Newby Friendly DSLR
KingdomSeeker
Registered Users Posts: 48 Big grins
I was wondering what to buy. I have a basic knowledge of slr cameras and want something that will take great pics as I'm learning more. I'm looking to spend around $700. Any suggestions?
0
Comments
It's not what you look at that matters: Its what you see!
Nikon
http://www.time2smile.smugmug.com
Also what will be your main use for the camera, landscapes, micro, portraits....
It's not what you look at that matters: Its what you see!
Nikon
http://www.time2smile.smugmug.com
It's not what you look at that matters: Its what you see!
Nikon
http://www.time2smile.smugmug.com
I am currently using the T4i most of the time. Really like my Canon 7D - it is just a little heavy for me to carry on our travels - and gather that the 60D has comparable features. I just tried out the T3i for a few minutes yesterday and realized that I have come to appreciate the touch screen LCD that is offered on the T4i and T5i. It is helpful in making quick menu changes.
If you are able to get your hands on a few of the cameras that are on your shortlist - trying them out in a camera store - that would be ideal for helping you decide.
My SmugMug Galleries
Like Ted says, its the glass that counts.
The NIKON D5200 has an articulated screen which would help in low or high level viewing, no getting down in the mud to get the shot of some critter, etc.
If your enjoyment of photography comes from examining photos at 100% view on a computer screen (1 camera pixel displayed as 1 screen pixel), this might matter. If you want to make prints and books, it doesn't.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Other than that suggestion just to keep your mind open to the m4/3 option, I agree to just go to a store and play around with several bodies. Get what feels comfortable to you. These days all the cameras are pretty incredible. Don't worry about Brand X vs. Brand Y, there are plenty of people making great photographs with Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, etc etc. It can be kind of amusing, but there's not much productive in getting caught up in the endless "my brand is better than your brand" arguments. I would make sure to look at the lens selection of whatever system you buy into, as good lenses will long outlive whichever is the first body you purchase, but you will find completely acceptable lenses for portraits and wildlife for any of these systems.
My site 365 Project
Jack, if you were NOT invested in Canon now and could start over, would you still be buying Canon?
The investment you make in lenses and other equipment like a flash system is going to live for a while after you bought this body, the next, and perhaps the one after that.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Camera-14-42mm-Tilt-Live-Viewfinder/dp/B00E87OITK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386197371&sr=8-1&keywords=panasonic+gx7
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
My SmugMug Galleries
Right now, yes. I shoot sports, portraits, family, a little landscape, and whatever. My 5D3 is practically perfect for all that. I would buy it again. If I were heavy into landscape I might envy the D800e. If I were more into pushing shadows 3+ stops and making HDRs from single shots, I might prefer Nikon.
If Nikon were making a D700 Mark II with pro AF, 8+fps, 24mp, I might think otherwise. But they're not. They seem to be strangely circling the sweet spot that the 5D3 pretty much nails.
As for lenses, I don't see a significant advantage in either system. The Nikon 14-24 is nice, but that's not enough for me. On the other end I do think big white lenses impress my sports customers.
IMO at every other price point besides the one in which the 5D3 and D800(e) reside, you cannot make a wrong choice between Canon and Nikon. The only reason to choose one or the other as far as I can tell is how they feel in your hands and how easy you find them to operate. Every time I pick up a Nikon I am utterly confounded, but that's just my years of Canon "training" talking.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Lensmole
http://www.lensmolephotography.com/
I can't figure out why anyone would do that when there are compelling mirrorless APS-C offerings from Fuji and Sony.
