and help to keep the site free for all
Beginner Best camera for beginner?
- Thread starter Keff
- Start date
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If your friends shoot Canon, you are not getting a truly independent view.
What I would suggest is get an idea which Canon you would consider buying, then look up the equivalent camera from other manufacturers. Once you have an rough idea, go into a shop and see if you can handle the different cameras. If one 'feels' better, that is the one for you.
What I would suggest is get an idea which Canon you would consider buying, then look up the equivalent camera from other manufacturers. Once you have an rough idea, go into a shop and see if you can handle the different cameras. If one 'feels' better, that is the one for you.
- Messages
- 5,923
- Name
- Dominic
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A lot has to do with how the camera feels in hand, how the controls are laid out and basically the ease of use.
All of the main manufacturers have a decent array of lenses and back up/aftercare.
- Messages
- 9,075
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Although I've only owned Nikon SLRs/DSLRs, I suggest you follow your friends, as you're much more likely to get help & support, and maybe the loan of a lens occasionally.
EDIT ... just realised Sue above has said the same about friends and lenses.
EDIT ... just realised Sue above has said the same about friends and lenses.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
First questions should be:-
1/ What do I want to take pictures of?
2/ Where/when?
3/ How 'involved' do I want to get / how much 'faffing' am I prepared to do?
4/ How much can I afford to spend?
THEN when you have some actual cameras that are appropriate to the job you have in mind, THEN you might start screening the short-list by brand & reputation!
Without getting 'precious' about 'phoh-tog-raphie', and dissapearing in circles-of-confusion debating sharpness and resolution and 'stuff' only other phoh-tog-rapherz' will be interested in, let alone understand.... the 'convenience' of a half decent camera-phone can take some beatng these days, unless you really need/want something more dedicated. Then humble consumer compacts are very powerful bits of kit; they are usually small and light and easily carried in a trouser pocket, and don't demand much more 'faff' to use than point & shoot. Leap from them to DSLR's that have interchangeable lenses, is pretty large and takes you into 'faff-fotografy'; as they tend to be more cumbersome and less discrete, demanding two hands to operate instead of one, and a lot more know-how if you try venturing from the 'auto' setting. In between, you have 'bridge' cameras, that can be as point and shoot simple as a compact, just bigger and less portable, or almost as sophisticated and faffable as a DSLR just without the interchangeable lenses; then there are CSC's or mirrorless sytem cameras that have interchangeable lenses like a DSLR, and generally have almost as much 'faffability', but hopefully a tad less bulk.
But what's best or more or less appropriate depends on what you want pictures of.... and you almost certainly don't 'need' anything more fancy than a camera-phone for an awful lot of general picture taking; folk have for decades got stunning results with such or even more 'limited' equipment.
I would only really recommend a DSLR if you really want to get 'in' to this phoh-tog-raphie lark, and explore the 'faff' of it all; but don't expect the camera to get you the stunning pictures you hope for in a hurry; better photographers take better photo's not better cameras, using one is a skill that takes patience and practice to learn, so expect lot of faff, lots of learning and lots of disappointing results along the way!
Consumer compacts & Bridge cameras can be pretty useful if you aren't so sure you want to get into it; but 'entry-level' DSLR's are now getting so competitively priced, if you want that sort of versatility, f you start looking at compacts or bridge camera's over about £150, you may as well make the leap; if you don't get on with it or don't use it, you can likely get far more of your money back selling one on, which you'd struggle to do with a compact or bridge.
Mirrorless / compact system cameras? Costs, compared to entry level DSLR's doesn't make them all that attractive, and none of them as far as I know, have the same level of 'support' or range of lenses & accessories, while they are as much 'faff' to use, so their main strength is their size over a DSLR, making them, to my mind, something a bit specialised for folk who know a bit about photography and know that sort of camera will do the job they want.
SO! - boiling it all down; do you want something to take pictures? or do you want something to 'do phoh-tog-raphie'?
If just to take pictures; look at your 'phone, maybe consider a consumer compact; brands probably matter not a lot n this world; phones sell so much on so many features, that likely take priority over the camera; consumer compacts are all much of a much, and ll you need the box.
If you want to get 'in-to' more preciouse phoh-tog-raphie'; then simple choice is entry level DSLR; they all have far more capability than you will as a starter make & model & specs probably make little or o odds; and playing t safe, Nikon & Canon are by far the best supported to let you build up a 'kit' or if you don't get on with it, sell on for best value; between the makes there is bugger all to choose between them, really; I find Cannon's a bit more finikity and faffable than Nikon that to me seem a little more intuative to operate, but pretty much a personal thing; pick the one that you feel more comfy working.
