Camera recommendations?

[bobop97]

afternoon/morning/evening everyone!

 

i'm just gonna cut to the chase, i'm in need of a mid tier DSLR to get into moderate photography in the £500-£700 price bracket, and i'd appreciate what recommendations you may have.!

firstly i wouldn't say i have any must haves aside from something that that can shoot with snap on focus such as birds in the sky or sporting activities, and capable video quality, (4K, and wi-fi isn't compulsory but would be nice to have  

 

also appreciated would be a list of recommended accessories such as lenses, microphones, tripods, SD Cards etc.

any of your help would be much appreciated  

 

 

 

[Trenzit]

This really isn't a question where you want to cut to the chase, but ok, here's a quick answear.

Canon 700D, old as sh*t but i still love it because you can install magiclantern on it. It's not the best, but it doesn't lack anything necessary (no wifi and no 4k video tho). For photography the batterys hold like for ever and focus is fast but 9 af-points don't give the best coverage.

Lenses: Chose your own for what you want to do

microphone: doesn't matter for "moderate photography"

tripod: Chose your own for what you want to do

SD Cards: doesn't matter for "moderate photography"

 

There isn't a one go-to device for any of the points but the 700D has the least flaws and for the rest you simply have to look for what you want. For example, you would not need a slider at all when you only record birds where you would not see the movement at all.

[bobop97]

Seen a deal with a dual lens set with 18-55 and 70-300MM for £550 with the 700D, as long as it’s a decent all rounder that’s all I need from it.

wondering if that’s a good deal?

[cc143]

The 700d is a tad old right now for my taste, sure its a great camera, and in the right hands can get you amazing results, but its not the best you can do within your budget. Now, I would understand spending that on a used and abused 7dmk2 if you know you need the AF system, 11fps and dual cards, but you obviously dont. 

 

I'd go with a 750d or d5600, and if you are doing general sports etc. I'd probably go with a 70-300mm in that budget. They aren't that great qualitywise, but I doubt you can get anything much better with £700. 

 

SD cards are fairly easy, just go with whatever capacity you want from a reputable brand (e.g. sandisk) at a reasonably fast read speed and you are fine.

 

i dont see why you would absolutely need a tripod at this point. I'm not saying they are useless, on the contrary, I carry mine everywhere,  but they are something you are better off spending a lot on, and since you don't need one right now, and your budget is not that high, I can't say invest in a £400 tripod or go for a anything from ebay used for £50 to get through until you can afford a good one, so I'd stay away for now.

 

If you want other accessories, I guess an extra battery would be good.  

[m4n14c]

Did you buy one yet?

[wackomann]

I've used literally every Canon DSLR they've ever made and used a *lot* of Canon lenses, so my recommendations are going to be Canon orientated. However, saying that, either Nikon or Canon are both good for what you want.

First up, for that price, your best bet is to find a used 7D MK1, they are around £300 - £350 second hand.  I would try and push you towards a 7D MK II (I currently do my wildlife work on one coming from a 7D original) but I feel the AF system will be too complex for someone who isn't used to a Canon system. 

The lens choice is more important than anything. I owned a 500 F4 IS II from Canon and it could get awesome photos with even the cheapest of Canon cameras. Granted that thing is like £8K but the lens is waaaaay more important. Have a look at the Canon 400 F5.6 and 300mm F4, they are about £500 on MPB.com second hand. Pretty much all the tele zooms on the low end budget really suck, especially for AF speed. The 70-300 USM isn't bad however, but the primes are way better and second hand prices are really decent. You could also have a look at the 70-200 F4 non IS. I used one for years and it's awesome but is really crappy with any sort of teleconverter if you go down that route.

As for memory cards, I've always used Sandisk and for my work use Sandisk Extreme Pro in all my cameras. Tripods, you don't need one yet, trust me I have multiple and a really really good carbon fibre one and rarely use it still. Just PLEASE take my advice and don't get a crappy cheap one. You can find really good deals on Wex often for package Manfrotto systems. You don't need to drop £500 on a pair of carbon fibre legs. Microphones, I currently use Rode lav mics because I can't justify the price of the Sennheiser wireless systems. Rode are good bang for buck. HOWEVER, unless you're run and gun shooting DON'T get the video mic pro / Go or any of them. I also use a Zoom H6 audio recorder - stupidly the built in mics on that thing are AWESOME. I use it for all my voice over work or where there is no limit to how close the mic can be. It produces an awesome rich sound. If you're after a proper shotgun the Rode NTG 4+ is awesome, you'll need an audio recorder with an XLR interface. This is all way in advance though and you don't need any of this but it's all good kit. 

I've been through all the cheap equipment and it's knowing where to spend money that's important. If I knew all the stuff  I know now on where to spend money and where you can go cheap I'd have save a lot of £££! 


TLDR;

Get a 7D MK I, cheap tele zooms suck, get second hand 300 / 400 primes (not the big ones) or a 70-200 non IS.

Hope this helps!

[Mihle]

12 hours ago, L.Lawliet said:

U wont get any DSLR that can shoot 4k at that price range..mirrorless is the only choice u have however its inferior than DSLR for photography because their af is slower and not to mention the Viewfinder..

