Beginner which camera should i buy?

Messages
7
Name
william
Edit My Images
Yes
I know this is a very common question- Please bear with me. I really hope I can get some informative answers as I have no knowledge in photography.

I'll mainly like to buy a dslr to use for 1-2 years down the line without really upgrading. I mainly want to use it to post great instagram photos, instead of using my iphone camera. I also would like to take cool shots I can use to edit into my imovie for footage and possibily creating a portfolio and posting it in blogs as well.
I have narrowed down to a canon model, I have felt and compared it to previous models and I just think canon is a better fit (setting/functionality wise)
I was thinking of getting last year model (maybe 80D?). What are your thoughts?

I know you can't really tell me which camera is best for me, and I realized it's not really about the body so much as it is the lens that matter, so I'll just like for someone to really mentor me how I can go about being the best photographer. I'm sure all of you at some point have been in my shoes before.I'd really appreciate that.

Btw, I don't really have a budget in mind. If its worth it, I'll invest in the right one.
 
If you have been an iPhone fan and your description of your intended uses i do wonder if you may find the DSLR too large and heavy to be bothered with after a while,your description sounds like a top end mirrorless may fit the bill.
 
Rather than deciding which of the DSLRs to go for, as a beginner you should be thinking of which good secondhand but capable camera will allow you to learn enough about the technical side of photography, about how your own tastes in photography will develop, and about how the camera market itself is developing, so you can make a properly informed decision in a couple of years time. In other words, now is not the time to be thinking in terms of which major exchangeable lens camera system to invest in. It's the time to think in terms of investing in a hands-on photographic education. I'd suggest going for a good capable second hand bridge camera. The odds are that in a couple of years time you won't want a Canon DSLR -- not because there's anything wrong with Canon, or with DSLRs, but just that modern good cameras are now so good that there's plenty that isn't Canon, and plenty that isn't a DSLR, that will very likely be better than you'll ever need. Not to mention that in today's highly technological camera market there's a lot can happen in two years.
 
Some good advice above. I'd also suggest clarifying, if you can, at this stage the sort of images you want to create as this will help the right tool for the job whether new or second hand, dslr or mirrorless or whatever.
 
Pretty much any camera will do, but as noted above you need to realise that a DSLR is significantly heavier, bulkier and less convenient than a phone.

I strongly recommend looking at mirrorless options, or even a high-end compact.

so I'll just like for someone to really mentor me how I can go about being the best photographer
  • Look at photos around you.
  • Think about the photos you see.
  • Take photos.
  • Think about the photos you take.
If you don't think about what makes a good photograph, it's impossible for anyone to tell you.
 
Here's a question to consider.

All my life I've been interested in going places, at the moment I just have a bicycle, but I really want a car, I've had a look around and I think I want a Ford. What I'd like to do is drive to the coast whenever I like, maybe days out in the country, I know this will change as I become a better driver, I need at least one other seat so I can take a passenger which I can't do with my bike.

Looking at the Fords, I think the Focus is the one for me, but as I have no idea, I'm open to advice. I have no budget, happy to spend whatever I need to.


It's a bit daft, though not ridiculous as it's what everyone does in your shoes.

You should see the obvious answer is that the question is irrelevant. You've made a choice, it'll work; you are just looking for justification for that choice.

Will you be happy carting around a bunch of heavy gear? Will your partner be happy sitting around waiting while you get the perfect shot? or are you happy with the notion you'll have to spend a lot of time alone?

You've got loads of options as above; smaller easier cameras, spending less on a s/h camera so if you decide it's not for you, you'll lose less £s.

But as far as photography is concerned, the camera is close to irrelevant.

Learners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about light.

Lesson 1; when you point a camera at something, you're not simply 'recording what's in front of you', what you're actually doing is capturing the light reflected off the subject. It might sound overly complex, but it explains both the science and the art - it's not a coincidence either, the literal translation of photograph is to draw with light.
 
I'm not saying this is what you should buy (I would say go to a shop and see what you like as a first instance), but as you mentioned Instagram it might be worth having a look at the Canon M5 which is kind of the mirrorless equivalent of the 80d.

It's advantage with Instagram is Bluetooth with Canon Connect app (Android). Once paired (once), transferring images from camera to smartphone means just switching on camera and opening the app. You can then transfer images to use Instagram, or use the camera as a live remote control and do the same.

Most cameras can connect to a smartphone, but not many use Bluetooth and WiFi can be a pain IMO.

It's also a cracking little camera.
 
I'll mainly like to buy a dslr to use for 1-2 years down the line without really upgrading. I mainly want to use it to post great instagram photos, instead of using my iphone camera. I also would like to take cool shots I can use to edit into my imovie for footage and possibily creating a portfolio and posting it in blogs as well.

A couple of things. Why would a camera need upgrading in after 1-2 years? Will you have more money to spend or cameras all of a sudden go bad and fall apart?

More importantly, what photographs are you taking and would you like to take in the future? Outdoor, action photos, flowers, plants, birds, still life in studio, portraits ... You know that unless you put your expensive DSLR on auto for everything the eyePhone ;-) will take "better" photos, with unrealistically saturated colours etc. If you want a DSLR buy one. If you want advice for which DSLR to buy then you need to explain more.

