Best DSLR camera for my needs?

[SliK JiM]

Right, I've been looking at this for a while, and I'm down in my mind to 2 cameras:
The Canon 500D and the Canon 550D

I think I would prefer the 550D as it is the newer model/slightly more future proof and is probably to the level that I'd theoretically never need to upgrade the base and could just buy lenses to suit (I probably will eventually...). My only concern, is it worth £120 ($175) more than the 500D?

But, I'm posting on here as I want to see what people out there suggest!? I am open to suggestions!

I want to use it for more than chameleon pics as you can imagine. My main things are landscapes and macro shots, so i need a very versatile camera to cope (plus a vast array of lenses no doubt), so what do you all suggest?

Thanks!

James

 

[Oski]

Hi mate sorry i know nothing about cameras at all.

But, if you dont mind me asking how much would a camera like you mentioned be roughly?

I have a digital camera, which does it job has a macro setting etc but would like a nice camera, with different lens etc

 

[jessica]

Unless there is a particular feature that the 550d has that the 500d doesn't? If not I would get the 500d and use the extra cash towards a macro lenses.

IMHO the lenses are more important then the body.

 

[DGray]

Yes to the 550

Right, I've been looking at this for a while, and I'm down in my mind to 2 cameras:
The Canon 500D and the Canon 550D

I think I would prefer the 550D as it is the newer model/slightly more future proof and is probably to the level that I'd theoretically never need to upgrade the base and could just buy lenses to suit (I probably will eventually...). My only concern, is it worth £120 ($175) more than the 500D? ...
James

I'm a Canon shooter, and I have shot with that series of DSLR. The newer 550 has a better sensor for macro shooting. The other features probably are not relevant if you're shooting landscapes. It does have a video capacity.

Canon makes some great lenses; be wise about you choices and they can serve you for years. I just sold a macro 100 that was ten yrs. old and worked very well.

 

[Peter Kraemer]

Hi James,
this is the important fact:

IMHO the lenses are more important then the body.

Take the EOS500 an use the saved money for better lenses.


Last year I was at the same point, I had the EOS400 an the EOS450/500/50 were the new models. I decided for the EOS50 (only body), because it is a higher class and the body is larger and better to hold.
But I need a DSLR - not a video cam! I prefer a better DSLR than a multi function "thing".
Maybe the EOS50 is an option for you?

Peter

 

[SpinyFranky]

Unless there is a particular feature that the 550d has that the 500d doesn't? If not I would get the 500d and use the extra cash towards a macro lenses.

IMHO the lenses are more important then the body.

Not True at all.

Camera Bodies are very important, more important than any lens especially when it comes down to sensors and craftmanship.

Im not a Canon or Nikon shooter ( I was able to resist getting suckered into the outrageous lens price (for built in stabilization my ***) ). But with Sony, the camera bodies are probably the most important choice you can make.

Ive also shot with Olympus and the differences using the same lenses on different bodies is ridiculous.

The sensors inside low end bodies are usually cheaper/less complex versions of the ones inside flagships, meaning the lower the body you go the more noise and distortions you can expect, as well as less realistic color reproduction (without post processing).

Sorry Jess, but to assume that you could ever get the same quality of image with say an intro DSLR compared to a Mid Rand - using the same lenses is silly. And it becomes sillier when comparing Intros to Flagships.

I switched from Olympus to Sony and I could not have been happier.

Internal Stabilization built into the body saves me a couple hundred on each lens ( I usually save and just buy prime ). But Sony most midrange lenses compare excellently to higher end Canons/Nikkor.

Also the fact that you can use Vintage Minolta makes sony worth it alone.

Sony does fall short on accessories (flash + flash adaptors especially) but thats still insignificant when you consider the company has not been in DSLRS that long compared to its competitors ( and its already demolished Olympus in sales, and hopefully is gonna overtake the big 2 in the next few years.

 

[summoner12]

Not True at all.

Camera Bodies are very important, more important than any lens especially when it comes down to sensors and craftmanship.

