DSLR v Bridge

[Magenta Sunset]

so, maybe sometime this year I will supplement my old 35mm with something new.
so, being on a small budget, what would be a good long term investment?
Also, on the DSLR side, which brand?
if you're voting "other" please give make & model
Current camera has a Pentax K mount
Thanks

[Shiny]

How much is a small budget? £1000?

[ozpug]

Cannon and Nikon are the leaders. I prefer Cannon because thats what I've always used. I've found Pentax to be a bit cheaper. There's plenty of cheap second hand DSLR's around. What sort of photography are you into? The lense you get is going to really dictate the sort of photographs you'll take.

When I started I bought a fixed lense camera that had full manual options; I'd recommend doing that and learning everything you can adjust and then move on to a DSLR.

---

I didn't realise bridge was the term for the camera I described until I googled it. Go that if you want to see if Its right for you or just jump straight onto a DSLR or you don't want to muck around.

[Magenta Sunset]

cheers!
currently use a 35mm slr (pentax mount) with several lenses. or a zoom compact.
seen a good deal for a pentax bundle @ jessops.
Budget would be about £300.

[Dazecoop]

Canon dSLR would be my vote. For your budget, look into 2nd hand gear, there is nothing wrong with a 4-5 year old dSLR, they will still perform very well.

I'd recommend www.mpb.com - I have bought a 2nd hand camera from them before, was very good.

As a general rule, the lower number Canon dSLR you buy the better it is in regard to their model numbering series

Eg, 40d is better than 400d (because its more aimed at professionals)
1d is better than 10d (because its more professional) 
But, 50d is better than 40d (because its newer)
500d is better than 350d (as above, because its newer)

A very general rule to go by, but it gives you a rough idea. To compare 2 cameras together, try this website http://snapsort.com/compare , very handy

With their model numbers, if you start cross-comparing between series & which is newer (eg, 20d vs 500d), the website above will help you decide, as effectively you are comparing cameras from a different series/league, but because the "cheaper" camera is newer, it'll probably outperform the older "more pro" one. 

I personally own a Canon 7d, cannot recommend enough. I've had lots of Canon dSLR's before it too, all were very good

[WiNgNuTz]

I've not been into photography for very long, and have a constantly limited budget, but my lovely missus bought me a Panasonic Lumix FZ150 Bridge camera for christmas last year, and tbph, I think it's great! It might not have changeable lenses, or be an expensive DSLR, but it still takes some pretty damn good photos! You can see some of my shots in the photography thread HERE, pretty much the last page or two though.

Put another way, don't feel you HAVE to have a DSLR just to take decent photo's. The true beauty of photography is with the subject and composition, not the gear it was taken on.

[7057sam]

Started with a Panasonic bridge thing.

Now moved on to a canon 600d,lovely camera.Just about to buy a fisheye lense atm.

I think you would save money in the long run with a dslr because you have more choice of lenses and can save money where my micro compact thing it all had to work on Panasonic lenses and they where radiculous amounts of money.

[Magenta Sunset]

cheers for your input guys.
appreciate the links
i'm considering dslr simply because 35mm film is;
1, less freely available
2, costs of processing
3, I could take what pix I like, then print the few I select, not the whole roll of film.

[ozpug]

There's something about film that you can't get with digital. Without post production.

[Magenta Sunset]

There's something about film that you can't get with digital. Without post production.

i agree, when i compare my holiday pix (for instance), i fine the depth of the colours on 35mm to be deeper.
mind you, my zoom compact is 'only' 6 megapixels

[Pompey306mark]

I own two canon cameras, along with a whole host of lenses. Canon 1d mk3 and 5d mk2. If you want something easy, lightweight and your not going to get into different focal lengths then get the bridge camera, my 9 year old niece just got one for xmas. A Fujifilm camera.
Or get a Canon M series. So you can still have a few lenses to play with, and even get an EF converter, to mount the better EF lenses to the body.

If you do want to go DSLR, remember most camera's that will be in your price range wont be full frame: 35mm.
You will likely get a body with a 1.6x crop factor, which is great if you want to zoom in on distant things, but normally its considered the small sensors aren't as good as the full frame ones.

[Magenta Sunset]

I own two canon cameras, along with a whole host of lenses. Canon 1d mk3 and 5d mk2. If you want something easy, lightweight and your not going to get into different focal lengths then get the bridge camera, my 9 year old niece just got one for xmas. A Fujifilm camera.
Or get a Canon M series. So you can still have a few lenses to play with, and even get an EF converter, to mount the better EF lenses to the body.

If you do want to go DSLR, remember most camera's that will be in your price range wont be full frame: 35mm.
You will likely get a body with a 1.6x crop factor, which is great if you want to zoom in on distant things, but normally its considered the small sensors aren't as good as the full frame ones.

now that I didn't know. much appreciated
what about the Pentax K-50?

[Dazecoop]

See, not that I don't agree with what's been said, but you can't rule out 1.6x crop factor cameras completely. I've never owned a full frame camera, but I have used them before, and sure; they are "better", but its not to say you still can't get some great photos from a crop camera.

These are all my photos taken on my 7D (1.6x crop factor) at 17mm. This will give an idea on how wide-angle the camera goes, which I think is very reasonable & decent.













I don't own a full frame camera simply because I can't afford one. I'd love a 5d Mk3, but cost! That being said, I do love my 7d

[Pompey306mark]

The 7d is a good camera, the 7d mk2 is a better camera, and no you cant simply rule out the crop sensor camera's, I bought my missus a 1000d as I was not sure how much she was going to enjoy photographer, but she is enjoying it and even getting some nice pics.

Your 17mm lens on your crop camera will give you the same image that a 27mm lens will get on a full frame camera.

I am thinking of buying a 5d mk3, but I have to sell some of my other gear first.

Pentax K-50 looks like a good camera, its still a crop sensor (APS-C) but it is weather sealed, compared to other cameras of the same level.

Don't get drawn into the megapixel game, unless you are going to be printing of your pics, you basically don't need more that 10megapixels, something along those lines.

You would be better off deciding what you are going to be using it for and then go from there.

My 1d is a tank and can be used in all kinds of weather conditions, its why I got it so I can still take pics in the shit weather of our country, its only 10megapixels, but still gives very good images.

Don't think brand new is best, you could get a good second hand camera and even a lens for £300-£400.

[John1.4]

the best camera i've ever owned was a fuji s9500 bridge, 10Mp, 10.5 optical zoom, was intuitive to use, easy to set up, and had all the 'fully manual settings' if you needed - or wanted it, i've tried the canon stuff my sister uses, she's a pro photographer so the kit is lovely, but i don't like it, can't get on with it, currently got an ancient s5500, and it'll do detailed enough stuff for computer use, but it is just a point and shoot deal, not many settings or zoom options... fujifilm all the way for me though

[Magenta Sunset]

some gr8 pix Dazecoop!
think my widest 35mm lens is 28mm.
not too worried about M/pixels
admit the weatherproof on the pentax is a plus-point.
Jessops have a bundle with 2 lenses, about my budget level.
Tanks again for your input guys