1. Learners think it's all about cameras
2. Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
3. Photographers know it's all about light.
Photographers have probably figured out in their minds and hopefully in practice (1) and (2) and are concerned about (3). The rest of us keep wondering :)
 
I mainly want to use it to post great instagram photos, instead of using my iphone camera.
I'm really not at all sure whether a DSLR would be suitable. Have you considered what the workflow would be? For me it would be something like:
  • Take photo
  • Travel home
  • Take card out of camera and put into PC
  • Import photo into Lightroom
  • Process, crop, export, upload

Compared to an iPhone it's positively cumbersome. So I guess the question is, what benefits do you envisage getting from a DSLR that will outweigh the disadvantage of the workflow?
 
Last edited:
I'm really not at all sure whether a DSLR would be suitable. Have you considered what the workflow would be? For me it would be something like:
  • Take photo
  • Travel home
  • Take card out of camera and put into PC
  • Import photo into Lightroom
  • Process, crop, export, upload

Compared to an iPhone it's positively cumbersome. So I guess the question is, what benefits do you envisage getting from a DSLR that will outweigh the disadvantage of the workflow?

It is cumbersome but most people I connect with on Instagram, including me, are doing this....smartphone do take great shots, but have there limits.
 
If you have been an iPhone fan and your description of your intended uses i do wonder if you may find the DSLR too large and heavy to be bothered with after a while,your description sounds like a top end mirrorless may fit the bill.

I took a look at a few mirrorless cameras, and I was quite intrigued. Although, yes, my intended use may be better suited in a mirrorless camera, I do wonder if somewhere down the line I might shoot photos that are better in a dslr. My whole philosophy is buy a camera that has all the functions rather than specifics so I am not limited. Again, I do intend to use the same camera a few years down the line, its something I throughly want to pursue as my hobby.



Rather than deciding which of the DSLRs to go for, as a beginner you should be thinking of which good secondhand but capable camera will allow you to learn enough about the technical side of photography, about how your own tastes in photography will develop, and about how the camera market itself is developing, so you can make a properly informed decision in a couple of years time. In other words, now is not the time to be thinking in terms of which major exchangeable lens camera system to invest in. It's the time to think in terms of investing in a hands-on photographic education. I'd suggest going for a good capable second hand bridge camera. The odds are that in a couple of years time you won't want a Canon DSLR -- not because there's anything wrong with Canon, or with DSLRs, but just that modern good cameras are now so good that there's plenty that isn't Canon, and plenty that isn't a DSLR, that will very likely be better than you'll ever need. Not to mention that in today's highly technological camera market there's a lot can happen in two years.

I do like this advice, and I am highly considering that. can you recommend me some current secondhand capable camera you speak of? perhaps even models you've used before and it helped you learn? Can you share your story of how you began learning photography? I've love to hear how people started off as a newb and now a professional. Also Ive heard that cameras aside, people used lightroom and photoshop to edit their photos, so this makes me wonder if the quality of the camera even matters?
 
Last edited:
Regarding DSLRs and mirrorless, there's a steady stream of folk with DSLRs busily trading their bulky, heavy gear for lightweight mirrorless cameras, and there's a tranche of mirrorless users going back the other way again. To a degree, provided it has the right attributes like interchangeable lenses, decent quality sensor, a viewfinder that's clear and helpful and highly importantly, you find easy to use, then it doesn't matter which model or make you pick. A DSLR won't take better pictures than a mirrorless with the same lens and sensor, but a camera that you like to handle and have with you (of whichever type) is more likely to be available when you want to take pics than one that's a millstone on your shoulder.

Personally I don't like tiny cameras - they feel too fiddly - but some are much better laid out, and my wife's Olympus E-M10 is much nicer to use than my brother's D5500, although I prefer my Sony a58 (also smallish) to both of them and my Nikon D610 more than that. Go visit somewhere like Currys and handle a few to see what fits your hand and what doesn't. Also think about whether wireless uploading is important to you, or whether you want to become a bit more serious about how your images look after you've taken them.

But as PhilV said, to a degree, the actual camera you use to take the photograph isn't terribly important. Remember what he said (and often repeats here):

Learners think it's all about cameras
Enthusiasts think it's all about lenses
Photographers know it's all about light.

Lenses are important because they help you capture that light, but provided they do so in a way that's helpful for the photo, that's where their importance finishes.

The next bit is where the fun starts......
 
I'm a beginner too and have a Canon 500D and feel I'm still years away from outgrowing it! The only comment I would make is if you initially want it for instagram do consider it's connectivity (wifi/bluetooth etc). You could also consider a compact? You don't get to change lenses but they're smaller and have quite a few of the same settings as a dslr. I may have just blasphemed in photographer speak though.... [emoji3]
 
Rather than deciding which of the DSLRs to go for, as a beginner you should be thinking of which good secondhand but capable camera will allow you to learn enough about the technical side of photography, about how your own tastes in photography will develop, and about how the camera market itself is developing, so you can make a properly informed decision in a couple of years time. In other words, now is not the time to be thinking in terms of which major exchangeable lens camera system to invest in. It's the time to think in terms of investing in a hands-on photographic education. I'd suggest going for a good capable second hand bridge camera. The odds are that in a couple of years time you won't want a Canon DSLR -- not because there's anything wrong with Canon, or with DSLRs, but just that modern good cameras are now so good that there's plenty that isn't Canon, and plenty that isn't a DSLR, that will very likely be better than you'll ever need. Not to mention that in today's highly technological camera market there's a lot can happen in two years.