Sony NEX cameras are APS-C, not micro 4/3.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The Sony does looks compelling - but it'll be a year + before there are lenses that can match the m43's lineup. I'm rather happy with the kit I have now, great body with features I need, and IQ I need. Awesome lenses: 12mm f/2, 12-35 f/2.8, 35-100 f/2.8, a 17.5mm f/.95 which is just the bee's knees.... and more
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
It's a fair point. I'd always assumed (and we know what that means) that the m4/3 lens lineup blew away what NEX offered, but I never really did a thorough look since I'm not actually in the market. I just did a quick check of what's available, and m4/3 still has fewer holes in the choices I would like, but NEX isn't as far behind as I'd thought. I like primes and I prefer wide-to-normal focal lengths, so I could put together pretty decent kits in either format that I think I'd be happy with, and the price, size, and weight wouldn't be terribly dissimilar.
Looks like m4/3 is better covered for macro and telephoto primes as well as reasonably fast constant aperture zooms, although I think one can use adapters to get Sony's non-mirrorless lenses on there as well. I still think, after my quick look, that I'd probably lean towards m4/3, but it would be a tougher choice than I'd thought.
My site 365 Project
Depending on what sort of 'wildlife' and how close / what sort of pics you're after (of said subjects) ... $700 sounds somewhat ... hopeful / optimistic - imo.
pp
Flickr
Then check out the Fuji system. I find it very tempting.
APS-C mirrorless is also better suited to using adapted legacy rangefinder lenses if that matters to you.
But I don't mean to argue with Andy's experience. I've never used m4/3.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Andy got my attention with his recommendation of the Panasonic LUMIX GX7. And I bumped into an extremely positive review of the Sony Alpha Nex 7 by Trey Ratcliff.
My SmugMug Galleries
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I wonder what you would recommend for $700, which was the original question, ??.
On my recent gear safari I was a bit put off by a couple of friends with 4/3 from Panasonic who said the focus was slow. Still, the long term is probably mirror less and so a good place to start perhaps.
I am somewhat aware of them, and the next time a friend/family member asks for a reco, perhaps I'll check them out more. I do like the idea of what they're doing, and their 23 f/1.4 (I think) looks really nice for what I like as a walk-around lens. However, I'm personally not very interested. I'm actually pretty happy with my D300/D90 and my meager collection of glass for the time being. I will save my pennies to gradually upgrade myself into better glass and eventually into full frame, and I'm not interested in having multiple camera systems.
Certainly with Fuji, Sony, m4/3, plus the "traditional" DSLRs, we are blessed to have such an amazing selection of tools available to us these days. I think the OP could do just fine building a "starter" kit in any of these formats.
My site 365 Project
I hear you, my current photo needs are best served by DSLRs because I shoot sports. If all I was shooting was family candids and portraits, or if I were more into street photography I'd be all about the smaller, more discrete form factor, and Fuji would be at the top of my list. In fact, when I am shooting family candids, I use my Fuji X100S more. I wouldn't recommend it as an only camera due to the fixed lens, but it's a great compliment to a DSLR system. I sold my 35L to get it and I'm glad I did.
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
I'll be interested to see/hear about your results. I just took a look at your gallery and I could only find Safari pictures taken with Canon 5Ds, 7D, and Nikon D800. Have you used m4/3 on Safari before?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
pp
Flickr
Not exclusively
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
The GH-3 would have done for most of my captures but it trailed my D4 and D800E on two areas significantly. They were in tracking moving subjects and IQ in low light situations. I wasn't happy at the IQ over 1250. Many of my captures with the D4 are at IS) 2000 or higher. In Africa I used the higher ISOs in the early morning or the late afternoon. I wouldn't be comfortable trying to get those captures with the GH-3. Also while the 100-300 is a nifty lens and I love being able to handhold a camera and lens in one hand with a reach of 200mm - 600mm it is just not on par with my 200-400 or my 500mm lenses.
Now a m4/3 will cover about 95% of a normal person's requirements it doesn't meet my needs when I'm photographing wildlife.
Here's an old post of mine with GH-3 pics and my thoughts after my first real test of the GH-3 http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=233389
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Get a Nikon D5200 they are on sell now, excellent camera for a intermediate shooter.