Buying my first camera (DSLR, mind you) - need insight

[Deleted member 54248]

Extra thoughts for the curious: I have been interested in photography for a long time and I've been taking pictures using my phone mostly. I've been told numerous times (by people who learned to be bluntly honest with me AND are mentally invested in photography) that my pictures are really good. Except for the quality, of course. A couple even offered to buy me a camera actually, but ironically they both ended up jobless pretty soon. Ironically because I couldn't afford a camera due to my extremely low salary, but now I've saved up some.

Goal: I love taking walks and snapping pictures of something that captures my eye... So that's what I would be doing. I don't need auto settings, I prefer to set them manually, I actually enjoy it. It's calming and helps me to focus and get my mind off the rest of 'life stuff'. So, I am looking to take pictures of: buildings in the city, nature sceneries (mainly trees and flowers and bushes and such, I'm not a fan plains), rivers and lakes. I also love macro photography, but I'm not sure how well I'll be able to go about it without a tripod (those things are costly!). And I would also love to try snapping pics of moving objects (like... y'know, humans), which I haven't been able to do, since you can't do that with a camera on a phone from mid-2000s, of which the camera takes a few seconds to load and a couple seconds to focus - whatever it is you're looking at is gone by the time you can take the picture.

So... That's my goal. I love taking walks in the night too, which means high ISO formats, and I'm not a fan of the sun - I dislike the heat and the excessive light. BUT I would still be taking pics during the day, I'm not a complete vampire.

To the point: I'm looking to buy a camera that I could fiddle around with all the knobs and settings. Hence, a D-SLR. I've read various reviews and done a lot of research, and I came up with Nikon D3200 as an optimal choice. Nikon D3300 seems to offer ~25% longer battery life and you can film at 60FPS, and some say that it takes (barely noticeable) sharper pics (though despite my efforts I wasn't able to find physical proof for that), but it costs over a hundred extra bucks... So that's a lot of extra money, for me anyway.

Anyway, in this price range this seems to be the best choice - Nikon D3200 (with VR2 lens), then. I'm from Eastern Europe (hence the low salary - ~$320/month!), so checking the price at any European site will give you a guideline. Generally the merchandise that's made in USA costs more due to customs.

Note that I have no tripod, I have no lenses, I have never had a camera (except an old SLR Zenith-E, which I barely used due to high film and film making costs), however I am a fast and passionate learner who is very motivated towards being able to indulge myself into my first hobby that I may finally be able to afford that I have been waiting for years; a hobby which will also help me relax from daily life. Oh, and I probably have a good eye for what looks good in a photo. And I love configuring and setting stuff (so I hate auto settings).

Right, so is there anything else that I should be looking for in a similar price range, perhaps a bit more or a bit less, something better than what I already found out? Is there something else that I should know or consider or think about? I'm planning to finally order a camera early on Monday, as soon as the store opens.

P.S. I think my post is too long as it is and I think I mentioned everything, but feel free to ask if you need to know anything else!

 

[mbscad]

Hi OldPic,
I presume you're going for a DSLR because of image quality although some of the newer phones have great cameras although using very small sensors.
In order to get great quality you need great lenses which are very expensive even second hand.
The Nikon is a very good camera but you need to spend a lot more time reviewing lenses and their quirks.
May I suggest that you look at photozone.de which reviews many lenses.

 

[Deleted member 54248]

Hi OldPic,
I presume you're going for a DSLR because of image quality although some of the newer phones have great cameras although using very small sensors.
In order to get great quality you need great lenses which are very expensive even second hand.
The Nikon is a very good camera but you need to spend a lot more time reviewing lenses and their quirks.
May I suggest that you look at photozone.de which reviews many lenses.

To be honest, my main reason for choosing a D-SLR is the ability to control every little setting. As I mentioned, I love fiddling with them and I hate auto modes. Also it kind of gives me a feeling of a "real" camera, more like the older cameras, rather than something you take outta your pocket and click a button. I just feel no joy in that somehow.

Thank you, I will check out the site immediately after I post this reply!

Speaking of lenses, what about the stock lens that comes with the camera (18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II)? Would that be not enough? I've seen some lens prices after I checked out if I could do macro photography with this camera (apparently there is a special lens for that!), and the prices are quite insane - $500 or so, or even more. The cheapest (new) lens I've seen was a wide area one, but I highly doubt that I would want to take a single picture like that - it's really not my style/favorite.

Anyway, off to that site now!

 

[woof woof]

If you are open to the idea you could look at Compact System Cameras.