I do like this advice, and I am highly considering that. can you recommend me some current secondhand capable camera you speak of? perhaps even models you've used before and it helped you learn? Can you share your story of how you began learning photography? I've love to hear how people started off as a newb and now a professional. Also Ive heard that cameras aside, people used lightroom and photoshop to edit their photos, so this makes me wonder if the quality of the camera even matters?

I don't follow the market so can't recommend specific current cameras. Make sure the camera can shoot in aperture priority, shutter priority, with exposure compensation, and also fully manual, and can produce both JPEG and RAW image output. I prefer both a viewfinder, because it's easier to use in bright light and gives more stability to the camera, being held with two hands and pressed against the face, and a fully articulated LCD, because that gives you the most flexibility in positioning shots where it's awkward or impossible to get your eye behind the camera. There's a trade off in zoom ranges. Short zoom ranges usually give better image quality and wider apertures with which you can blur backgrounds better and get better shots in low light, but for getting frame filling shots of more distant things, such as wild life or sports where you can't get close to the action, you need as much focal length, i.e. the biggest zoom range you can get.

If you know you'll be concentrating on portraits, close shots, posed shots of people and things, etc., you'll probably prefer a shorter zoom range. But it will really annoy you if you find yourself wanting more distant reach. Note that you can still take blurred background portraits with the narrower apertures of the longer zoom range lenses -- you just have to step back and use a longer focal length.

I first got interested in photography way back in the last century before automatic focus or even automatic exposure had been invented. I never became a professional in the sense of earning a living from photography, but I got enough occasional paid work to pay for most of my gear.

I decided in 2006 that digital cameras had become good enough to surpass the image quality I was used to getting from film with a 35mm SLR, and were going to get a lot better. I bought a bridge camera with which to learn the digital ropes while I started reading all the new camera and lens reviews to help me decide which camera system to buy into. It took me about a year to make up my mind.

What matters most for image quality is the size of the image sensor and the quality of the lens. The bigger the sensor the better the image quality. The quality of the camera body buys you ruggedness, better weatherproofing, more knobs and buttons making it easier and quicker to change the camera settings, and features which make it easier to take good photographs in difficult conditions. But in good lighting conditions a cheap camera body with the same sensor and using the same lens as the top end professional camera model will take the same quality of photograph.

You can improve bad photographs with image editors like lightroom and photoshop -- but never to the extent of the image quality you'd get from properly composing and exposing the shot in camera in the first place. You can't use image editors to reach the extra image quality you'd get from a better image sensor or a better lens. On the other hand you can use image editors to get kinds of image and aspects of image quality that you wouldn't be able to achieve just in the camera.

Being a technical geek who used to do his own film developing and printing I do a lot of post processing of my images in computer. As a rough average for every hour I spend taking photographs I'll spend two hours improving the best shots in computer. I've never used lightroom or photoshop because I preferred to spend my money on equipment. I prefer to use free image editors and spend the money on photographic gear.
 
I took a look at a few mirrorless cameras, and I was quite intrigued. Although, yes, my intended use may be better suited in a mirrorless camera, I do wonder if somewhere down the line I might shoot photos that are better in a dslr. My whole philosophy is buy a camera that has all the functions rather than specifics so I am not limited. Again, I do intend to use the same camera a few years down the line, its something I throughly want to pursue as my hobby?

Most cameras will do most things. You'll only be limited if you have special requirements, e.g. sports photography, wildlife or very low light work - and to fulfil those requirements will need a significantly bigger budget.

More importantly, what photographs are you taking and would you like to take in the future? Outdoor, action photos, flowers, plants, birds, still life in studio, portraits ...

:agree:

You really do need to answer this...
 
Entry-Level DSLR's these days are pretty incredible bits of kit, and for someone exactly AT the entry level, bang on the money!

DSLR, stands for Digital-Single-Lens-Reflex; the SLR bit has been around an awful long time, and it's a carryover from Film-SLR, cameras where the SLR refers essentially to a periscope widget that lets you look through a view finder that looks through the same lens as takes the picture on film, or on a silicon sensor.

The advantages of an SLR are rather debatable. Main one, and why they became popular for interchangeable lens 'system' cameras was that what you see is what you get; so with different lenses, you see what they see; other types of camera, if you could change lenses, you had to change both the taking lens and the view finder lens, or you had to change framing screens in the view finder, or 'something'. The SLR made it easier and simpler to use, and only needing one lens, could make it cheaper to use multiple lenses. Though they do have disadvantages too...

When 'direct to digital' first came along, the cameras were expensive, and didn't deliver particularly great image quality for it. They were convenient though. But, with an LCD preview screen on the back to show you what the lens was putting on the digital sensor, in 'real time', as well as or instead of a view finder, I for one, certainly had to ask what 'actually' was the real point of a D-SLR, when 'compact' digital cameras often offered an integrated zoom lens, that covered certainly my most used range of focal length, and gave the same WYSIWYG viewfinder composition via the LCD screen without the convoluted mechanics and bulk of the mirror and pentaprism periscope, just making them even more expensive...

