Advice needed for first DSLR.

[robbins.photo]

robbins.photo ... I still try to old fashioned wise ask beginners to use one prime to learn, no zoom. Crop and perspective shall be two things in the mind of every photographer.

In the cases of the Nikon this would be the 1.8/35G DX. As the 18-55 is halfways a free gift that comes with the camera, the op might leave it in the cupboard for later reference.

I am a Nikon guy. I do not connect to the Sony interface. Yet Sony has some very (very very) nice optics for the E-mount. If the op copes with the interface, why not stick with the brand?

And if it shall be a Nikon I can only say that a new body is not always the best option. The D600 can be had for 700 Euros nearly unused...

Frank,

Actually first off you can get some very good shots with an 18-55 despite the fact that it is much maligned.

Second I might recommend the Sony system if they had a better lens selection, a larger used market, etc. I'm not a brand loyalist.

However for a beginner choosing Sony will seriously limit there lens options. When your first starting out and aren't really sure where your personal photographic journey might take you, that really isn't a good idea.

If you've shot for a while and know you won't be needing much telephoto and need more portability then the Sony might make sense.

In this case, it just doesn't.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Frank F.]

robbins.photo ...

Take the 55/f=1.8 ... superb glass for SONY E-mount!

But my point was brand-independent much more fundamental.

I see that only very few people starting with a Zoom ever understand the difference between "perspective", "frame" and "crop" ... pity ... they miss so much !

 

[Advanced Photo]

I hate to be called "marquesist" but when I was considering the purchase of a DSLR a few years ago, I took an objective look at the Sony brand, and realized that Sony has a habit of making sure that only certain things work together, and not for very long, either, until they decide to discontinue a model, and introduce something completely different.

I bought my first DLSR as a Nikon D5000 (the same basic body style as the D5500). I absolutely loved it!

One thing to consider is that the entry-level Nikons (D3xxx and D5xxx) do not have a focusing motor in the body, so they rely on the AF-S lenses for auto focusing. Other than that, go for the Nikon D5500.

The good thing is that when you buy a non motor camera and have to buy the AF-S lenses, they will also work on bodies that do have the motor, they are the only type of lens that will work on both types of bodies, so you don't have to dump the ones you have if you switch to a motor body.

 

[robbins.photo]

robbins.photo ...

Take the 55/f=1.8 ... superb glass for SONY E-mount!

But my point was brand-independent much more fundamental.

I see that only very few people starting with a Zoom ever understand the difference between "perspective", "frame" and "crop" ... pity ... they miss so much !

And let's see.. Your options for 600mm? None. 400mm? How many varieties of 70-200 2.8, and can you find cheaper used ones easily?

How about the lens you mentioned, are there tons of used ones available? Or other options that you could pick up easily used?

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[Dave442]

I agree the D5500 is a perfectly good camera and can easily give you years of service. My brother still uses his D5100 from more than five years ago. When he bought that camera he added the 35mm f/1.8G DX lens, a lens I also have. This is a good addition to the two lenses you already own.

With that three lens kit you cover wide angle to telephoto and a fast prime lens, a versatile package that allows you to try out and learn a wide range of photographic styles.

 

[Derrel]

A serious equipment snob's review of the Nikon D5500: Review: The Nikon D5500 (or, a solution to the compact 50-e problem)

 

[speedliner]

Whatever you choose, consider buying it used. There are plenty out there and if you decide to upgrade on day you don't get hurt as much.

D5500 is a great camera but if you decide to shoot a lot of birds in flight, or sports, you may find the auto-focus and frames per second speed lacking. Otherwise good camera could serve you a long time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Solarflare]

As always, I recomment the D7100 and Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC as starter kit for a newbie.

The D7100 offers insane bang for the buck, especially if you get it used or refurbished (but avoid grey market). It has all the features a newbie needs in the beginning, but also all the features a professional will demand from a camera, and could be all the camera you need for a very long time (typically about 8-15 years. Most people want a new camera after about 5 years anyway, though).

You can get the Tamron used, but strictly avoid refurbished lenses - refurbished lenses have been mistreated by their first owners and got repaired afterwards, to what degree of success is unsure.

Also get a used SB800 as flash, they are awesome, darn cheap for what they do (about 150$), and probably will last a lifetime (or at least a couple decades).

I am looking at a Nikon D5500 that comes with an 18-55mm lens, I would also add a 55-300zoom.

I am comparing it to a Sony A6000, with a 16-50 lens and a comparable zoom. I'm stuck. Is one significantly better than the other?

IMHO the Nikon F DSLRs (also Canon EOS DSLRs, Fuji X Mirrorless, maybe not as strong Pentax K DSLR) completely kill Sony in almost every field - lens quality, which by the way is the most important part of any camera when it comes to image quality, choices of lenses (well at least Nikon and Canon are much better), construction quality/reliability (Sony cameras are infamous for overheating issues especially with video, as well as corrosion issues), service (they dont repair their own stuff and you're not allowed to clean the sensor by yourself without voiding the warranty), interface (well at least the menus from Sony are rather infamous, though if the rest of the system was good, we would probably learn to live with that).

IMHO Sony lacks Knowhow how to make good cameras, and they show no ambition to acquire that Knowhow. The only game Sony quite reliably wins is spec sheets.

There are good lenses for Sony, such as the Zeiss 24mm, but they are rare and expensive. Especially the kit lens you mentioned is pretty poor in comparison to the competition (not just Nikon, but also Canon, Fuji etc).

DSLR is much better because if Optical viewfinder, battery life and (sometimes) autofocus.

I disagree there, mirrorless also has advantages over DSLRs. EVFs are superior to OVFs in some respects, battery life is sufficient for many purposes, and autofocus performance is getting closer and closer.