You can change lenses and fiddle with the settings just like you d with a DSLR. The main differences are (arguably...) that you get an Electronic Viewfinder rather than an optical viewfinder and with the EVF you can have manual focus aids (peaking, magnified view, zebras) and other good stuff such as an in view histogram. These cameras are great if you are into old manual lenses.

Good luck choosing.

 

[Deleted member 54248]

If you are open to the idea you could look at Compact System Cameras.

You can change lenses and fiddle with the settings just like you d with a DSLR. The main differences are (arguably...) that you get an Electronic Viewfinder rather than an optical viewfinder and with the EVF you can have manual focus aids (peaking, magnified view, zebras) and other good stuff such as an in view histogram. These cameras are great if you are into old manual lenses.

Good luck choosing.

i'm open to anything, I'll google for some choices and see if I can find something of decent quality in this price range that will allow me to fiddle around with the settings.

And yes, I will be using the viewfinder a lot more than the LCD screen. I always felt awkward when I was handed a compact and had to look at a screen instead of the viewfinder when taking a picture, during some far-relative gathering or asked by a tourist on the street. It doesn't feel right, no wonder people call me an "old soul."

P.S. Regarding that site mentioned earlier: it seems I'll have to spend extra few bucks for a clear filter, which has to protect the lens. Didn't know that. Not a big deal either. Also, there's a lot of lenses, I'm quite overwhelmed with the amount!

 

[chris malcolm]

Some (like me) argue that a clear filter will at best only slightly degrade your image quality, worse if shooting towards the sun, and that a lens hood is possibly better lens protection anyway.

Your cheapest option for manual control and good IQ might be a compact fixed lens zoom camera.

 

[Swanseajack]

The Nikon D3200 is a great camera to start with and the lens is a good performer and as for the cost of buying as a package it makes sense, rather than buying body then a seperate lens. A good lens to have then would be the Tamron 70-300mm VC or the Nikon 55 or 70-300mm dependant on prices in Eastern Europe. With these lenses you could then buy a Raynox adapter to go on the front of the lens for good Macro work, have a look around the Macro section theres some good advice on these. It's probably the cheapest option for good Macro work rather than buying a designated Macro lens.

Depending on prices for you locally, I agree with Alan above that a CSC camera can be good and especially if using old lenses, which are possibly in good supply in Eastern Europe? I have owned Fuji X cameras and I have found these good but maybe over budget??

As for clear filters I don't use them to protect the lenses I just use the lens hood and there are many discussions on here for the pro's and cons of using such filters.

But starting off you won't go far wrong with the Nikon.

 

[Deleted member 54248]

Some (like me) argue that a clear filter will at best only slightly degrade your image quality, worse if shooting towards the sun, and that a lens hood is possibly better lens protection anyway.

Your cheapest option for manual control and good IQ might be a compact fixed lens zoom camera.

I just found out what a lens hood is, haha. I was actually thinking less about the sun and more about protection from dust and such. I don't suppose it's easy to clean a lens without scratching it and all that, so I was thinking of protection. Either way, appreciate the advice!

The Nikon D3200 is a great camera to start with and the lens is a good performer and as for the cost of buying as a package it makes sense, rather than buying body then a seperate lens. A good lens to have then would be the Tamron 70-300mm VC or the Nikon 55 or 70-300mm dependant on prices in Eastern Europe. With these lenses you could then buy a Raynox adapter to go on the front of the lens for good Macro work, have a look around the Macro section theres some good advice on these.

Depending on prices for you locally, I agree with Alan above that a CSC camera can be good and especially if using old lenses, which are possibly in good supply in Eastern Europe? I have owned Fuji X cameras and I have found these good but maybe over budget??

As for clear filters I don't use them to protect the lenses I just use the lens hood and there are many discussions on here for the pro's and cons of using such filters.

But starting off you won't go far wrong with the Nikon.

Thanks for the advice, I'll check out Raynox adapters and the Macro section. From a quick skim through Google, Raynox would even work with the default lens too!

Old lenses? Could you give an example so I could go through a couple of places where people sell used stuff around here?

As for Fuji X, Fujifilm X-A1 goes for just bit more than D3200. The rest are way costlier, closer to D3300 and such. Anyway, I'm about to check out for CSCs, see what I can find.

 

[Deleted member 54248]

So far I found this CSC to be pretty much the only one that offers good quality at around the same price (cheaper actually!) Yet to find out more details about it: Sony Alpha A3000. I have to get some sleep, so before looking more into it, I'm posting this in case someone would have some insight on this vs. D3200 while I'm asleep.

 

[woof woof]

If looking at CSC's one big decision is if you want a built in EVF or if you are happy to use only the back screen.