So I for one didn't bother with them until about 5 years ago. I continued using film, and scanned to digital, if I wanted quality, and I used a succession of digital compacts for carry-about convenience. It wasn't until about 5 years ago, when last of the line of digi-compacts finally died, I gave DSLR a chance. AND, significantly because the camera phone, and cheaper entry level DSLR's had between them, squashed the 'compact' market into a tiny little market segment and price range; to the point they almost don't exist any more. And what we have left in that arena is bridge cameras, that are often neither compact, nor a 'real' DSLR, and whose main virtue is being a 'bit' cheaper than a DSLR and a 'bit' better than a camera phone, but often frustratingly neither-nor.

The CSC or 'Mirrorless' cameras, are 'sort of' the obvious answer to my question of two decades ago... in digital, WHY do you actually need a periscope view-finder, when you have a screen looking through the lens? And five years ago, they were top of my look at list. Real interchangeable lenses, as opposed to a built in 'zoom', offers the sort of versatility of an SLR and lack of periscope keeps them compact.. if not so cheap...

In the days of only film, cameras like the Leica range finders, lived in an esoteric world along side high end SLR's, for more discerning enthusiasts,who would appreciate the more compact camera body and better optics allowed by a design less compromised for that through the lens view finder, and that IS sort of where Mirrorless or CSC cameras are hanging now. They aren't particularly 'cheap', and whilst they may have the versatility of interchangeable lenses, being by far the less common, those lenses are also not so cheap, whilst the range of available lenses damps the versatility some-what compared to what may be available to fit a DSLR.

To my mind, they may be fantastic cameras, and I can see every point for buying one... but, they are a camera for a more discerning enthusiast who already knows how to get the most from one, they are not a camera for a newby learning the craft, really.

Which brings us back to the entry level DSLR's... which, are, as said, bang on the money, THE thing for any-one at that entry level! and probably a lot more, well beyond it if truth be told! And for remarkeably little, if any, extra money, lift you out of the compromises imposed on Bridge cameras to be neither-nor, and access all the versatility DSLR's offer.

As said, I bought mine, in my case a Nikon D3200, about five years ago. It was a tad over £300 at the time, which was where I got to moving ever up the market away from consumer compacts, and into Bridge cameras, and back down to, from looking at CSC/Mirrorless....

I am far from at the entry level... I STILL HAVE IT, and have absolutely NO impulse to 'upgrade' the thing to something newer, or 'better' or higher up the ranges!... Oh-Kay, you got me.... I do.. the tugg of Gadget Acquisition Syndrome, is strong, and after buying another lens each year to get the same sort or range of focal lengths I have for film cameras, the 'What Next?' question has had me looking at better bodies, or going full-frame, or or or... opportunities to waste money are enormous!!!!!! BE WARNED.

BOTTOM LINE:- The entry level DSLR I have does everything I need, and being brutally honest, MOST of that with the 18-55 'kit' lens! compared to my old film cameras it is just amazing, how much is packed into that little bit of plastic. I mean, the kit 18-55 lens isn't particularly amazing, BUT, it's the equivilent of a 27-82mm lens on a film SLR, which is a greater zoom range, than any of the 'short' zooms I had/have for film, and covers the range of three 'prime' lenses for my old M42 film cameras; 28mm, 50mm & 80mm. Next up, the 'film'... it doesn't need any! It takes a little SD chip, and unlike film, that had a fixed ASA 'sensitivity' or 'ISO' for the 36 pictures it could take, the camera, has a variable ISO setting from ISO100 to something daft like ISO25,600!! Probably doesn't mean much to you, but way back when, if you walked in to Boots, and asked for a film, you had a choice of 100ASA, 200ASA or 400ASA... then they might ask whether you wanted Black & White or Slide, instead of colour print.... there were higher ISO films, I think that the highest I ever bought was Fuji 6400, but that was the sort of stuff you had to go into a specialist camera shop for and ask for, and they probably had to order in for you! Thing even has a built in 'flash'. Way back when that was an optional ectra; you had to carry it about with you and clamp it on the top when needed. Now, like the film, it's there at the press of a button!! OK you can still buy accessory flash-guns, and there are some good reasons you might want one.

BUT, the point is, that the modern entry Level DSLR is an amazing bit of kit, and even with the comparatively 'limited range' of just an 18-55mm zoom lens, what you get in that starter kit, IS pretty much every toy in the shop, we could have wanted, and some more to boot, 'all in' and for, comparatively very VERY little money. Just to give you an idea, I have a Olympus OM10, which in the early 1980's was vaunted as an almost 'point and shoot' easy to use SLR at the entry level. It cost, new in the shops, with a fixed 50mm prime lens, and no flash or anything else, about £90, which by Mars-Bar reckoning of inflation, would be something in the order of £600 in todays money..... as said, my Nikon cost about £300, half what the OM would have new, AND packs a flash, every 'film' that was in the shop, a zoom lens covering the range of three primes; AND it genuinely IS point and shoot friendly, where the old OM, still needed a 'bit' of know-how to get pictures... you had to focus the lens for starters!

