Well the bundle I suggested was £349 with 2 lenses (one being the 300 TT has). Then throw in a prime for £100 and you've got the basics covered. My first prime was £80 but if you go the eBay route, cheaper.
For taking decent photos of planes in the sky? Wouldn't OP need a 400mm lens? Then a decent tripod to support the thing?
Tripods not necessary, you need to be able to track the plane really. Shutter speed should be able to cope just fine with a moving plane. RE: the 400mm... Depends how far away the plane is [emoji6] I've never needed more than 300mm
Those great airshow photographs, and from any other event really, are usually taken by professionals or dedicated amateurs who spend ages setting up expensive kit and getting it just right. That is all that they do, and that is OK if that is what you want to do, but as a friend of mine said many years ago "a camera gets between you and the experience", which is why I take snaps, some of them are very good snaps, but life is for living and not experiencing through a camera view finder. IMHO
For me, there is no substitute for the bright clear viewfinder you get with a decent SLR, especially if you are trying to track a moving plane at high magnification. A good source of decent s/h kit will be your local camera club where there will always be people who have to have the latest and best. No need for a tripod, you will be using a high shutter speed anyway and most lenses have vibration reduction these days. If you want to go for a new budget camera, Nikon kit lenses tend to be better than Canon. For really high quality, dramatic close ups, consider going full frame. A s/h canon 5D or the Nikon equivalent will give fantastic results At Dawlish air show, a friend with a 5D took some shots of an airborne Lancaster and she zoomed in on the back of her camera to reveal such detail you could see the pilots face perfectly!
Personally I'd stay away from DSLRs. Unless you know why you need one you probably don't. If you want to use it in full auto mode then you definitely don't need one. Unfortunately what you want to do (photos of things far away moving very fast at high quality) is not that easy. By far the biggest obstacle will be atmospheric conditions, unless the planes come close, in which case fancy kit is not necessary. And the worse the conditions are (eg haze) the worse a longer lens will make things look (a great example of why kit has very little to do with taking great pics). A small sensor would actually work in your favour as it would allow longer zooms at lower cost and faster shutter speeds, which will solve most of the issues I imagine you would face shooting planes. What you really need is a camera that operates quickly and accurately (fast focus, good focus tracking), is light, with minimal shutter delay, a large bright finder (or screen) and is easy to use with lots of pixels on a small sensor and a long zoom. That's not a DSLR.
Sorry, not a dslr? I'm confused as I thought you were describing a dslr. Even if you aren't a master photographer who knows all of the settings, an SLR will always be better than other types (even in full auto mode). Yes light conditions play a big part but the same will go for any camera. They all have an aperture, but at least with an SLR you can get better lenses eventually. Also a larger sensor receives more light so would be better in lower light conditions.
OP is not on about low light conditions though. Just trying to solve the problem they were asking about. DSLRs are a pain in the arse for very little gain in quality. You gain a lot of flexibility, at expense of speed, ease of use etc. If the OP asked about taking portraits or low light, then yes a full frame DSLR is worth the hassle.
An Odd Theory, ever heard of a Polarizing filter? The only bodies that operate like "Bold Text" are high end DSLR's. A smaller sensor, or crop sensors gain in length, but lose in quality,and the ability to crop an image of far higher mega pixels, it is horses for courses. The one thing I have found over the years, is you start off with a plan, and then after a while that plan goes out of the window, and you end up getting a load more equipment that you should have bought in the first place. Fact is for very low light, or fast tracking, Irractic moving, I.E. sports (Planes in my view are easy to take photos of, you pretty well can plan ahead of their movement), hence anticipation, and timing is everything not holding the button and hoping for the best at X frames a second, you need a fairly decent body, hence DSLR, non DSLR, of course you cna get great images, but failure rate is far higher, and that could be the one image you wanted. Time lag on the Shutter button is important. For none moving, a decent tripod, and a box camera will suffice. Just remember Lenses are everything, and last for ever, and bodies 10 a penny, upgraded every few years now, build a system around a decent lens catalog, or mount, where there is a good 2nd hand market of varying standards.
Oh dear, Dust on the sensor, all digital cameras have sensors, all can get dust even no change lens system, it is easy to clean a dslr sensor, pretty well blow on it, and now days most have a self cleaning system that cleans every time you switch on or off. Quite frankly dust has never bothered me, I just remove it in edit. The real down side to a DSLR system is weight and size of both body and lenses, you need to carry, a pain on a bike for sure, I have tried the lets get a small compact, even one with smaller lenses, and I still go back to my FF DSLR Canon System. Pick a Budget, make a list of what you will use it for, and if you plan to expand on that in time, (Most will) it is quite addictive to chase quality, especially if you want to print massive or canvases. then get the best based on lenses etc.
Hold the camera face down when changing. Ducatis don't like the rain but that's not a reason not to have one [emoji6]
I'm not changing lenses in a sandstorm. As it's been said, most (including mine) self clean anyway. Never had a problem.
Yes, you know why you need a DSLR, the OP doesn't. Of course if they want to take up photography and become a kit whore, great. But that's not what I got from the original question. Polarisers, yes OK... but that's yet more crap to deal with. Bodies are unimportant in the larger scheme, except for niche tasks like sports, and glass is everything but the OP's budget is £300. The caveat with lenses is that they are extremely task-specific and DSLRs are not all created equal. My D800 is not particularly fast, though it depends on the lens (built in motor or no motor?). If you don't know what you're doing it can be a a world of frustration. I know lots of people who buy a low end DSLR and are hugely disappointed. As I said FAST acting camera, easy to use will likely be the most important thing (fast to start up and be ready to shoot, no shutter delay etc) along with a long zoom. I'd much prefer a 'system' camera of some sort with lots of pixels that was light and easy to use.
I'm with redsail. OP wants to spend a couple of hundred quid to take nice snaps of planes are the stated requirements. Whilst much of the advice here is valid it doesn't relate to the OP's question. Sending the OP into DSLR world is akin to upgrading a Ducati in terms of future spending needs and at least as time consuming in terms of research and learning. Whilst it's all useful information I doubt it's helping the OP much. Fwiw (sweet FA) I'm currently having coffee with a photographer who's got around 20 grands worth of kit in his bag, he knows the budget Nikon system and rates it for what it is but doesn't think the OP is gonna get reasonable results without a much better long lens - he said the aperture is too small at long focal lengths to allow good light for a good fast shot. I take photos on my phone these days so wtf do I know! Good luck OP !