You could look at Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic CSC's. The have either APS-C chips (Sony and Fuji) or MFT (micro four thirds) chips (Panasonic and Olympus.) There isn't much in it IMVHO.

 

[stumac]

The fact you enjoy slowing down to take the shot along with fiddling with the buttons and want great image quality then I think the fuji xpro1 is made for you

 

[Swanseajack]

I just found out what a lens hood is, haha. I was actually thinking less about the sun and more about protection from dust and such. I don't suppose it's easy to clean a lens without scratching it and all that, so I was thinking of protection. Either way, appreciate the advice!



Thanks for the advice, I'll check out Raynox adapters and the Macro section. From a quick skim through Google, Raynox would even work with the default lens too!

Old lenses? Could you give an example so I could go through a couple of places where people sell used stuff around here?

As for Fuji X, Fujifilm X-A1 goes for just bit more than D3200. The rest are way costlier, closer to D3300 and such. Anyway, I'm about to check out for CSCs, see what I can find.

Some old lenses come in M42, M39, Canon FD, Pentax Pk mount etc...............if you have a look on ebay there will be loads. Also look at Jupiter, Zeiss, Pentacon, Helios. There were some from Eastern Europe, have a read of this http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/a-guide-to-russian-soviet-former-soviet-cameras--photo-3880............

Myself personally I would only use with a camera with a built in Electronic Viewfinder for old manual lenses, something like the Fuji Xpro1 mentioned above, which maybe over budget?. With a Optical Viewfinder I find it harder to manual focus.

With your budget and assuming prices where you are, I think the CSC route maybe too expensive for you starting off and your possibly best staying with the D3200.

 

[Deleted member 54248]

If looking at CSC's one big decision is if you want a built in EVF or if you are happy to use only the back screen.

You could look at Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic CSC's. The have either APS-C chips (Sony and Fuji) or MFT (micro four thirds) chips (Panasonic and Olympus.) There isn't much in it IMVHO.

Seems like the camera I found before going to sleep is pretty much the only one with a viewfinder. I am definitely not buying a camera without a viewfinder, it just feels awkward to me as I mentioned in some other post. Since I just woke up, I'm yet to look more into what that camera is about, but I will soon enough and post my findings.

The fact you enjoy slowing down to take the shot along with fiddling with the buttons and want great image quality then I think the fuji xpro1 is made for you

Unfortunately that is more or less twice my budget.

Some old lenses come in M42, M39, Canon FD, Pentax Pk mount etc...............if you have a look on ebay there will be loads. Also look at Jupiter, Zeiss, Pentacon, Helios. There were some from Eastern Europe, have a read of this http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/a-guide-to-russian-soviet-former-soviet-cameras--photo-3880............

Myself personally I would only use with a camera with a built in Electronic Viewfinder for old manual lenses, something like the Fuji Xpro1 mentioned above, which maybe over budget?. With a Optical Viewfinder I find it harder to manual focus.

With your budget and assuming prices where you are, I think the CSC route maybe too expensive for you starting off and your possibly best staying with the D3200.

I just checked a local marketplace for used stuff, people sell various old lenses for cheap here! Wow. Just in case I also checked Nikon D3200 - there is a mount for $20 or so for those lenses and they all are said to work. Here's some of the lenses I've found within literally a couple of minutes on the market's site: presenta mc 200mm f/3.3 ($35), SIGMA Standard Zoom 35-70 mm f/2.8-4 ($22), SMC Pentax 75-150mm f/4 ($25), Mamiya-Sekor 360mm f/6.3 ($120), Edixa Eximer Weitwinkel 35mm f/3.5 ($15), etc., there's plenty of various lenses that cost 10th of the lenses I've seen on the market after I checked out the page linked far above. And of course I could just use Ebay or go to a local market where people sell tons of old stuff, I bet I could find a few lenses over there, too. I also have an old Zenit-E with a Helios 44-2 58mm f/2.

Anyway, off to tend to real-life stuff and after, read all the pages I've open since before I went to sleep.

 

[woof woof]

I'm not too sure what those lenses are but if they are old film era manual lenses please be aware that modern DSLR's are not ideal for focusing manual lenses with unless the subject is big in the frame. With CSC you get manual focus aids but with a conventional DSLR you have to focus without any aids (and it's harder than with a 35mm film camera IMVHO) unless you use live view and the back screen.

Personally I was never too keen on manual focusing when using a DSLR other than when doing macro, hyperfocal or zone focusing as it's hard to judge if you've got good focus. Personally, with a DSLR I'd stick mostly to auto focus.