Just as an idea of just how point and press easy to use modern DSLR's 'may' be; when my daughter started doing her GCSE photography course at school, and threatening to drown my camera, trying to take photo's of water-filled balloons bursting!!!!! I bought her her own!!!! A second hand D3100 in fact, which is pretty much identical to my own, bar a slightly lower pixel count.... I discovered her in the back garden with it, pricking water-filled balloons, and my O/H's four year old grand-daughter... taking the photo's....YES the FOUR YEAR OLD was taking pictures with the DSLR! they ARE that simple to use, you can give one to a pre-school child to operate, AND they can get some pretty interesting pictures with one!!!!

I mean it is ridiculous. OK I'm an old duffer, but I REALLY cant use my daughter's i-phone! And when she has handed it to me and asked me take a picture of her, I have been TOTALLY lost, trying to fathom out what to do.. err.. where's the button!?!?!?!?! to her it's simple and she flicks her finger accross the screen, through a couple of 'aps', whatever they are! Selects something from a menu, then says "Point and just press the 'OK' box"... sorry but does NOT seem so simple to me, used to flicking ONE switch to turn it 'on' and press one button to take a picture! WHICH is exactly how 'easy' an entry level DSLR is to operate in 'green-box' point-and-shoot mode... thing focuses itself, makes its ISO, aperture and shutter settings itself, ALL you have to do is point it at something photo-worthy and press the button. so simple a four year old can do it.

BUT.... read the manual, and on the entry level Nikons, they have a helpful 'in camera' 'guide' you can read on their pre-view screen!!!.. but read the manual, and learn where and when other 'settings' might be more useful, and even then, the auto-modes are pretty self explanatory! An icon of a head and shoulders for close up portraits; an icon of a running man for sports, one of a mountain for landscapes, that sort of thing! You can very quickly and easily start extending the cameras capability and your chances to get more better pictures, very very easily; Delve deeper as you learn, and if you want to start getting a bit ambitious, you can start using the manual modes and making your own ISO/Shutter/Aperture settings, you can even turn off the autofocus and do that manually, You may, with one of these cameras, go pretty much as far as you want into the realms of what 'high end' and 'pro level' cameras can do, as you learn where and when and why you would want to.

Like I said, I'm far from a newby, and I REALLY have little compunction to trade up for ANY feature a higher end camera may have, this one lacks... Which is likely things like a tilt preview screen, or a couple of extra programmable function buttons, to save menu hopping! The 'added' features on an awful lot of higher end cameras ARE really of very questionable merit in an awful lot of cases, and if you are a newby, who doesn't even know why you might want them, let alone why you really need them, even less, whether they'd be all that 'useful'.. it IS unnecessary.

MEGA-PIXELS!!!! This is the number of 'dots' that a cameras sensor can make to make a picture. My D3200 can put 24 million of them into one picture, which was impressive five years ago. And more recent cameras are offering what? 3o-odd Mpix? There has been something of a numbers race on this score. BUT... To all practical extents and purposes, I have had to 'shrink' every digital photo I have ever taken, since my first 1.3Mpix compact almost twenty years ago, for pretty much ANY display purpose! The screens we look at these pictures on just DONT have that many pixels themselves to show them! Latest generation of display monitors, I think are heading up to around 4Mpix or so, but most, and certainly consumer display devices like smart-phones, tablets, lap-tops, etc, rarely have much over 1Mpix, and most 'host sites' for web display will limit image size to under 1Mpix.... Big numbers in the stats look great.... and marketing men bumping the numbers up year on year to make you believe your 'old' camera is now 'sooooo' obsolete are just milking the market to a large degree.... there's a lot of things far more important than mere pixel count, like the colour depth, the low light sensitivity, and 'stuff' that make as much or more difference to the quality of the image you look at, which isn't the picture you take, but a reproduction on another device..... so anything 'better' than the screen you look at can show, is probably going to be rather wasted!

Which is where we get into the subtleties of the craft; BUT, as a learner, it really is not something you need worry about, and almost any entry level DSLR, of the last decade, is probably more than good enough. As mentioned, what, three and a bit years ago? I bought the daughter a then, probably three year old, 2nd hand D3100, which boasted a 'mere' 16Mpix compared to the 24 of my own D3200... she has just come to the end of her A-Level photography course with THAT 'old' camera; where she has been having to do far more than take a few snap-shots and upload them to a blog; and had to make large scale display prints from her images; make student video's for large screen review etc etc etc.

That old, entry level DSLR, which was a bit dated and behind the times, when I got if for her three years ago, and is now three more years 'out of date' DID NOT in any way hold her up, or handi-cap her in the challenging student excersises and exibitions she has had to do for O or a level standard work. She's been deliberating her university options, and even THERE, where she may elect to take a photography or mixed media module in part of or as the main subject of her course; that 'old' entry level DSLR will STILL, be good enough to get her an awful long way into the course, if not through it entirely... biggest worry with that camera is not whether its up to the job, at that level, but whether she'll drop it, loose it, have it nicked! Not how many features and functions it does or doesn't have....