WOW, I don't think you can be farther from the truth.

The lens is what makes the camera body see. If the camera body isn't delivered a clear image, how do you expect the camera body to make up for that?

You slap a poor quality lens on the latest and greatest camera body with the best sensor on the market and all that sensor is gonna do is show you more reasons why that lens is a POS.

Glass is where the money should be spent IMHO. I am no expert... but I have some nice glass now, and I can say without a dought my images will be 'better' than before with my lesser quality glass. If you want to take a look for yourself. Google: the digital picture. go to the ISO sample pages. Select two lenses and do the side by side comparisons. The site I mention is for Canon gear.... so if you are into Canon you will find this tool useful for searching out the lens that makes the most sense.

Personally... Buy a decent camera that can give you good control. buy good glass. When the camera becomes the bottleneck for the quality, buy a new body. A rebel or 500D as they are known in the rest of the world.... will provide plenty of 'stuff' to play with.

I own a 50D and it can do more than I am able right now... still learning it. But having good glass is what give you a sharp image. Obviously the camera is what captures that image, and should be up to the job... but with poor glass comes poor image regardless of the camera body. It sorta boils down to 'what came first, the chicken or the egg?' But when it comes to 'what should you spend your money on?' it's the glass, then the camera body.

 

[SpinyFranky]

WOW, I don't think you can be farther from the truth.

The lens is what makes the camera body see. If the camera body isn't delivered a clear image, how do you expect the camera body to make up for that?

You slap a poor quality lens on the latest and greatest camera body with the best sensor on the market and all that sensor is gonna do is show you more reasons why that lens is a POS.

Glass is where the money should be spent IMHO. I am no expert... but I have some nice glass now, and I can say without a dought my images will be 'better' than before with my lesser quality glass. If you want to take a look for yourself. Google: the digital picture. go to the ISO sample pages. Select two lenses and do the side by side comparisons. The site I mention is for Canon gear.... so if you are into Canon you will find this tool useful for searching out the lens that makes the most sense.

Personally... Buy a decent camera that can give you good control. buy good glass. When the camera becomes the bottleneck for the quality, buy a new body. A rebel or 500D as they are known in the rest of the world.... will provide plenty of 'stuff' to play with.

Well if I took an A900 and strapped a no name $75 dollar no name 50mm f2.8 macro on it then yes my images will still turn out crappy.

If I take an A230 and strapped a G series 100mm f2.8 on it ($450 + tax) then my images will still not come out that great. Why? Because the A230 sensor is a reduced version of the A300 sensor, which is a knock off of the A700 sensor. Whats the A700 Sensor? a less extensive version of the A900's sensor. The Same applies to every single part of the camera, ranging from build materials to internal frames to sensors.

If I dropped an A230 its likely to break, drop my A500, its likely to break something other than itself. Simple as that is a good enough justification for me to never skimp on the camera body.

If you buy a low quality body you can't expect it to compete with a high quality body using the same lenses, and seeing as no matter what lenses you have you need a body to put them on, the body is thus important (and imo more important than any lens)

Also for the record, while ISO levels and noise are determined a lot by a lens (build quality) its the sensor itself that actually "develops the image". But mate you practically said it yourself, the features that each camera body offers makes them what you need. I don't care about your 50mm F1.4 for low light shots if your camera can't shoot above ISO 800 without noise.

but its not an argument, rather a discussion.

 

[SliK JiM]

Right, where to begin with all those responses...

I'll take the easy one first!

Hi mate sorry i know nothing about cameras at all.

But, if you dont mind me asking how much would a camera like you mentioned be roughly?

I have a digital camera, which does it job has a macro setting etc but would like a nice camera, with different lens etc

The 500D is £575 with 18-55 lens
The 550D is £695 with 18-55 lens

It's the same lens with both, so its just the body that is the difference.

DGray:

Is the sensor on the 550D considerably better than on the 500D? I will be using it quite a lot for macro shooting so it will be a key concern of mine!