I use old Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko and Canon FD lenses on my Sony and Panasonic CSC's as focusing manually is quite easy with them but as already mentioned by Simon CSC's can be relatively expensive. You may find a used bargain, for example used Panasonic G1 and G2's are very cheap these days but they're quite old now and they're not as good as more modern cameras at higher ISO's. If however you are going to be shooting at ISO 100-1600 they may be good enough... I'm still quite happily using my G1 but it will not match a modern DSLR at the higher ISO settings.

 

[Deleted member 54248]

I'm not too sure what those lenses are but if they are old film era manual lenses please be aware that modern DSLR's are not ideal for focusing manual lenses with unless the subject is big in the frame. With CSC you get manual focus aids but with a conventional DSLR you have to focus without any aids (and it's harder than with a 35mm film camera IMVHO) unless you use live view and the back screen.

Personally I was never too keen on manual focusing when using a DSLR other than when doing macro, hyperfocal or zone focusing as it's hard to judge if you've got good focus. Personally, with a DSLR I'd stick mostly to auto focus.

I use old Minolta Rokkor, Olympus Zuiko and Canon FD lenses on my Sony and Panasonic CSC's as focusing manually is quite easy with them but as already mentioned by Simon CSC's can be relatively expensive. You may find a used bargain, for example used Panasonic G1 and G2's are very cheap these days but they're quite old now and they're not as good as more modern cameras at higher ISO's. If however you are going to be shooting at ISO 100-1600 they may be good enough... I'm still quite happily using my G1 but it will not match a modern DSLR at the higher ISO settings.

Ah, I see. I suppose old lenses is not an option for me then. Unfortunately the only CSC I found in this price range (mentioned above) has a very poor quality viewfinder according to a few reviews I've seen, so it's not an option either. The little I used my Zenit-E, I really liked manual focus, I found it quite easy out-of-the-box, but everyone has different perceptions and I can't imagine it being easy if it's any harder than on an SLR.

Hmm. So far I've only shot using ISO-400 film, and that was very short experience due to the high costs of developing film and buying it in the first place. So I can only speak from what I've read, which is that at night I'd need ISO-1600 at least (in the evening perhaps) and ISO-3200 or ISO-6400 at night, unless I'm doing still shots on a tripod, which doesn't attract me as much. If I'm correct here, then G1 is not for me (if I could find it used), otherwise I'll look around and see what I can find in the used department.

I've seen macro converters and some sort of a "telescopic" converter; what about those? They seem much cheaper than a lens, do they work well? Could I mount one on the 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 VR II lens on the D3200? To be honest such a "converter" sounds suspicious to me, how could a small thin piece screwed on the end of a lens make it 'telescopic'? Doesn't make sense to me, unless the change isn't worth buying it in the first place. But at the moment I know little of it.

 

[Swanseajack]

As mentioned I think it's best to stay with the D3200.

As for Macro, the best of the bunch as a adapter to the lens are the Raynox I mentioned earlier. These screw to the front of your lens and come with a snap on ring to fit lenses between 52-67mm. There are two different magnification strengths I believe, the DCR-150 and DCR-250. As I previously mentioned ask around the Macro section there a some experts on there in the use of the Raynox.

Some links for you.

Macro thread on different macro set ups.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-dslr-primes-a-journey-of-exploration.531050/

Macro section.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/photos-macro-and-close-up.50/

Raynox DCR-150
Raynox >http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr150/indexdcr150eg.htm
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-DCR-150-MacroScan-Conversion-Lens/dp/B0007KS7D0

Raynox DCR-250
http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr250/indexdcr250eg.htm
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-DCR-250-Macro-Attachment/dp/B000A1SZ2Y

 

[Deleted member 54248]

As mentioned I think it's best to stay with the D3200.

As for Macro, the best of the bunch as a adapter to the lens are the Raynox I mentioned earlier. These screw to the front of your lens and come with a snap on ring to fit lenses between 52-67mm. There are two different magnification strengths I believe, the DCR-150 and DCR-250. As I previously mentioned ask around the Macro section there a some experts on there in the use of the Raynox.

Some links for you.

Macro thread on different macro set ups.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...-dslr-primes-a-journey-of-exploration.531050/

Macro section.
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/photos-macro-and-close-up.50/

Raynox DCR-150
Raynox >http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr150/indexdcr150eg.htm
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-DCR-150-MacroScan-Conversion-Lens/dp/B0007KS7D0

Raynox DCR-250
http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr250/indexdcr250eg.htm
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Raynox-DCR-250-Macro-Attachment/dp/B000A1SZ2Y

Thank you, I'm yet to look into that, but I'm gonna do it soon. I was looking around for any possible alternatives and for a decent protection filter (I chose a clear multicoted glass non-UV one from Hoya for ~$22) and at other things, like figuring out whether or not I can use the camera in sub-zero temperatures. No advised but works, it appears. And gotta leave it in the bag after I come back so that it wouldn't condense too much. In Eastern Europe we get -20C winters, and I enjoy snow, so that's something I will definitely want to photograph. Perhaps I'll be able to do that this year even, depending on how soon it'll get warmer.