So, if an old, and outdated and under featured 'entry' level SLR is good enough for her, a photography/media under-grad, tackling the challenges of academic exercises and exhibition, and far more than I need as a mere 'amateur' playing at it in my spare time.... REALLY, you do NOT need to start out, with the idea that you MUST upgrade; that whatever you buy now, you must grow out of, or will be made obsolete by future technology, and in a mere year or two.... I have had my entry level camera half a decade! and short of the thing getting fried, dropped, smashed or stolen, it's likely that the thing will carry on doing the job its intended for for the rest of the decade, and beyond!

What is important for you, here and now, is buying a camera that will let you do the job you have for it.... and pretty much any of the entry level DSLR's almost certainly will, so dont sweat the small stuff. Nikon & Cannon have, by far and away the largest portion of the market sewn up between them, and consequently the support for those systems is enormouse, and most competatively priced. Whether you want to find a you-tube tutorial on how to use a different metering more, or buy an accessory flash gun, or a different length lens; either make will give you the best chance to find what you want, and it will likely be most reasonably priced. Outside that, things can start to get a little more patchy, and alternative systems like Micro-four-Thirds, whilsy still popular really aren't as well supported, and can, if you start delving make life harder for you. Given that entry level Nikon & Cannon are NOT exhorbitantly priced, the small, if any, premium you'd pay for one over anything from the incumbents has to be balenced against that commonality.

So if you like the cannon, and are comfy using it.... you probably dont need to look much further or fret much harder... cough up the cash and get going... THAT is where the major differences to your results will be... in how clued up you get how diligent you are, and how ambitiouse.... NOT in the electrickery inside the box you happen to be holding..... spend more time looking THROUGH the camera, rather than AT it!
 
I think @koifish may need some time to work out what their aim is and to try things out.

If you are used to always having an iPhone on you to take photos, then yes the transition to the more conventional work-flow and weight of a DSLR might be a hinderance. So a mirrorless camera like the Sony A6000 series or the Fuji XT1/XT10 might help on the weight/size issue, but the workflow might need thinking about.

So it seems that for you, the question to start with is: where are your images going to end up and how are they going to get there? Are you going straight to Instagram or are you going to go (as Stewart says) take image, go home, load onto computer, edit, then upload?

If you have a real desire to upload straight from the camera to Instagram, then you will need to be looking at newer models with bluetooth or wifi. Or you'll have to use a memory card that you can connect to your tablet and upload from there.

Personally I do use Instagram (see here), none of the photo are taken with a phone.
So my workflow is either:
a) Take photo > connect phone to camera via wifi > select image and transfer to phone > edit image on phone > upload to Flickr/Instagram/Facebook
or
b) Take photo > go home > put SD card in computer > transfer all images to computer > select best images, edit, export jpg > upload to Flickr/Facebook > share image to Instagram if wanted (Instagram won't allow uploading from a browser)

Method a) is quicker and I use it when I'm out or on holiday and I want a quick way to share an image. The rest of the time (95%+) I go home and edit and upload because that way I know the image is the best quality possible.

There are good bodies and good lenses from all the manufacturers, but I haven't yet seen a budget specified in this thread.
Take a look at all the options: here's a list of all the DSLR/mirrorless cameras that have Wifi: DPReview Feature Search: Wifi

Here's another comparison, this time just a small selection of options, all with Wifi, but look down to the bottom of the table of features, take note of the size and weight: DPReview Side-by-side comparison

Any of these cameras will be good for a few years use. It's only when you eventually find that you're reaching limit of what the camera can do that you might want to upgrade.

If the connectivity thing isn't a major requirement, then you could buy any camera from the last 5-10 years.

Also Ive heard that cameras aside, people used lightroom and photoshop to edit their photos, so this makes me wonder if the quality of the camera even matters?
You've got the wrong end of the stick: Editing is an enhancement, but it doesn't replace the skill of the photographer in taking a good image to begin with. Lightroom and Photoshop are used by many people, but as the saying goes "you can't polish a turd". Or more accurately, you can't polish a terrible photo and get a masterpiece.
Remember that it's the photographer that makes the photograph not the camera. A "good" camera can't make a "good" photograph on it's own. But take a good photograph (find a good view, expose it well), it might look pretty good straight from the camera but a little polish in Lightroom/Photoshop may make it outstanding.
The "quality of the camera" does matter to an extent, but even a 10 year old DSLR can still produce good images if they have been exposed correctedly.

One thing to note: when starting out, you'll find it a lot easier to see what images/compositions work well and if they are in focus or straight if you load them onto a computer with a decent sized screen rather than just load them onto a phone/tablet.

Get a camera, take photos, review them, take more, review them, enjoy.
 
Last edited:
...
I do like this advice, and I am highly considering that. can you recommend me some current secondhand capable camera you speak of? perhaps even models you've used before and it helped you learn? Can you share your story of how you began learning photography? I've love to hear how people started off as a newb and now a professional. Also Ive heard that cameras aside, people used lightroom and photoshop to edit their photos, so this makes me wonder if the quality of the camera even matters?
Notwithstanding my assertion that 'cameras aren't important'.

I think I need to temper this for completeness.

Give me a Canon 40d (12 year old camera) over most mirrorless cameras, all compact cameras, bridge cameras and camera phones, and all current 'entry level' DSLR's. Because it's a 'tool' that works well, that I understand, and that's great to use.

