]

8 minutes ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

What about the canon 400d? What resolution does it record at, what frame rate, I cant find anything

 

canon 400D is ancient, it doesnt have a video recording function on it so far I know, but if it does it's 720p at 24-30fps at most.

[cc143]

12 minutes ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

What about the canon 400d? What resolution does it record at, what frame rate, I cant find anything

The 400D doesn't record video natively, and as far as I am aware, neither with Magic Lantern. 

 

Since this is a recurring theme in this thread, I will list the 1st camera in each of Canon's DSLR series that records video natively i.e. without Firmware tweaks such as Magic Lantern:

 

EOS 500D @1080p 20fps

EOS 60D @ 1080p 30fps

EOS 5D mark 2 @ 1080p 30fps

 

Both the 7D and 6D record video at 1080p 30fps. 

 

No dslr camera before these in Canon's lineup had native video capabilities. I am not aware of Nikon's lineup regarding video, but I'm sure you can find out in their product websites, as with canon they have older products listed as well.  All newer cameras will support video recording at similar or better quality. 

 

(I didn't include the 1d series because its well outside the budget in question and, unless you are a pro, in my opinion redundant.)

[AkiraDaarkst]

19 minutes ago, cc143 said:

The 400D doesn't record video natively, and as far as I am aware, neither with Magic Lantern. 

 

Since this is a recurring theme in this thread, I will list the 1st camera in each of Canon's DSLR series that records video natively i.e. without Firmware tweaks such as Magic Lantern:

 

EOS 500D @1080p 20fps

EOS 60D @ 1080p 30fps

EOS 5D mark 2 @ 1080p 30fps

 

Both the 7D and 6D record video at 1080p 30fps. 

 

No dslr camera before these in Canon's lineup had native video capabilities. I am not aware of Nikon's lineup regarding video, but I'm sure you can find out in their product websites, as with canon they have older products listed as well.  All newer cameras will support video recording at similar or better quality. 

 

(I didn't include the 1d series because its well outside the budget in question and, unless you are a pro, in my opinion redundant.)

Canon 5D mark II and Nikon D90 were the first DSLRs to include video, with Nikon being first.  The reason being journalists requested the feature.

[cc143]

5 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Canon 5D mark II and Nikon D90 were the first DSLRs to include video, with Nikon being first.  The reason being journalists requested the feature.

I was aware of the 5d2 being the first Canon DSLR, the cameras listed above and their successors are the first in their series, since OP keeps asking about cameras before them, I figured they are a good reference point to keep in mind. 

[iCantThinkOfAName]

19 hours ago, cc143 said:

The 400D doesn't record video natively, and as far as I am aware, neither with Magic Lantern. 

 

Since this is a recurring theme in this thread, I will list the 1st camera in each of Canon's DSLR series that records video natively i.e. without Firmware tweaks such as Magic Lantern:

 

EOS 500D @1080p 20fps

EOS 60D @ 1080p 30fps

EOS 5D mark 2 @ 1080p 30fps

 

Both the 7D and 6D record video at 1080p 30fps. 

 

No dslr camera before these in Canon's lineup had native video capabilities. I am not aware of Nikon's lineup regarding video, but I'm sure you can find out in their product websites, as with canon they have older products listed as well.  All newer cameras will support video recording at similar or better quality. 

 

(I didn't include the 1d series because its well outside the budget in question and, unless you are a pro, in my opinion redundant.)

Okay, what about sony cameras?

[AkiraDaarkst]

21 minutes ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

Okay, what about sony cameras?

The Sony A560 I think.  But many of Sony's photo cameras before the NEX mirrorless were not well regarded.

[iCantThinkOfAName]

6 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

The Sony A560 I think.  But many of Sony's photo cameras before the NEX mirrorless were not well regarded.

Could you basically find me a DSLR from this place https://uk.webuy.com/search/index.php?stext=*&catid=950&rad_which_stock=2

It needs to do 1080p 30fps, and that's it. Must be under £180

[cc143]

2 hours ago, iCantThinkOfAName said:

Could you basically find me a DSLR from this place https://uk.webuy.com/search/index.php?stext=*&catid=950&rad_which_stock=2

It needs to do 1080p 30fps, and that's it. Must be under £180

The cheapest dslr I see which fits that description is the Canon 550D at £230. 

 

Your best bet is the Sony a5000, which is mirrorless but within your price range. Had you had more budget, there would be better options you could look at, but at £180 this is the only camera I can comfortably recommend. https://uk.webuy.com/product.php?sku=SSLRSONA50001650B#.WAkJWeArKUk

 

If you are willing to go to £250-£300, a 650D might be plausible, but at less than that, its hard to find anything that is actually worth it, so just go with the a5000, or save up, increase your budget and get the 650D.