Everyone else:

The rest of you are pretty much the argument going on in my head! I want to weigh up the pros and cons of each approach and every time I try I still don't have an answer!

I prefer the idea of going for the 550D as it is a newer body but this will limit me intially to how much I can spend on lenses! But, with that being said, a DSLR is a marathon not a sprint, so is it a worthy investment now as lets face it, it's going to take me a long time to be any good with the thing and so I'll probably just stick to the 18-55 lens for quite a while, probably buying a macro next, then a decent telephoto lens after that.

As with the 500D, I would be able to buy the body and macro lens in one swoop and probably get the telephoto after not too long at all. But, I get concerned that it would be the body letting down the lens as I will no doubt get hooked and keep upgrading this and that!

It's a tricky situation! I'm not above buying second hand (not from somewhere like ebay but from a dedicated camera forum) as this could potentially save me a packet and deliver me the same equipment. How does that sound?

SpinyFranky:

How good is the Sony? I am a massive Sony fan for things like TV's/Amps/DVD players/CD players but for the reason that they have been around for quite a while and the premium you pay for a sony is generally worth it (I bought a 5 DVD changer from them ages ago and it has been one of my best purchases - along with my amp!) but they are quite new into the fray of DSLRs so I haven't seen that much about them.

 

[SpinyFranky]

Right, where to begin with all those responses...


SpinyFranky:

How good is the Sony? I am a massive Sony fan for things like TV's/Amps/DVD players/CD players but for the reason that they have been around for quite a while and the premium you pay for a sony is generally worth it (I bought a 5 DVD changer from them ages ago and it has been one of my best purchases - along with my amp!) but they are quite new into the fray of DSLRs so I haven't seen that much about them.

Well I purchased the A500, and its lovely. That body feels really "heavy duty" aka the build material is very nice but its not outrageously heavy. It feels very solid, and the ISO and noise levels on most of my lenses is negligible/completely removable in a program as simple as Iphoto

I used to work an Olympus Evolt 420... and the difference is night and day.

Sony also Has REALLY nice lenses, with Carl Zeiss and the G series. But you could also track down vintage minolta on ebay for 1/4th the price and its still competitive with newer things.

As I said earlier though, Sony is lacking a little on accessories such as external flash/flash rings/ good slave flash setups. The one Flash Ring they do have needs an adapter to fit (weird because its made by sony for sony....). Thats just an small thing though, and since I shoot mostly outdoors w.o flash It has not bothered me at all.

Last but not least I also don't shoot with a tripod, all photos are taken hand held, this is where the body residing internal stabilization works wonders, I have semi steady hands, but I can still shoot continuously while moving the camera with say 1/125 SS with little to no blur. Keeping hands still Ive got it down to 1/60th SS with no blur. Makes it wonderful to not have the heave the camera around. Plus with Nikkor and Cannon, each high quality lens has its own stabilization system, which usually means its gonna be a couple hundred more than the sony equivalent.

Not that Nikon and Canon are not respectively good, just like you said ive always used sony for most products and when I was introduced to their DSLRS I just fell in love.

My Body (A500) was about $600 + Tax though, a bit more expensive than the others. But well worth it in my opinion.

 

[SpinyFranky]

Whatever Camera you do buy, save up and just buy the Body + a prime lens at the same time. The Whole Body + Kit lens is kinda dumb in my opinion.

Kit lenses usually suck, compared to nearly everything else.

 

[summoner12]

I have two lenses from eBay: 100mm macro USM and my 100-400mm L IS USM. I just shot some moon pics with the 100-400mm. this thing is unreal! (BTW, this arrived this morning so it is my first chance to really play with it)

My other 'second hand' lens is a 18-55mm IS from Craigslist. (straight out of the rebel kit and the owner wanted a 50mm F/1.8, don't think he even mounted the lens)

