Beginner First DSLR for beginner?

P

purple.shark

Messages
1
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I have been looking at upgrading to a DSLR rather than the bridge I currently have. What would be a good DSLR for a beginner? (cheaper end of the scale would be good to start with)
 
2nd hand is cheaper then new, but entry-level DSR's are do exactly what they say on the box, and don't need be that expensive.
Nikon & Canon are the incumbents in the market for 'systems', so have saturaton support by way of know how, lenses and accessories that tends to make them the easier to get advice on, and easier/cheaper to expand on.
Curry's o the high-street, probably thanks to bulk buy ability teds to have prices that are hard to match of better on these consumer-level cameras; go into a shop, try ot to have salesman push you to yur budget limit or over-sell you bolt on's like gadget-bags, cheap and wobbly tripods or extended warranties.. see whether you find a Nikon or Canon the more intuitive to switch on, pick a more and take a picture. Technical differences between them, and the alternate 'functions' they offer are splitting hairs for the most part, you'll get far more from just getting one you find easiest to use, and going and using.
 
I bought a D5500 as my first DSLR. Decent capabilities and had the technical specs like in-built Wi-fi which if you are a tech savvy person you can shoot and upload on the move which is great. Cheap to buy second hand. I got a low shutter count body with the 18-55 and 55-300 lenses. Ideal lenses to start with before you decide where your photography focus is going to be and then move on to buying more specific lenses for the job.

A family member bought the D3300 (i think) and thats been great too.
 
Teflon-Mike said:
see whether you find a Nikon or Canon the more intuitive to switch on, pick a mode and take a picture. Technical differences between them, and the alternate 'functions' they offer are splitting hairs for the most part, you'll get far more from just getting one you find easiest to use, and going and using.
Click to expand...
This, 100%.

Don't get suckered into comparing specifications. Most DSLRs have way more functionality than most people need. And if you find that you're hitting a limitation on your DSLR - if you need better AF performance, say, or better low light capability, or a faster frame rate - then you can get that by upgrading within the same range. There's a healthy second hand market in DSLRs and upgrading is easy.

But the one thing you can't "fix" by upgrading is how well you get on with the controls and the menu layout. Those things are baked into the manufacturers' DNA and don't change from one model to another.

For example I handle Canon and Nikon DSLRs every day, and I find that:
- one of them has the control dials in exactly the right places, and one has them in places where my hands don't find it natural to use them;
- one has lenses that rotate in what seems to be the intuitive direction for focus and zoom, and one rotates in the opposite - "wrong" direction;
- one has a menu structure which I find completely intuitive and logical, and one doesn't.
Fortunately in each case it's the same one which feels "right", so that makes it very easy for me to decide which brand to use. But I know people who disagree on every point here, and are very comfortable using the "other" system.

I wouldn't want to buy into a system where, every time I zoomed the lens, it felt like I was zooming it the wrong way. I wouldn't want to buy into a system where I had to stretch and bend my fingers unnaturally to use the controls. So that's why handling them is more important than comparing the specs.
 
StewartR said:
This, 100%.

Don't get suckered into comparing specifications. Most DSLRs have way more functionality than most people need. And if you find that you're hitting a limitation on your DSLR - if you need better AF performance, say, or better low light capability, or a faster frame rate - then you can get that by upgrading within the same range.
Click to expand...

My first DSLR was the Canon 350D which I bought new many years ago.

I had been a professional photographer back in the days of film so had a good idea of what I wanted in a DSLR.

It took me about 5 years to finally reach a point where I felt that I had reached the time to move on - first to a 450D (12MP) and then the FF 1Ds MkII (16MP)

Today almost any DSLR will do far more than the 350D did so don't rush to buy your first DSLR because they will all do an excellent job - the limiting factor, as always, is you.

But bear in mind also that the higher the pixel count the more you will need a fast computer - my 350D and 450D were quite happy with an Intel duo core Celeron PC but I had to upgrade to an i7 for the 1Ds MkII.

I didn't really need to go that high but I wanted to "future proof" it as much as possible.

Also the more the pixel count the more likely you will need high quality (and more expensive) lenses.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
This, 100%.


For example I handle Canon and Nikon DSLRs every day, and I find that:
- one of them has the control dials in exactly the right places, and one has them in places where my hands don't find it natural to use them;
- one has lenses that rotate in what seems to be the intuitive direction for focus and zoom, and one rotates in the opposite - "wrong" direction;
- one has a menu structure which I find completely intuitive and logical, and one doesn't.
.
Click to expand...

that will be the Canon then ;)
 
StewartR said:
For example I handle Canon and Nikon DSLRs every day, and I find that:
- one of them has the control dials in exactly the right places, and one has them in places where my hands don't find it natural to use them;
- one has lenses that rotate in what seems to be the intuitive direction for focus and zoom, and one rotates in the opposite - "wrong" direction;
- one has a menu structure which I find completely intuitive and logical, and one doesn't.
Fortunately in each case it's the same one which feels "right", so that makes it very easy for me to decide which brand to use. But I know people who disagree on every point here, and are very comfortable using the "other" system.
Click to expand...

Perhaps their hands were fitted the wrong way round? :LOL::LOL::LOL:
 
steve_lyt said:
A nikon d70 or d70s. Both are quite basic as a start. Please dont bay a top of the range main brand they are certainly not for starters
Click to expand...

I use a D70 for my IR work, and frankly it's a plasticky POS that I couldn't possibly recommend for conventional use. The single redeeming feature is that it's been IR converted.

My first DSLR was a Sony A58. These are very good value, both new & used, and the kit 18-55 SAM II is also good, plus used Minolta lenses fit and work well, and are cheaper than equivalent Nikon and Canon items. The sensor is modern, with a good dynamic range and color reproduction, and the electronic viewfinder makes shooting in low light really easy. It is also less cramped than the smaller entry level Nikons, and fits my hands well. I still use mine when I want a lightweight camera.
 
From personal experience, I wouldn't buy an entry level dslr. Not because of image quality or the amount of pixels (anything between 10 and 18mp is fine), but because ergonomically I find the next step up (enthusiast cameras they're called) easier to hold and use.
 
Have you got particular subjects that you are much more likely to be photographing ?

The reason I ask is that I use a Canon but I have always liked the look that Nikon gives for certain types of scenery. There have been plenty of debates online about which of those two brands has more realistic colours for portraits etc so it may be worth looking on Flickr to see if there is a common brand when you see images like you want to create. People will say that any particular look can be obtained in post-processing but I feel that each of Canon vs Nikon has it's own native appearance that I can often recognise by looking at the photo (obviously not always).
 
What brand of bridge camera do you have?
What type of photos do you want to take?

Do you really need a DSLR with all that unecessary gubbins like a big flapping mirror making all that noise and causing vibrations.
Go to a shop and look at some models you may prefer a mirrorless camera for instance if you have a Sony bridge camera the move a sony A series mirrorless camera may be easier.

If you need tracking AF you want a DSLR still but you will need to buy a higher end model. The same my be the case for a viefinder lower end DSLR's do not have great viewfinders despite what many of the above may say and decent EVF is better.
 
Nostromo said:
From personal experience, I wouldn't buy an entry level dslr. Not because of image quality or the amount of pixels (anything between 10 and 18mp is fine), but because ergonomically I find the next step up (enthusiast cameras they're called) easier to hold and use.
Click to expand...
This^

I'd rather have a £150 older 'enthusiast' camera than a £200 brand new 'starter' camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top