Camera for 13yr old

[spannaa]

My daughter is 13 in a couple of weeks and top of her pressie list is a new camera.

She's currently using an old Fujifilm FinePix F10 and my Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 and producing some fantastic shots.

She's wants to go for GCSE photography in her year 9 options and would like an entry level DSLR but, as she's only 13, I obviously don't want to spend a fortune on it as it'll undoubtedly get lost/broken/stolen at school.

Nikon @ £320 or Canon @ more or something else?

_{Nikon D3000/Canon EOS 1000D/?}

[Mr Anderson]

You can get the 1000D for £320, or for £332 with a kit lens.

There's a comparison here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3000/page18.asp

There's plus and minus points to both, and on first look the D3000 seems to pip it (especially if you ensure that all lenses used have a built in focus motor). But the image tests (following pages) begin to show that the Canon 1000D has better quality, especially at higher ISOs.

[slaughteredlamb]

I'd definitely go with the Canon 1000D over the Nikon. The Nikon is a good camera and on paper it should be better but the Canon is better in the real world IMO. Kit lenses (costing around £99) are perfectly good and ideal for someone learning. Alternatively though don't dismiss the second hand market. You could pick up a Canon EOS 20D for around £250 and a Canon EOS 350D for around £150. Yes these are both older cameras than the 1000D and so arn't 'as good' in terms of resolution but that's not really that important as they will easily produce excellent results at A4 size. They do have a few advantages that might/should be considered.

The 20D was/is a semi pro body and as a result has a metal rather than plastic body. Being metal it's very robust, perhaps an advantage for children? That said being metal it will be heavier than a plastic body so consideration should be made as to if you daughter would be able to hold it steady. It is however a common misconception that a light camera is an advantage. A heavier camera is actually easier to hold steady resulting in sharper images. The 350D was Canon's entry level model and is physically small perhaps making it ideal for little hands and considering it's so cheap now means you can afford a couple of lenses and/or not worry too much if it gets damaged.

If you don't mind putting your hand a bit deeper into your pocket then yeah, I'd get the 1000D

[Tony]

Knowing the education system, they are probably still giving them rolls of fp4.

Best bet is take her into Jessops or a real camera shop if you can find one and let her play with them to see which feels best to her (dont let her near the 5D / 7D shelves) bear in mind though that they may not have the 1000D in there as it's been upgraded to the 1100D so they are going to be going out of stock fairly soon.

[robwhizz]

You could pick up a Canon EOS 20D for around £250 and a Canon EOS 350D for around £150. Yes these are both older cameras than the 1000D and so arn't 'as good' in terms of resolution but that's not really that important as they will easily produce excellent results at A4 size.

I'm still shooting with a 20D that I bought off ebay a few years ago and it's a superb camera. As SL says, the 350D (I started with a 300D) is plastic and flimsy, though still takes a nice image. My 20D takes a pounding. It's really well built so I don't worry about it.
For Mothers' Day I had a 30" x 20" canvas done from my 8 MP 20D with 50mm f1.4. Even though ideally the resolution is way too low for that size, it came back pin sharp and looks amazing. Image quality is more than just the number of pixels.

If you don't mind buying second hand then it's definitely worth looking at an older camera with good glass.

[keri]

Both cameras are very good, not used either but have seen nice shots from both.

The D3100 is out from Nikon which replaced the D3000 but as with all things Nikon it probably comes at a premium.

Definately worth taking her to the shop to pick them up and play, in my experience Canon are always smaller in the hand and usually lighter than Nikons, my nikon is both large and heavy, perfect for me but not for everyone, my boss has unfeasibly small hands and shoots a 450D, we mock him regularly

[robwhizz]

my boss has unfeasibly small hands and shoots a 450D, we mock him regularly

I had a go once with a 450D and couldn't quite get over how small it was. I couldn't work with it, far too small. Of course, for a 13 year old girl it would probably be ideal.

[Tony]

I'd get in there quick if I were you http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/canon_and_nikon_dslr_shortage_threatens_prices_news_307066.html although they ain't made in Japan some of the components might be

[Steve Lampkins]

I just picked up a Nikon D7000. Every day coming up to the day I picked it up, I was sure the price was suddenly going to rocket. I think there have been more shortages in North America.

But yeah, Nikons are generally made in China or Thailand.