Other people might prefer other cameras, and reading spec sheets it'd be difficult to understand my viewpoint, but it's fact based and strongly held.

As to the Photoshop statement, don't be offended, but it's idiotic. You make a great photograph by understanding your subject, having the right gear and knowledge to capture that subject is secondary, and finally you can polish that to create a masterpiece.

But no amount of photoshop will create a masterpiece of a great mountain range on an overcast day, a portrait with no engagement or a blurry bird on a stick.

And this is where your photographic inspiration kicks in, it takes a lot of practice to get good, and pointing a camera for hundreds of hrs at something you're not interested in is no fun, photograph what you love, and youll love taking those photographs.
 
Thanks so much for the in depth answers everyone, I am certainly taking note of it all.

Okay, so gathering what has been said so far, why are there still an influx of new cameras being produced every year in the market? Economics aside, I mean if a 10 year old camera can produce the same quality as a newer one (given the photographer behind the camera knows how to expose/find great view), what is the difference?

I get that new models may have more functionality/extra baggage (touchscreen, videocam, new designs, easier settings, etc), but in terms of taking photos what are the major distinctions vs the older models?


Most cameras will do most things. You'll only be limited if you have special requirements, e.g. sports photography, wildlife or very low light work - and to fulfil those requirements will need a significantly bigger budget.



:agree:

You really do need to answer this...

I'd def would like to take shots of wildlife ( animals, stars, nature) , scenery, face portraits, basically anything under the sun. I would hate to limit my options, although I'll probably shoot landscape more frequently.
 
I think @koifish

So it seems that for you, the question to start with is: where are your images going to end up and how are they going to get there? Are you going straight to Instagram or are you going to go (as Stewart says) take image, go home, load onto computer, edit, then upload?


Although nice and definitely convenient, finding a camera that has wifi/bluetooth won't pose much of a hindrance for me. I wouldn't mind at all going the traditional way with a usb cable and plugging into my computer to upload photo/images to edit. I'll prefer that route so if I need to make adjustments to the photo, ill at least have that option.

also Ive heard the new sony A9 mirrorless camera is getting a lot of Buzz. Can anyone fill me in on general about specs and whatnot. Yes, I'm aware I can google all of that, but you'll been extremely helpful and I like to learn from people who have gone through where I am.
 
also Ive heard the new sony A9 mirrorless camera is getting a lot of Buzz. Can anyone fill me in on general about specs and whatnot. Yes, I'm aware I can google all of that, but you'll been extremely helpful and I like to learn from people who have gone through where I am.
It would be quicker if you Googled it. Rather than one of us Google it, open a few links, pick out the interesting/useful bits and cut and paste into this post. Or do you think we hold the specs of every model at out fingertips?

Your blog/Instagram must be fascinating "I'm thinking of a photo of a cool looking duck. Google it of you want to see what a cool looking duck looks like".
 
Ive heard the new sony A9 mirrorless camera is getting a lot of Buzz.
Yes, in the same way that when Bugatti announced the new 1500hp 288mph Chiron it certainly got a lot of buzz. But how many of those people drooling over the specs would seriously be candidates for buying one? At the end of the day a car like this is hard to drive, too wide for your garage, doesn't get you to work any faster, and is really useless at carrying the shopping home from Sainsburys.

Same with the Sony A9. It's a technological showcase. 99.99% of us don't need, and wouldn't be able to make use of, it's full capabilities. The other 0.01% know who they are and they've quietly pre-ordered one.
 
This may sound corny but hear goes.
I have been doing photography for about 50 yrs using flim on a fixed lens about 40yrs ago got film dslr. And finally got small compact digital about 15yrs. I saved 20p £1 etc to get digital dslr 350d and again 5yrs got 40d.
Question what do you want to take photos of?
If wildlife you will need 400mm plus
If landscapes 20-40mm
Portraits 50mm
Each lens will cost from £200-£3000
I know a man in northern ireland who has acheived letters from photographic body who had to set a new status because all his panel of I think 24shots where taken with his iphone. He has sold 1shot for a book cover.
There are littte apps you can add to your phone similar to photoshop. Iwill try to add one here.
Tried but cant connect to phone to get shot sas asking for unr code and dont have it.
 
The Sony A9 has created a huge buzz in the last 24hrs, especially with those who already use the Sony A7 cameras, but it's likely to be £3-4k. So it's probably not in beginner territory.
An original Sony A7 might be a good option though, especially with secondhand prices around £700ish.

I definitely think you need to get yourself to a decent camera shop, one that has a variety of cameras that you can pick up and hold, test out, see if the buttons are in good places for you, see if you are happy with the screen/viewfinder and menus. There are plenty of good stores, it just depends where you are in the country as to how far you need to travel to find one.

Try before you buy. You wouldn't spend £1000 on a car without at least sitting in it and turning on the ignition.
Reviews and forum advice is useful for whittling down the list of possible options, but you need to try before making a purchase.
 
Thanks so much for the in depth answers everyone, I am certainly taking note of it all.

