About to purchase my first "real" camera. Help pls!

[Kwitel]

Thank you in advance for reading.

I have been borrowing a friends DSLR over the past year for an art project that involves taking photos outdoor that are ultimately printed and blown up.

I like/need to blow these photos up quite large; sometimes 6ft. by 6ft, if not larger.

I have NO IDEA where to start.

All I know is resolution is paramount as is the ability to take close ups (along with some basic zoom capabilities). Something relatively basic that can excel both out and indoors. I definitely need a viewfinder.

I know this is limited info but I have about a $500 budget and don't mind buying used...so maybe just a good starter DSLR that I could build upon? Is my budget sufficient?

Any help/advice/recommendations are greatly appreciated!

 

[Ido]

Resolution certainly is paramount for that purpose, but it doesn't stop with megapixels. A sharp lens is also needed.
Have you printed photos at that size, that were taken with your friend's DSLR? If so, what camera is it, and what lens did you use?

At your budget, there are several options to consider:

• Nikon D3300 / D3200 - They're very similar, so you can 'cheap out' and get the D3200.
• Sony Alpha a5000 - Quite a lot smaller (here it is side-by-side with the D3200), but still has great capabilities (along with a 20MP sensor) and interchangeable lenses.
• Sony Alpha a3000 - Not any smaller than the D3200, but it is cheaper. That price difference may help you get a sharper lens for the a3000, but you really need to try it at a store first, as it seems (from the spec sheet) like it has an awful viewfinder.

 

[Bobby Ironsights]

At that price point with enlargements that size. I'd suggest a Crown Graphic large format camera. I bought mine for under $200. It will destroy a tiny digital at 6 foot plus enlargements.

But it's film.

How have you been making your enlargements thus far?

Good luck with your project.

 

[Kwitel]

At that price point with enlargements that size. I'd suggest a Crown Graphic large format camera. I bought mine for under $200. It will destroy a tiny digital at 6 foot plus enlargements.

But it's film.

How have you been making your enlargements thus far?

Good luck with your project.

Resolution certainly is paramount for that purpose, but it doesn't stop with megapixels. A sharp lens is also needed.
Have you printed photos at that size, that were taken with your friend's DSLR? If so, what camera is it, and what lens did you use?

At your budget, there are several options to consider:

• Nikon D3300 / D3200 - They're very similar, so you can 'cheap out' and get the D3200.
• Sony Alpha a5000 - Quite a lot smaller (here it is side-by-side with the D3200), but still has great capabilities (along with a 20MP sensor) and interchangeable lenses.
• Sony Alpha a3000 - Not any smaller than the D3200, but it is cheaper. That price difference may help you get a sharper lens for the a3000, but you really need to try it at a store first, as it seems (from the spec sheet) like it has an awful viewfinder.

Thanks for your reply.

Ive done some research on your suggestions and it seems like the 3300 is the way to go.
Do you know what the main differences are between the 32 and 33?

Also, which is the best/most basic "starter" lens...is it the 18-55?

 

[Ido]

Thanks for your reply.

Ive done some research on your suggestions and it seems like the 3300 is the way to go.
Do you know what the main differences are between the 32 and 33?

Also, which is the best/most basic "starter" lens...is it the 18-55?

The differences between the D3200 and the D3300 are rather minimal. It has significantly better battery life, but the D3200 is no slouch on that department either. The D3300 may be a bit better in low light, it's a bit lighter and can shoot faster bursts (5 fps vs 4 fps). It's also supposedly better for video, but it isn't particularly great for that purpose either.

And if you're considering the D3300, you should probably be looking at the D5200 as well.

 

[Kwitel]

The differences between the D3200 and the D3300 are rather minimal. It has significantly better battery life, but the D3200 is no slouch on that department either. The D3300 may be a bit better in low light, it's a bit lighter and can shoot faster bursts (5 fps vs 4 fps). It's also supposedly better for video, but it isn't particularly great for that purpose either.

And if you're considering the D3300, you should probably be looking at the D5200 as well.

Ido-toda,

the D3300 and the 5300 look to be almost identical. Why go with the latter?

And maybe I should I just be considering the 5300?

 

[dennybeall]

The D5300 would blow your budget, even a rebuilt I think. Very versatile camera though. The D5300 came out and knocked the price of the D5200 down so a used 5200 with a decent lens may fit the budget. The 24megapixels cameras would give you shots that would blow up very large.
If 10.3 megapixels would be enough you could get a really good deal on a used D80 with lenses and accessories and stay in your budget.

 

[hamlet]

The d3200 will be your cheapest option as far as 24mp cameras go. Lenses are going to be a much bigger factor than any one camera.

 

[Raj_55555]

If it was my money, a used or refurbished D5200 would have been the only thing that would make sense! Everything in it can compete with the best of the DX cameras out there!

 

[Ido]

Ido-toda,

the D3300 and the 5300 look to be almost identical. Why go with the latter?

And maybe I should I just be considering the 5300?

I did not suggest that you consider the D5300. That's probably a bit too expensive for you.

What the D5200 offers over the D3300 is some more advanced features and controls. Ultimately, though, you should go to a local store and get some hands-on time with the cameras.

What the D5300 offers over the D5200 and the D3000-series models, however, is a sensor without an optical low pass filter, thus no anti-aliasing effect. It means potentially sharper results, which could certainly matter when printing as large as you intend to. While a sharp lens, set to its optimal aperture, and the camera/lens mounted to a sturdy tripod will have a significantly greater effect on sharpness, it does add that little bit of sharpness that's lost with the anti-aliasing filter.

 

[Solarflare]

Whow.

Large format would indeed be your only option if you really need this size with actual maximum quality possible.

A feet are 12 inch. Highest resolution is typically 300dpi, with dpi standing for "dots per inch".

So you want 6x6 feet, thats 72 inch then. 72*300 = 21,600x21,600 = 466,560,000 ~ 470 Megapixel.