Need to buy cheap DSLR

jsisidore · May 22, 2016

Hello. First of all I have no idea what DSLR cameras are other than they are generally better than point and shoot cameras. I consider myself an amateur photographer but I have an eye for detail. My first camera Sony DSC-WX350 couldn't satisfy my needs, although I was more than pleased with the general quality of the photos, the full zoom quality was just too grainy, the photos looked like an up-close shot from a low pixel phone camera.

So I need a camera that would make at least better photos on full zoom, and it has to be cheap too, I'm thinking of buying a used DSLR because they are considered to be better than point and shoot cameras but like I said I have no idea which one to choose, I'm a layman in the field and can only think in pixels and "X"s, milometers tell me nothing.

I found a really cheap and used DSLR camera Fujifilm Finepix S4400, it has less pixels but maybe the full zoom will be at least better, less grainy?

Thanks.

SnappingShark · May 22, 2016

Congrats!

I'd go with a Nikon (D5500 if new) or Canon (Rebel T6 if new or slightly older if preowned)- check out your local craigslist for some pricing on pre-owned - sometimes you can get a bundle of stuff for a good deal.

The addiction begins

goodguy · May 22, 2016

Cheap good DSLR
Recommend Nikon D3300.
This camera has very impressive low light performance, good dynamic range and good auto focus for its price.
I have this camera and use it regularly in events and weddings, I even use it for some of my portrait photography.
The main secret of this camera is its very powerful modern 24 mega pixel sensor.
I think its class leading in its price range.

jsisidore · May 22, 2016

Thanks for your reply, the camera you have suggested has very good reviews but still too expensive. I need cheaper as I'm not an avid photographer. I just need something that would keep quality on full zoom unlike point and shoot cameras. What can you tell me on the model I've mentioned in my op?

jsisidore · May 22, 2016

Thanks goodguy, the price on it is realistic, but what sort of lens do I need? I see that the average it comes with is 18-55 but will that achieve at least a x20 zoom?

gsgary · May 22, 2016

The Fuji you are looking at is not a dslr

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

KmH · May 22, 2016

DSLR lenses that have a 10x or more zoom range (known as a superzoom lens) all have image quality issues of one sort or another.
Plus 10x or more zoom range lenses are not inexpensive.
soft focus at various points in their zoom range, pin cushion or barrel distortion problems, chromatic aberration, and more.
Any camera lens combination having a more than a 10x zoom range has to be designed around a laundry list of optical performance tradeoffs.

Here is a relatively inexpensive 13.9x DSLR zoom lens that is $350 new, but the lens has image quality issues:
Sigma 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 DC MACRO OS HSM for Canon Digital SLR Cameras

Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM review
Conclusion - Pros

Huge 13.9x focal length range, ideal general purpose and travel lens

Good image quality in the wide to short telephoto range

Fast, quiet autofocus

Low distortion (for a superzoom)

Good build quality, smooth zooming action and no zoom creep

Conclusion - Cons

Very inconsistent sharpness through the zoom range - extremely soft at 135mm

Soft corners at almost all focal lengths

Image stabilization not as effective as on similar lenses, especially at telephoto end

And a 16.7x Nikon superzoom lens, @ $1000 new:
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR review
Conclusion - Pros

Huge 16.7x focal length range (while maintaining F5.6 aperture at telephoto)

Good image quality in the wide to short telephoto range

Fast, quiet autofocus

Good build quality, smooth zooming action and no zoom creep

Decent close-up capability

Conclusion - Cons

Very soft results at telephoto

Extreme distortion across most of the range (but can be corrected in-camera with recent SLRs)

Image stabilization not as effective as on similar lenses, especially at telephoto end

Flash shadowing at wideangle on smaller SLRs

Large, heavy and expensive compared to other superzooms

zombiesniper · May 22, 2016

20x zoom with any image quality costs on a DSLR. No way around it. Quality costs

If reach is what you mean by zoom, the throw away that cheap notion. 5-15k is the average price range for extreme reach.

goodguy · May 22, 2016

To get a lot of effective zoom in low price you need a super zoom camera, this means a small sensor and a far reaching lens, these are ok cameras but the quality on them is not impressive especially as the light is less then perfect.
DSLR is not just a camera its a combination of camera and lens and the expensive thing really is lens, far reaching telezooms are the most expensive lenses.
If reach is your main issue get some cheap superzoom point and shoot and know you get a lot of reach but you pay with quality issues.
If you want quality then DSLR is a good choice but you will not be able to get the reach you are looking for and keep good quality.
Bought my daughter a cheap Canon Superzoom point and shoot its 30X and cost around 250$
Its ok, good enough for her needs but obviously not for me.

Don't bother to buy old DSLR, they have bad low light performance and there is a good chance they will break soon after you buy them.
But as I said the really expensive stuff is lenses.
If you want used then Nikon D3200 or D5100 are ok and still modern enough to give you good image quality and good low light performance but you still stuck with lenses issue.
The cheapest telezoom I can think of is Nikon 55-300mm VR ot Nikon 70-300mm VR which used are not too expensive and give good image quality but I don't think it will give you as much reach as a superzoom point and shoot camera.

jsisidore · May 22, 2016

How horrible and barbaric. What about bridge cameras then?

goodguy · May 22, 2016

jsisidore said:
How horrible and barbaric. What about bridge cameras then?

Some are not bad at all like Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000 but its expensive and has 1" sensor so you will not get the image quality of APS-C sensr on DSLR.
There are cheaper bridge cameras with even more zoom but with even smaller sensor thus less image quality in lower light.

Can I ask why the need for such superzoom, are you interested in birding or wildlife photography ?

KmH · May 22, 2016

jsisidore said:
How horrible and barbaric.

Clueless.
Welcome to the limits of current consumer grade camera/lens technology.

480sparky · May 22, 2016

Sorry, but this is akin to saying you want a sports car that will go from 0-60 in 6.5 sec, tops out at 275 MPH, do the quarter-mile in 15 sec and, since you're not a professional race car driver, you only want to spend $10k (US).

There is no such thing as a $100 camera that performs exactly like a $2,000 camera. If there were, there would be no $2,000 cameras even made. Think about it.

Peeb · May 22, 2016

jsisidore said:
How horrible and barbaric. What about bridge cameras then?

Not...sure...if...serious.

chuasam · May 22, 2016

480sparky said:
Sorry, but this is akin to saying you want a sports car that will go from 0-60 in 6.5 sec, tops out at 275 MPH, do the quarter-mile in 15 sec and, since you're not a professional race car driver, you only want to spend $10k (US).

There is no such thing as a $100 camera that performs exactly like a $2,000 camera. If there were, there would be no $2,000 cameras even made. Think about it.

$2,000 is generally only the starting point of the better DSLRs. I've had good results with $400 cameras.
$100 cameras are generally not much better than a cellphone.