I think if you've been on eBay long enough and you 'shop' a bit, you can tell who is full of shit. You ask the seller questions, you look at the number of pics they've provided and their willingness to provide MORE photos, specifically the ones you ask for. You ask lots of questions that cover the bases and if you get a bonk lens, eBay backs you up. If you asked the buyer 'does it have fungus?' and they say 'no!' and you get it with fungus.... you win and you get your money back. yes.... buying costly lenses on eBay is a risk, I am not saying it isn't.... but if you know how to look for them and you build a relationship, you'll find some real gems on their. I mean... my 100mm macro came with a 'baLens' white balance lens cap and B+W F-Pro UV filter. I got the lens for $75 under B&H's price AND $120 worth of 'extras'. The lens was PERFECT. My 100-400mm didn't come with any extras.... but the damn thing is so clean I beleive the seller when she said 'I got this, used it two or three times at the zoo and put it into storage'. I mean it is just flawless, no dust or nicks or scratches and all functions work perfect. I saved $300 off the B&H price.

Best advice I can give with eBay... use eSnipe and WATCH items. Go on... search for the lens you want... and watch the auctions for a few days. read all the details and fine print. Look at previous auctions that have already been completed. This gives you an idea of what to pay for a lens. It also helps weed out people scamming and re-listing items people have backed out of. You can also tell if the person has half a brain by asking technical stuff that most 'camera people' would know. Willingness and timeliness answers are good indicators of 'serious' people with a legitimate item for sale. Also watch out for people who sell different types of items... like pawn shops. I say this because they don't know much about what they are selling.... so just beware.

I am just spewing because I have had good luck with eBay in a lot of "dept.'s" of eBay... be it Car parts, camera stuff, electronics and selling ect..... I guess I am defensive a little. Just be careful and mindful. Don't jump the gun.

 

[SpinyFranky]

Don't get me wrong summoner, ive gotten some wonderful things off of Ebay myself....

but there is still a lot of crap on there none the less.

A LOT of people have begun to market no-name lenses, selling them as compatible (and they are usually) to most mounts (4/3rds seems most popular) and people get sucked into buying them because the idea of paying $75 dollars for a no-name lens vs. $400 for say a sony or nikkor really appeals to them.

I know people who have done this, they regret it. The no-namers are never anywhere as good as brand name high quality pieces, and they usually feel scammed.

People think 100 mm f2.8 macro by SONY is the same as a 100mm f2.8 by some no name, and that the price difference is basically because they are paying for the Sony name tag, but they don't know how wrong they are .

I got my Evolt 420 off of ebay for a great price as well, and I got a second lens for it off ebay as well.

But im hesitant to buy second hand goods when it comes to camera stuff, and usually USUALLY the people who take best care of it charge as close as they can to a new one retail, which usually just ends up with me buying the product retail new.

prime example,

just recently I was bidding on a macbook (aluminum from 09). I got the winning bid @ $850. With 3day shipping and tax and parcel insurance my total was $980 dollars. The next day Apple releases the new macbook pros, which with my student discount came out to $1099. The choice came down to a now near obsolete product for near retail price, or a new one for retail

obviously I choose to go to the apple store and get a new mac

 

[SliK JiM]

Well if I took an A900 and strapped a no name $75 dollar no name 50mm f2.8 macro on it then yes my images will still turn out crappy.

If I take an A230 and strapped a G series 100mm f2.8 on it ($450 + tax) then my images will still not come out that great. Why? Because the A230 sensor is a reduced version of the A300 sensor, which is a knock off of the A700 sensor. Whats the A700 Sensor? a less extensive version of the A900's sensor. The Same applies to every single part of the camera, ranging from build materials to internal frames to sensors.

If I dropped an A230 its likely to break, drop my A500, its likely to break something other than itself. Simple as that is a good enough justification for me to never skimp on the camera body.

If you buy a low quality body you can't expect it to compete with a high quality body using the same lenses, and seeing as no matter what lenses you have you need a body to put them on, the body is thus important (and imo more important than any lens)

Also for the record, while ISO levels and noise are determined a lot by a lens (build quality) its the sensor itself that actually "develops the image". But mate you practically said it yourself, the features that each camera body offers makes them what you need. I don't care about your 50mm F1.4 for low light shots if your camera can't shoot above ISO 800 without noise.

but its not an argument, rather a discussion.