Only other consideration, is 'comparability'; I have Nikon, so 'we' chose Nikon for my daughter when she was doing her GCSE photography & went on to A-Level in the subject; 'cos she could nick my lenses! Ditto with the O/H when she decided she wanted a camera 'cos she felt left out! If you have friends with Canon & a good range of lenses & accessories you can beg use of, or even share-buy between you, this may be worth considering into the decision.
But other-wise, makes little odds; and as said at the start; which brand is almost the last thing you need concern yourself with.
1/ What do I want to take pictures of?
2/ Where/when?
3/ How 'involved' do I want to get / how much 'faffing' am I prepared to do?
4/ How much can I afford to spend?
THEN when you have some actual cameras that are appropriate to the job you have in mind, THEN you might start screening the short-list by brand & reputation!
Without getting 'precious' about 'phoh-tog-raphie', and dissapearing in circles-of-confusion debating sharpness and resolution and 'stuff' only other phoh-tog-rapherz' will be interested in, let alone understand.... the 'convenience' of a half decent camera-phone can take some beatng these days, unless you really need/want something more dedicated. Then humble consumer compacts are very powerful bits of kit; they are usually small and light and easily carried in a trouser pocket, and don't demand much more 'faff' to use than point & shoot. Leap from them to DSLR's that have interchangeable lenses, is pretty large and takes you into 'faff-fotografy'; as they tend to be more cumbersome and less discrete, demanding two hands to operate instead of one, and a lot more know-how if you try venturing from the 'auto' setting. In between, you have 'bridge' cameras, that can be as point and shoot simple as a compact, just bigger and less portable, or almost as sophisticated and faffable as a DSLR just without the interchangeable lenses; then there are CSC's or mirrorless sytem cameras that have interchangeable lenses like a DSLR, and generally have almost as much 'faffability', but hopefully a tad less bulk.
But what's best or more or less appropriate depends on what you want pictures of.... and you almost certainly don't 'need' anything more fancy than a camera-phone for an awful lot of general picture taking; folk have for decades got stunning results with such or even more 'limited' equipment.
I would only really recommend a DSLR if you really want to get 'in' to this phoh-tog-raphie lark, and explore the 'faff' of it all; but don't expect the camera to get you the stunning pictures you hope for in a hurry; better photographers take better photo's not better cameras, using one is a skill that takes patience and practice to learn, so expect lot of faff, lots of learning and lots of disappointing results along the way!
Consumer compacts & Bridge cameras can be pretty useful if you aren't so sure you want to get into it; but 'entry-level' DSLR's are now getting so competitively priced, if you want that sort of versatility, f you start looking at compacts or bridge camera's over about £150, you may as well make the leap; if you don't get on with it or don't use it, you can likely get far more of your money back selling one on, which you'd struggle to do with a compact or bridge.
Mirrorless / compact system cameras? Costs, compared to entry level DSLR's doesn't make them all that attractive, and none of them as far as I know, have the same level of 'support' or range of lenses & accessories, while they are as much 'faff' to use, so their main strength is their size over a DSLR, making them, to my mind, something a bit specialised for folk who know a bit about photography and know that sort of camera will do the job they want.
SO! - boiling it all down; do you want something to take pictures? or do you want something to 'do phoh-tog-raphie'?
If just to take pictures; look at your 'phone, maybe consider a consumer compact; brands probably matter not a lot n this world; phones sell so much on so many features, that likely take priority over the camera; consumer compacts are all much of a much, and ll you need the box.
If you want to get 'in-to' more preciouse phoh-tog-raphie'; then simple choice is entry level DSLR; they all have far more capability than you will as a starter make & model & specs probably make little or o odds; and playing t safe, Nikon & Canon are by far the best supported to let you build up a 'kit' or if you don't get on with it, sell on for best value; between the makes there is bugger all to choose between them, really; I find Cannon's a bit more finikity and faffable than Nikon that to me seem a little more intuative to operate, but pretty much a personal thing; pick the one that you feel more comfy working.
Only other consideration, is 'comparability'; I have Nikon, so 'we' chose Nikon for my daughter when she was doing her GCSE photography & went on to A-Level in the subject; 'cos she could nick my lenses! Ditto with the O/H when she decided she wanted a camera 'cos she felt left out! If you have friends with Canon & a good range of lenses & accessories you can beg use of, or even share-buy between you, this may be worth considering into the decision.
But other-wise, makes little odds; and as said at the start; which brand is almost the last thing you need concern yourself with.