Sony a6300 and Panasonic G7 can shoot 4k video at 24fps..

U'll have to spend around $1000 to get 4k video with DSLR like Canon 1DX MK II BODY ONLY.

For photography pick one from one of users suggestion above although i have a suggestion as well..Try find Canon T5i/T6i its beginner friendly and can shoot wonderful photos. NO 4k video sadly.

You talk like electronic viewfinder is only a negative thing something that is not true, both optical viewfinder and electronic viewfinder both have their pros and cons.

 

Mirrorless cameras might not have as good autofocus for pictures compared to a DSLR, but they have better af in video (I know that isn't that important for some)

 

Also, at least for video, maybe for photos too(I don't know), Sony autofocus is way better than Panasonic.

 

Also, a6300 and G7 is 4K 30 fps.

[light-v]

Don't get too obsessed with specs just yet you'll find out what you really need once you start to shoot. Getting inexpensive used gear means you won't loose much by reselling later. For your budget and your shooting style, a used 7D or 70D fit very nicely as both have fast AF that most mirrorless still struggle to match especially in low light and EF-S lenses are relatively affordable too.

 

Now before I sound biased toward Canon DSLRs, I do think mirorless are extremely good these days but I think you'll learn better on limiting hardware and will help to decide whether you need features such as 4K or a smaller and lighter body. Skill is definitely more important than gear.

[Mihle]

7 hours ago, L.Lawliet said:

Say whatever u want but i prefer to look into the real reflection through my own very eyes rather than some electronics simulation thingy it helps me figure whats i am about going to take and how accurate it will be.

 

On an electronic view finder you actually see the exposure the image is going to be, you don't with an optical one.

[AkiraDaarkst]

12 hours ago, Mihle said:

On an electronic view finder you actually see the exposure the image is going to be, you don't with an optical one.

That’s not entirely accurate as the dynamic range of these viewfinders are pretty limited.  I also prefer optical viewfinders so that I can actually see what I am capturing and observe any changes in the scene.  The only EVF I use are for video.

[Mihle]

24 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

That’s not entirely accurate as the dynamic range of these viewfinders are pretty limited.  I also prefer optical viewfinders so that I can actually see what I am capturing and observe any changes in the scene.  The only EVF I use are for video.

I know, my point is that both have its own pros and cons, L.Lawilet wrote like optical one is objectively better, it's not at all. It's a preference thing. I have seen multiple people that prefer electronic one for pictures.

 

How can't you see changes in the scene on EVF? I am curious

 

Personally, I don't know what I prefer, I am a noob and don't have much experience... With neither of the two.

[cc143]

12 minutes ago, Mihle said:

I know, my point is that both have its own pros and cons, L.Lawilet wrote like optical one is objectively better, it's not at all. It's a preference thing. I have seen multiple people that prefer electronic one for pictures.

 

How can't you see changes in the scene on EVF? I am curious

 

Personally, I don't know what I prefer, I am a noob and don't have much experience... With neither of the two.

Well some optical viewfinders are objectively better than many electronic ones. In reality, unless we are talking about a pretty big and bright EVF with a great refresh rate, it won't be as good as most ovfs. I would take my 5d's big bright 100% coverage OVF over an EVF any day, but I wouldn't take the OVF of a d3300 (Just the entry level camera I most recently shot) over most EVFs though. It really differs a lot from mirrorless camera to mirrorless camera.

 

Also, in some scenarios, EVFs are useless. Anything that requires timing a flash of light or complex lighting for instance. Try shooting a club or a concert with an EVF, everything will end up pitch black. but I agree, mostly, there are pros and cons to each. The only caveat is that I would personally take a modern intelligent OVF (like in the 1dx2 or 5d4, 5dsr etc.) over any EVF you give me. 

[light-v]

28 minutes ago, Mihle said:

I know, my point is that both have its own pros and cons, L.Lawilet wrote like optical one is objectively better, it's not at all. It's a preference thing. I have seen multiple people that prefer electronic one for pictures.

 

How can't you see changes in the scene on EVF? I am curious

 

Personally, I don't know what I prefer, I am a noob and don't have much experience... With neither of the two.

EVF doesn't factor in-body processing especially if you shoot jpegs. It's not a 100% depiction of what you get just like OVF and some have different colour gamut compared to the LCD especially if they use different display technologies (often OLED in the EVF and IPS for the LCD). Also an EVF no matter how good they are will always introduce latency (obviously) but it's not really that bad with higher end models like the A9 but that's something to note. Some people feel more connected to the scene when looking through an OVF kinda like watching a concert in person rather than through a smartphone screen to watch it later. I consider either equal and it's a matter of preference really. Personally I prefer using the LCD on my mirrorless because it's more or less the same thing just without the isolation and stability but far more convenient to use. OVF is great in low light situations or when I need AF speed. I'm also far less concerned about burning my sensor in a bright sunny day with my DSLR.

[AkiraDaarkst]

2 hours ago, Mihle said:

How can't you see changes in the scene on EVF? I am curious

I meant observe any changes in real time, while EVFs have improved and modern ones are real time I still prefer OVFs for photography and EVFs are limited in screen resolution.