The whole point of this thread was a discussion!

Whatever Camera you do buy, save up and just buy the Body + a prime lens at the same time. The Whole Body + Kit lens is kinda dumb in my opinion.

Kit lenses usually suck, compared to nearly everything else.

I always figured that! But, at the moment, the body and lens kit is cheaper than the body alone, so I'd be silly not to take the kit!

Well I purchased the A500, and its lovely. That body feels really "heavy duty" aka the build material is very nice but its not outrageously heavy. It feels very solid, and the ISO and noise levels on most of my lenses is negligible/completely removable in a program as simple as Iphoto

I used to work an Olympus Evolt 420... and the difference is night and day.

Sony also Has REALLY nice lenses, with Carl Zeiss and the G series. But you could also track down vintage minolta on ebay for 1/4th the price and its still competitive with newer things.

As I said earlier though, Sony is lacking a little on accessories such as external flash/flash rings/ good slave flash setups. The one Flash Ring they do have needs an adapter to fit (weird because its made by sony for sony....). Thats just an small thing though, and since I shoot mostly outdoors w.o flash It has not bothered me at all.

Last but not least I also don't shoot with a tripod, all photos are taken hand held, this is where the body residing internal stabilization works wonders, I have semi steady hands, but I can still shoot continuously while moving the camera with say 1/125 SS with little to no blur. Keeping hands still Ive got it down to 1/60th SS with no blur. Makes it wonderful to not have the heave the camera around. Plus with Nikkor and Cannon, each high quality lens has its own stabilization system, which usually means its gonna be a couple hundred more than the sony equivalent.

Not that Nikon and Canon are not respectively good, just like you said ive always used sony for most products and when I was introduced to their DSLRS I just fell in love.

My Body (A500) was about $600 + Tax though, a bit more expensive than the others. But well worth it in my opinion.

Well, I shall have a look into Sony today then!

I have two lenses from eBay: 100mm macro USM and my 100-400mm L IS USM. I just shot some moon pics with the 100-400mm. this thing is unreal! (BTW, this arrived this morning so it is my first chance to really play with it)

My other 'second hand' lens is a 18-55mm IS from Craigslist. (straight out of the rebel kit and the owner wanted a 50mm F/1.8, don't think he even mounted the lens)

I think if you've been on eBay long enough and you 'shop' a bit, you can tell who is full of shit. You ask the seller questions, you look at the number of pics they've provided and their willingness to provide MORE photos, specifically the ones you ask for. You ask lots of questions that cover the bases and if you get a bonk lens, eBay backs you up. If you asked the buyer 'does it have fungus?' and they say 'no!' and you get it with fungus.... you win and you get your money back. yes.... buying costly lenses on eBay is a risk, I am not saying it isn't.... but if you know how to look for them and you build a relationship, you'll find some real gems on their. I mean... my 100mm macro came with a 'baLens' white balance lens cap and B+W F-Pro UV filter. I got the lens for $75 under B&H's price AND $120 worth of 'extras'. The lens was PERFECT. My 100-400mm didn't come with any extras.... but the damn thing is so clean I beleive the seller when she said 'I got this, used it two or three times at the zoo and put it into storage'. I mean it is just flawless, no dust or nicks or scratches and all functions work perfect. I saved $300 off the B&H price.

Best advice I can give with eBay... use eSnipe and WATCH items. Go on... search for the lens you want... and watch the auctions for a few days. read all the details and fine print. Look at previous auctions that have already been completed. This gives you an idea of what to pay for a lens. It also helps weed out people scamming and re-listing items people have backed out of. You can also tell if the person has half a brain by asking technical stuff that most 'camera people' would know. Willingness and timeliness answers are good indicators of 'serious' people with a legitimate item for sale. Also watch out for people who sell different types of items... like pawn shops. I say this because they don't know much about what they are selling.... so just beware.