- Messages
- 1,170
- Name
- Jacques
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Was going to say this. If you get the same as your friends, you could try out some of their lenses and see what feels good before your buy your own..
- Messages
- 141
- Name
- Oksana
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When I was buying my first DSLR, I bought Nikon because my friend has Nikon and my dad has Nikon and that means we can swap lenses. It came really useful when at one time I smashed my kit 18-55mm lens against a cast iron woodburner with the force that rendered it unusable. My friend had just bought a Sigma 70-300mm which she was "using for everything" (according to her!) so I was able to conveniently borrow her 18-55mm until I bought myself one, and that was a lifesaver because bunny photography could go on! I'd just go with what your friends have just for that reason TBH.
- Messages
- 20,396
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nikon if you want decent pics, Canon if you have low standards! Joke!!!!!!
I think both are similar at a basic level - whatever you start with you will probably stay with. At a higher level it depends on budget and what you want to do. I know going back a few years the D700 was much better than the Canon equiv at higher ISOs.
I think both are similar at a basic level - whatever you start with you will probably stay with. At a higher level it depends on budget and what you want to do. I know going back a few years the D700 was much better than the Canon equiv at higher ISOs.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
End of the day assuming we are talking about a beginer level SLR or CSC any of the major manufacturers will do just fine - which one you prefer comes down to what you like in the hand and the only way to pin that down is to handle some cameras and see.
Personally I've shot Canon since going digital in 2004 (I was pentax before that) but my prefferences/needs are necesarrily the same as yours, so only you can make the decision
Of course one possiblefactor is that if all your mates shoot canon, going with canon will enable you to borrow lenses, flashes etc more easily - but equally chosing Nikon/Oympus/Sony/pentax/SamsungFuji / etc could mark you out as an individual who doesnt follow the herd
Also Canon vs Nikon is a meaningless question - really its about body x vs body y and thats determined by a range of factors including what you want to shoot, and how much money you have
Personally I've shot Canon since going digital in 2004 (I was pentax before that) but my prefferences/needs are necesarrily the same as yours, so only you can make the decision
Of course one possiblefactor is that if all your mates shoot canon, going with canon will enable you to borrow lenses, flashes etc more easily - but equally chosing Nikon/Oympus/Sony/pentax/SamsungFuji / etc could mark you out as an individual who doesnt follow the herd
Also Canon vs Nikon is a meaningless question - really its about body x vs body y and thats determined by a range of factors including what you want to shoot, and how much money you have
Last edited:
- Messages
- 26
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Budget is the big thing here. You can pick up a second hand camera for less than a hundred quid with a kit lens that will take lovely, if slightly limited photos, or you can blow thousands on a pro rig with many very expensive lenses and have all the whistles and bells. Any camera is a good start, from there you can gauge what you're using it for and where to go from there.
- Messages
- 1,386
- Edit My Images
- No
There's generally better dynamic range and low light ISO performance from Nikon compared to Canon at the minute. If you're talking entry level DSLRs then the Nikon D3300 is 24mp compared to Canon 1200D's 18mp, which might be useful if you want large prints. No idea of your budget or which cameras you're looking at but this comparison website is quite useful:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-1200D-vs-Nikon-D3200
I'm not convinced by the opinion you should get what your friends have, partly because I did that at first and realised soon after it was a mistake - friends often give biased opinions and what's best for them might not be for you. The sharing idea is great but I doubt that would happen enough for it to be a major consideration. It doesn't matter how good the camera is though if the operator doesn't know what they're doing, learning the craft is more important than equipment
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-1200D-vs-Nikon-D3200
I'm not convinced by the opinion you should get what your friends have, partly because I did that at first and realised soon after it was a mistake - friends often give biased opinions and what's best for them might not be for you. The sharing idea is great but I doubt that would happen enough for it to be a major consideration. It doesn't matter how good the camera is though if the operator doesn't know what they're doing, learning the craft is more important than equipment
- Messages
- 2,138
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Buy a cheap Olympus (not an expensive one!)
- Messages
- 1,546
- Name
- Brian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Of course if you get canon it also means your friends can borrow your lenses, which could be a PITA.
There are some advantages to Nikon at some price levels compared to Canon. These include high iso performance, auto iso plus exposure compensation ability, and dynamic range. However Canon seem to have a wider range of lenses at varying price points.
Be aware, I'm biased
but I did switch from Canon
There are some advantages to Nikon at some price levels compared to Canon. These include high iso performance, auto iso plus exposure compensation ability, and dynamic range. However Canon seem to have a wider range of lenses at varying price points.
Be aware, I'm biased
but I did switch from Canon