I'm looking for a DSLR

[Ed Geraghty]

So... yeah.  I'm looking for a DSLR.  I would like some advice, please.

I'm not looking for anything too cheap, but at the same time I'm not looking to spend thousands.

What rough price range and brand would I be looking at for a decent quality DSLR and, more specifically, does anyone have any suggestions?

[Tracey]

DSLRs can range dramatically in price, and I personally think that its not always a case of "You get what you pay for"

My suggestion to you is to go to a camera shop near your home and try in your hands as many different combinations as they will allow. Dont let the shop assistants talk you into any one brand over another. You need to go with what feels comfortable and natural.

Once you have tried out the different brands and models, come back here and ask as many questions as you want. Some of us shoot with Nikon, some with Canon, and I use Olympus. So between us we should be able to answer any brand specific questions.

Hope that helps you

[Ed Geraghty]

OK, thanks Tracey.

I'll see if I can find a camera shop (I'm sure there must be one somewhere in Nodnol ) lol.

Once I've done that, I'll come back and bug you guys some more.

[Hedgehog]

The camera (DSLR body) is just the bit on the back of the lens that stores the picture... there are some technological differences & features but essentially it's just a processor & storage... like recording a singer the most important bit is the microphone not the PC you're recording it to... the kit lenses that DSLRs come with are frequently of poor quality (out of necessity to keep the cost of the camera down) & many new DSLR owners become disillusioned with their purchases... think not of which body to buy but which will be your 1st lens purchase in your quest to take the photo's you want & take that price into account in your budget (consider also that most DSLRs are available as 'body only' cheaper). Even cheap good quality lenses can be more expensive than the cheaper DSLR bodies.

[Ed Geraghty]

OK, worth bearing in mind, thanks.

I'll have to put this off for a month or two anyways - some unanticipated expenses have come my way with next month's pay

[Grendel]

Thats One of the main reasons I have adaptors and use old film SLR lenses in manual mode on my DSLR, the lenses are generally of a better quality, also they were optimised for a 35mm negative - a DSLR generally uses a smaller chip than a film negative would be so you are only using the central portion of the image , which leads to a better image too, a lot of the 'new' DSLR lenses are only optimised for the digital chip, (using less glass and making the lenses cheaper).
I have collected old film camera kits that were just being thrown away as junk, and rescued the lenses. So far my best (and free at that) acquisition has been a 500mm lens with a 2x teleconverter, which gives me an effective 1000mm lens system - you have to compensate for the huge f ratio of course but the images are quite good.
Grendel

[Hedgehog]

What I should have written is that the DSLR body is the diposable bit on the back of the lens... DSLRs (like any mechanical product) have a life expectancy of so many thousands of actions... you'll find this generally goes up the more money you pay but it is finite (if not definite)... whereas a well looked after lens can last a lifetime, as Grendel has reminded me.