[spannaa]

Still struggling on this as both the Nikon and the Canon are about to be/have just been upgraded to new models. My daughter's tried both and has no real preference. 2nd hand options in town are non-existent.

Something that could swing the decision is the availability of cheap 2nd hand lenses from a hoarding friend who's a Nikon using pro photographer.

[Steve Lampkins]

Keep in mind that with the budget Nikons, they don't have an autofocus screw, so the motor has to be in the lense. It can limit the lens choice (as regarding older lenses mainly). It never really bothered me. My new camera does have the screw.

http://blog.eltonsaulsberry.com/2010/02/27/nikon-autofocus-compatibility/

[slaughteredlamb]

Still struggling on this as both the Nikon and the Canon are about to be/have just been upgraded to new models. My daughter's tried both and has no real preference. 2nd hand options in town are non-existent.

Something that could swing the decision is the availability of cheap 2nd hand lenses from a hoarding friend who's a Nikon using pro photographer.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you need the latest model. Yes obviously a new model will have all the latest bells & whistles and usually the highest resolution but unless you know how to extract every last bit of performance from the camera you won't really benefit from them anytime soon. In terms of second hand lenses, As Steve correctly says, Nikon have been good in that they have changed their lens mount fewer times than Canon has but they have recently changed how some of their lenses are built in terms of the autofocus motor and that can mean that older lenses may not work properly with some newer bodies.

It is often said that Nikon make the best bodies whilst Canon make the best lenses but these days that is such an over generalisation as to be misleading. It would be more accurate to say that Nikon design the best bodies in terms of layout of buttons and software menus. In terms of resolution, ISO noise, build quality there is nothing to separate the two companies. As for lenses, the Canon brigade would have you believe that 'L' lenses are the best money can buy and nothing else comes close. As a Canon user and owner of 2 'L' lenses I can tell you that this is garbage. Yes 'L' lenses are excellent but guess what? So are a lot of Nikon lenses. The only real advantage Canon have over Nikon on the lens front is that Canons 'best quality' lenses are easily identified by the 'L' badge whereas it's less clear with Nikon. All of which is a long way of saying that you shouldn't pick a camera based on brand but how it feels in your hand. If you don't have a preference then the next thing to look at is the cost of what lenses you would want to get and how those lenses perform. If one brand out perform the other than that should be your guide as to which body to buy.

As for second hand bodies. Sadly very few independent camera shops exist on the high street but obviously there is flea bay but also check out Friday Ad, Loot, Local Papers etc as at least with these you can inspect before you buy. 

[spannaa]

Keep in mind that with the budget Nikons, they don't have an autofocus screw, so the motor has to be in the lens

Apparently, the lenses he'd be willing to sell me are AF-S so they ought to be fine.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking you need the latest model.

I wouldn't go for the new models as they're both too expensive, I meant I was struggling to make the decision before the older models become scarce.

[Steve Lampkins]

I used to have a D40x that I bought in 2007. Even that would still do for a beginner. I was still able to get great shots. It was only low-level light that was sometimes an issue, as the ISO was not that great. But a cheap 35mm 1.8 really helped a lot. Any entry, entry level Nikon model would be fine.

And remember how fickle 13 year olds can be.

[spannaa]

And remember how fickle 13 year olds can be.

Yeah, that's why I don't want to spend much more than £300.

If she decides it's not what she wanted after all, I'll happily keep it myself and she can have my Lumix. (I'm sure Mr Anderson predicted this when I bought it)

[keri]

Buy a cheap 35mm 1.8 really helped a lot.

I second that, i love my 35 f/1.8 lens it is so much fun to play with and really makes you think more when you are taking shots, cost around the 100 quid mark if i recall.

Earlier i said i've not played with the Nikon D3000 - i lied, my cousin has one and when ever he has a family party at his house i always shoot with his camera and my 35mm prime, saves me copying the photos for him them.
Tis a cracking camera and has all the features you could want and leaves out the pish that most people never use

[spannaa]

Thanks everyone - I went with the D3000 in the end and she's getting along well with it.

I'm now looking for one for myself - any idea on a reasonable price to pay for a good condition EOS 40D?

[Steve Lampkins]

Why not go for Nikon, so you can share lenses?

[spannaa]

Why not go for Nikon, so you can share lenses?

I still might do...