DSLR advice, first camera, bit of help please

[clancy]

been reading the guides on here which are very usefull and a lot of others on the internet to try an help me decide. im looking for something about £400 or less ideally, if i have to spend a bit more or just buy the camera body at first then so be it but id rather not.

on top of just general photos of say the car or just nice pictures, i would be mostly interested in action photos. so sporting events, the dog playing etc etc
so im right in thinking i should be looking for a fast camera? most are 3-3.5 FPS, im guessing as this is the norm they are probably not great for action shots so iv been looking at one that are over 5 FPS.

what other factors should i be taking into account in the camera specs ? aiming it towards action shots

ive been comparing the specs of cameras for a while on various sites and reading reviews and for the sort of money i want to spend this pentax seems to be a good camera, any opinion ?

http://www.which.co.uk/technology/photography/reviews/digital-slr/pentax-k-r/specifications/

http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-r_Black/


only 2 issues arise with the pentax one, it says 6FPS but on the which comparison it says the shot-to-shot time is 1.2 seconds which is very slow?
other issue is lenses, are there as many lenses available for a pentax as say a canon?

i have no preference to brands so any opinion welcome, any help is appreciated guys

 

[C.J]

The figures you're quoting isn't FPS, it's the F stops. Nothing to do with video (the 1.2 second is the delay between taking shots, not a frame in a video.

 

[clancy]

i wasnt on about video at all, i thought the 6FPS was the speed it would take photos in burst ? which would make it better than 3.5fps for action photos yeah ?
or have i got the wrong end of the stick

so is the 1.2 second shot-to-shot the speed between taking standard photos ?

 

[C.J]

I've not opened the links, but you're reading it wrong.

The 1.2 will be per shot, in bursts (when you hold the button down constantly) the 3.5 you're seeing will be something like f3.5-5. This is to do with depth of field and how fast the lens is at capturing light.

So an f1.8 would allow a faster shutter speed and lower light conditions. The lower the number the better.

Tbh, I'm a total noob, someone else will explain it far better.

 

[clancy]

i see what your saying, i might not have made my first post too clear lol. im not on about the lenses but the physical speed the camera will do photos in. form what ive read online for action photography i would want a camera with a high FPS

most entry DSLRs in burst mode shoot 3.5 photos per second. that pentax one is 6 photos per second, so im presuming is faster/better in that way

 

[ChrisR]

Clancy, no you are right, the FPS you are seeing in the reviews/specs means it's top shooting speed when in burst mode I believe.

So that Pentax states in the specs "Powerful auto shooting w 6 FPS framerate".

Other budget DSLRs like the Nikon 5100 can manage 4fps or around there I think.

The figures you are quoting are nothing to do with F Stops/aperature of the lens at all, that as you say is down to the lens.

 

[Scott™]

As with the above. But if I'm being honest it really doesn't matter how quick a camera can shoot it burst for dog pictures. Any budget DSLR will cope easily. It does in fact come down to the lens though because no mater how quick the camera can store an image and move on to the next, if the lens is not a fast lens in low light etc it will take for ever.

 

[clancy]

cheers guys, ok im with you. so any budget dslr would be dine for most things, but would the faster camera be an advantage at say car event? granted i would need a faster lens to make any more use of it

or should i just not worry about it and look at other entry level cameras with say 3.5fps ?

are there any real advantages over specific brands or is it mostly personal preference? i have only ever used canon

 

[Joe#]

Save up a little bit more money and get something that will last a lot longer.

Canon 550d for example

 

[clancy]

550d is a nice camera, just not sure if i want to spend that much yet, decisions

 

[Scott™]

Id say save and get either a canon or nikon tbh!! You will only regret it. And yes you are right in what you say.

 

[clancy]

would i be better off buying a kit with the 550d and and the normal 18-55 lens. or are those lenses a bit pointless and i should just buy a camera body and save the few quid for other lens'?

 

[Scott™]

Defo not pointless. You can get some great shots with a kit lens. I'd recommend buying a body with kit lens just so you can build up your experience, get used to the camera settings and learn. But don't get a 550d because one guy recommends it. Get to your local camera shop and ask to try all the entry level dslrs and see which one you like best.

 

[C.J]

I've had the 500D with kit lens for the last 18 months and had good results from it.

I've only just upgraded the lens.

 

[clancy]

alright guys thanks for all the advice

 

[Joe#]

As mentioned pop down to jessops or currys and have a play with them

 

[riz]

I got a second hand d90 for 370. But have a play with them first.

 

[Tigger]

I got a second hand d90 for 370. But have a play with them first.

This!

Do you know where you'll get one at that price though?