Okay, so gathering what has been said so far, why are there still an influx of new cameras being produced every year in the market? Economics aside, I mean if a 10 year old camera can produce the same quality as a newer one (given the photographer behind the camera knows how to expose/find great view), what is the difference?

I get that new models may have more functionality/extra baggage (touchscreen, videocam, new designs, easier settings, etc), but in terms of taking photos what are the major distinctions vs the older models?




I'd def would like to take shots of wildlife ( animals, stars, nature) , scenery, face portraits, basically anything under the sun. I would hate to limit my options, although I'll probably shoot landscape more frequently.

There are three main differences between older (or cheaper) and newer (or more expensive) cameras:
  • Autofocus performance, particularly in low light or tracking moving subjects
  • Low light performance, i.e. how noisy the image is
  • Burst rate, i.e. how many frames per second and how long can that rate be kept up
  • (edit: I forgot to mention the number of megapixels... because it's largely irrelevant. 16mp gives plenty of scope for cropping)
There are three further things you should think about:
  • Sensor size - larger sensor tends to mean better low light performance and shallower depth of field but much more expensive lenses
  • Electronic or optical viewfinder (mirrorless or SLR)
  • Ergonomics
There are some other details too - e.g. support for exotic flash systems, bit depth, dynamic range - but they're probably not worth worrying about at the moment. Most cameras will do a decent job in fair light. I reckon that any decent crop sensor SLR or mirrorless system would work well for you now but you need to decide whether you need fab tracking autofocus or not. I suspect you don't.

People talk about buying into a system and committing just once but in reality lenses tend to keep their second hand values so if you buy well you shouldn't lose much if you ever need to sell.
 
Last edited:
Go to a camera club and get some advice or to local camera shop.
Just remember a camera is just a tool it's what your eye sees that is the photographs.
 
I appreciate all the responses I've been getting and sorry I haven't been around to replying back.

Okay so I realized the wifi bluetooth is actually quite important for me. I also realized that I don't mind carrying around a heavier camera (dslr) as opposed to mirrorless if I can get more out of that camera. also I don't have a strict budget, I'll actually be willing to spend 1k+ on just the body alone if its worth it for the long haul. Before I actually go down to my local b&hphoto store, What I'm looking to get as far as answers is help me narrow down to a few cameras that would provide those functions as described best and also would last me a couple of years and what recommended lens i should buy along with it. I'm trying to shoot portraits, landscape, nature.
 
anyone? I'm looking into the 80d because it has the video aspect to it, which is very handy when I make family videos, etc. However that camera is a few years old and i don't know if it's the proper body for a first time user.

By doing some research myself a lot said body don't really matter as much as the lenses you place on it. And, the body value depreciates overtime whereas the lenses, lighting equipment and tripod will likely hold up, so my investment should be on those. However, idk if i want to settle with a canon t3i model because it lacks much of the functions a consumer professional body camera has.
 
Last edited:
anyone? I'm looking into the 80d because it has the video aspect to it, which is very handy when I make family videos, etc. However that camera is a few years old and i don't know if it's the proper body for a first time user.
The 80D is only just a year old and unless you have an emotional need to be seen with the very latest kit it is a very good buy.
 
Have you thought about a decent compact? LX100 for example or Sony RX series? I recently upgraded to a Nikon D7000, and while the camera and lens were great, I immediately hated carrying it around. Ended up returning it for and LX100 which suits me (almost) perfectly.
 
... a blurry bird on a stick..

Hahaha. Don't know why this image made me laugh so much, but thanks..

I admit I haven't read this whole thread so apologies if my post seems irrelevant or unnecessary however I too am a newbie into this massive world of photography and while I don't have a huge budget or knowledge just yet I'm having lots of fun.. which is after all the reason we pursue these hobbies, right?

My partner purchased a Nikon D3300 because we wanted (well, he wanted, not so much we..) the opportunity to take nicer photos for his intagram obsession.. I actually have more patience than him so ended up taking the photos on our trips. I ended up getting myself hooked purely through picking up a camera (I didn't research anything about them, as this was one of those purchases your other half makes without you knowing...) and shooting. Not really knowing what I was doing I've now decided that I want to learn more and more.

So, my recommendation would be the Nikon d3300. I have no basis for comparison however I've found the functions of the Nikon and layout to be extremely user friendly. It's a great size and not too heavy. I would also recommend buying Tony Northrups How to take stunning digital photography iBook. Lots of other recommendations on gear, processing software and hours of video tutorials.

Again, apologies for waffling, but I felt the need to tell you this because I too can be a bit of an over-thinker and research far too much before taking the plunge so hope this may help?
 
I mainly want to use it to post great instagram photos, instead of using my iphone camera.
If your ambition is mostly to post to Instagram, then I suggest you stick with the iphone.
You seem to be jumping from pillar to post, a sure sign of not really understanding what you really want to do. Stop obsessing about the hardware. At your stage it's not important.
Get yourself any cheap P&S and when you've mastered that, move on! Then maybe you can come back and ask for sensible advice based on practical experience.
 
Folks, don't waste your time. The OP is long gone. Two months after starting this thread, he started another one asking essentially the same question. Maybe he didn't like the advice he was getting here. Anyway that was 12 weeks ago and he hasn't been seen since. I wonder whether he bought a camera?
 
Back
Top