I am just spewing because I have had good luck with eBay in a lot of "dept.'s" of eBay... be it Car parts, camera stuff, electronics and selling ect..... I guess I am defensive a little. Just be careful and mindful. Don't jump the gun.

Don't get me wrong, I love eBay, it's just things like this, I'm always a little weary with! I've been recommended a forum in the UK that is really good for second hand equipment, so I might start trawling through there to see what I can find, but I do like buying new as at least your get some warranty...

 

[SpinyFranky]

Might I add you might want to check photography review to see if they have anything for sale that your interested in.

Just an example I thought ide put up.

This Shot was taken as a "spur of the moment" thing and I think for that it came out amazingly well.

My A500 at work. PP included

 

[Peter Kraemer]

People think 100 mm f2.8 macro by SONY is the same as a 100mm f2.8 by some no name, and that the price difference is basically because they are paying for the Sony name tag, but they don't know how wrong they are .

What is a no name lens in your opinion?
Maybe Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, ......????

If your answer is "yes", then have a look an the (german) "chip foto-video" magazine. Your macro lens from sony has results between 76 and 79,5 (from 100 points maximum)......
http://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/Meinungen/574138.html
....and the "no name" Tokina macro lens got a result at 84,8 points of 100 maximum.....
http://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/Meinungen/327971.html
The price of the sony starts at 600 Euro and the Tokina at 400 Euro.


Sorry - but I´m happy to ordered the Tokina Lens for my Canon, save money and get a better lens.
.....and this is the reason why much people think that you have more money for every letter of the brand name (in this case 50 Euro per each letter of the brand name)


Peter

 

[Thor Hakonsen]

The lenses is the MOST IMPORTANT thing for getting good pictures !

What new camera body you buy (Sony, Nikon, Canon, Olympus etc) really doesn't matter for the happy amateur. But remember, you buy into a system. Nikon and Canon are by far the biggest - and the has the most versatile lens and flash system.

My tip would be :

Find the camera that fits your hands the best ! And buy that one, no matter what make it is !!


And Spinyfrank :

which is a knock off of the A700 sensor. Whats the A700 Sensor? a less extensive version of the A900's sensor.

You're wrong - the A900 has another sensor, a full frame sensor which is NOT in any way the same sensor as in A700.

 

[Thor Hakonsen]

Sorry - but I´m happy to ordered the Tokina Lens for my Canon, save money and get a better lens.

I agree that Tokina and Sigma make very good macro lenses, I even use a Sigma 150mm my self - and that probably is the best macro there is for my use (on a FF body)

But, it may be that the Tokina is better than the equivalent Sony macro - but I seriously doubt it's better than the Canon 100mm

PS : I use a Nikon

 

[Peter Kraemer]

But, it may be that the Tokina is better than the equivalent Sony macro - but I seriously doubt it's better than the Canon 100mm

Last time I read a test and the Tokina 100 2.8 lens (at a Canon DSLR) has a better resolution than the Canon 100 2.8 lens (not the Canon 100 2.8 L IS !!!).


At this test the Canon macro is better (in german, sorry), but it seams that canon has with this lenses a quality range between good and excellent.
http://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/CompareTestProducts/61038K4332.html
At an older test it´s got only 74 from 150! points!

Peter

 

[SliK JiM]

What is a no name lens in your opinion?
Maybe Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, ......????

If your answer is "yes", then have a look an the (german) "chip foto-video" magazine. Your macro lens from sony has results between 76 and 79,5 (from 100 points maximum)......
http://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/Meinungen/574138.html
....and the "no name" Tokina macro lens got a result at 84,8 points of 100 maximum.....
http://www.idealo.de/preisvergleich/Meinungen/327971.html
The price of the sony starts at 600 Euro and the Tokina at 400 Euro.


Sorry - but I´m happy to ordered the Tokina Lens for my Canon, save money and get a better lens.
.....and this is the reason why much people think that you have more money for every letter of the brand name (in this case 50 Euro per each letter of the brand name)


Peter

May I ask what camera you are using? Canon...