Anyway, I'm still curious about the "telephoto" (I called them "telescopic" apparently http://www.raynox.co.jp/english/dcr/dcr2025pro/index.htm) adapters work and if they are even compatible with the default Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR II lens that comes with D3200. Apparently they look much bigger too, the other site I merely glimpsed them had wrong images (a local site, go figure). I wonder if I could take pictures of say the moon (I'm not talking close-up surface pics, just a decently-zoomed-in one) or something quite far away with such. Assuming it does actually work with the default lens.

I'm gonna look into Macro links soon and post about that, been looking through various info for hours.

 

[4wd]

You can get full manual control in more advanced compact cameras, without the expense and bulk of an SLR - not meaning to put you off but nowadays a lot of people are downsizing to very capable small cameras.
The quality from a good modern compact using RAW will be hard to distinguish from an older SLR, especially if all you are doing is posting web-sized images to flickr and such.
The costs involved with SLR and good lenses are quite scary, but the lenses at least tend to hold value quite well.

 

[Swanseajack]

For pictures of the moon I wouldn't bother with the Raynox you have linked as they have only a x2 magnification if I have read the info correct, so would only give you 110mm on your 18-55mm lens. I think they are best suited to bridge cameras.

Depending on your budget I would buy the Tamron 70-300mm VC lens to go with your kit or the cheaper Nikon 55-300mm. These zooms will give you some flexability when out walkin for say bird pics, general wildlife etc....... but won't give you close ups of the moon.

Tamron > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-70-300-4-5-6-Lens-Canon/dp/B003YUBTIU

Nikon > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-...8&qid=1424507719&sr=1-1&keywords=nikon+55-300

 

[Deleted member 54248]

You can get full manual control in more advanced compact cameras, without the expense and bulk of an SLR - not meaning to put you off but nowadays a lot of people are downsizing to very capable small cameras.
The quality from a good modern compact using RAW will be hard to distinguish from an older SLR, especially if all you are doing is posting web-sized images to flickr and such.
The costs involved with SLR and good lenses are quite scary, but the lenses at least tend to hold value quite well.

To be honest, I am feeling really cold towards compacts and I have no interest of smaller size because I have big hands. For example, I can't stand small computer mice, a friend of mine had this tiny mouse and I just couldn't use his computer at all. The mouse was smaller than my palm! A normal-sized mouse is still very uncomfortable for me because I have to bend my fingers way too much than I'd like to. A pricey gaming mouse is the only thing that I can use without much discomfort, but even the biggest gaming mice are still bit too small for what I'd want.

Anyway, hope that illustrates how I feel about small objects. My Zenit-E (pic not taken by me: https://farm5.static.flickr.com/4052/4346523219_4633ae69d9.jpg) feels pretty good, for example. I like holding and using it is quite pleasant.

In other words, I want the opposite of small, so to me it's a downside, not an upside. I can definitely see an upside of having a tiny camera if you just want to just snap pictures without even stopping or probably looking at the screen - then I'd definitely go for a small PNS, but I have no need for it. Unless I'm gifted such or I've lots of extra money, then why not, I'd use it a time or two a month, I presume.

In any case, that's my comment on the size, haha.

For pictures of the moon I wouldn't bother with the Raynox you have linked as they have only a x2 magnification if I have read the info correct, so would only give you 110mm on your 18-55mm lens. I think they are best suited to bridge cameras.

Depending on your budget I would buy the Tamron 70-300mm VC lens to go with your kit or the cheaper Nikon 55-300mm. These zooms will give you some flexability when out walkin for say bird pics, general wildlife etc....... but won't give you close ups of the moon.

Tamron > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-70-300-4-5-6-Lens-Canon/dp/B003YUBTIU

Nikon > http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-55-300mm-4-5-5-6G/dp/B003ZSHNCC/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1424507719&sr=1-1&keywords=nikon 55-300

Thanks. I suppose I'll keep that as a 'future' investment. You can reuse the lenses anyway (or sell them at a pretty good price as 4wd mentioned above), so if I'm going to upgrade my camera a few years from now, I'll still have the lenses to go along with it.