Are 'baby' model camera bodies good for beginners?

[Light Artisan]

I always see people blindly recommend the 'baby' model bodies for beginners and don't understand why. I'm a Nikon shooter so pardon me for a moment while I venture down this path.

Say I come here as a beginner looking for my first camera, after all - I love photography.

What is a good camera for me?

9/10 the first response will be one of the following:
D3100, D5000, D3000, D40, D60

Then the wiser folks start recommending bodies with internal focus motors, top LCD's, dual command dials, etc. (D70, D80, D90 on up)

Cost isn't the reason, you can pick up a D80 for less than a D5000. Sure, the high ISO isn't as good but it's a great camera body.

You can pick up a D200 body for about the same as a D3000. Then recommend real glass, like an inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 and have full capabilities with older and new lenses combined. If they have some decent coin to lay down, hey - the 80-200 f/2.8 is a great lens for your kids playing sports, portraits, wildlife, your cousins wedding next month, etc.

Auto modes? Who cares? Aren't people getting a DSLR because they want more control of their photography?

So I ask again... why do people recommend these cameras?

Discuss.

 

[Trever1t]

Probably because not most folk new to SLR type cameras understand exposure. I can hand my camera to most anyone I know and expect a puzzled expression in return.

The consumer level (?) cameras have scene modes that a learner can fall back on to reference for manual mode practice and still get use of their new camera.

I progressed from the D60. Granted I had SLR (film) experience but that was years ago.

 

[Derrel]

Prices on the new lower-end Nikons are affordable. They come packaged with decent kit zooms, sometimes two-lens outfits, at prices people are willing to pay at places like Best Buy, Target, Ritz, B&H, Samy's, indeed all across the USA and Canada and Europe. Around holidays, there are discounts on the cameras, and the lenses. Prime lens sales are wayyyyyy down compared with zoom lens sales. Only the lowest-cost primes sell well. Nikon said a year ago that around 90% of its sales of cameras are the entry-level models. The biggest-selling prime they have is the new 35/1.8 AF-S G, which is a $199 lens. The majority of the Nikkor lens lineup that is **affordable** is new, and AF-S focusing, so it works on the Baby Nikons.

Women buy a LOT of d-slr cameras. Women show a decided preference for smaller, lighter camera bodies. The entry-level bodies are very small, very light. On-the-go moms and grandmas,and many men, appreciate a small,light, low-priced d-slr for what it is.

The complaints often come from the "Serious User" whose expectations cannot be met with an entry-level camera's feature set.

 

[Josh66]

1- People recommend what they have.

2- people recommend what they can afford.

The entry level bodies are generally a low cost way to get into the whole dSLR thing.

They are capable enough, assuming you know how to use it.
I think that's where it comes from. Buy something on the cheaper end to learn on, after you've learned whatever you will you'll know what to buy next.

 

[Overread]

Also remember the entry level bodies tend to (at least canon ones do) have a few more auto modes - sports; landscape; macro; portrait; no flash - these are things that some people new to DSLRs (either moving up from point and shoots or just getting into photography) will want and use. Some will progress beyond them and others won't it depends on the person and what they want from their photography.

Also many people (esp when moving into a totally new area of purchasing) like to buy something new that they know both works and has warranty rather than something second hand. I would also add that there is a level of confidence that new people can have in brand new machines/devices that can be a little lacking if they buy second hand (my shots are all blurry I wonder if the camera was broken when the guy sold it to me etc....).

 

[FranDaMan]

It's like with most hobbies.
You don't know if it's will be a long lasting hobby, so you don't wanna spend serious cash on it, afraid that you will be losing out when selling it later.
Buying second hand can be intimidating because you don't know where to look for the pitfalls.

And then later on when you see it is a longlasting hobby and you run into the limitations of your gear, you regret not buying the better stuff to begin with.

Been there, done that with every single hobby of mine

 

[Drake]

I use a Canon 1000D/Rebel XS, which is almost identical to the Canon 400D I had used previously. I had to chose an entry level camera because I couldn't spend more money on photography. Even if I could, I think I would still get a rebel, maybe a 500D, and some better lens. And I don't want a used camera. When I get such equipment, I prefer to have it brand new, even if it means going for a lower model.

It's also not because of the auto modes. I'd rather have them stripped out. But it's not a good enough reason to get a mid level camera, is it?

Why exactly do you think I should go for a used 40D? I was fully aware of the differences between it and my 1000D, and still went for the baby canon.

I am tired of all the marketing dudes trying to convince me that I need the features used by pros. No, I don't. I am perfectly fine with my entry level DSLR. What's wrong with that?

 

[Light Artisan]

Ahh, but the more capable bodies aren't necessarily more expensive. If you read my post I give examples of this - and (at least for Nikon) the D80/D90/D7000 do have an Auto mode, at least 2 of them (D7000 has many more). I would imagine Canon is very similar, if not more so.

So cost and ease of use aren't really valid arguments.

Size, perhaps... however I've seen rather petite men and women using gripped D300 bodies without issue.

I do agree with the statement 'People recommend what they have', I see it and also do this often. In fact I make a conscience effort not to recommend things I don't have simply because I haven't used them and don't know first hand how they perform.

 

[Ken Rockwell Fan]

I don't recomend the D3100, D5000, D3000, D40 or D60 at all to anyone who is new. I always tell new people to find a used body with a internal autofocus motor with a low shutter count if possible. The newer the better of course. Usually after you teach budget minded people about the benefits of the Nikon "nifty" 50mm f/1.8 for $120 they jump all over the idea. People looking to buy new is a different story.

 

[Drake]

Ahh, but the more capable bodies aren't necessarily more expensive. If you read my post I give examples of this - and (at least for Nikon) the D80/D90/D7000 do have an Auto mode, at least 2 of them (D7000 has many more). I would imagine Canon is very similar, if not more so.

So in my example, I got my 1000D for about $500. I needed it brand new both because I prefer new equipment. How was I supposed to get a new D90 for this price? And I don't really consider the archaic D80 better than my 1000D in terms of IQ.

If the lack of AF motor in baby nikons is a disadvantage, who says you have to move up one level just to get this one feature? I got the 1000D instead of a D3000, both because of the AF motor and the inferior CCD from D80 in the D3000, and am perfectly fine with my camera.

 

[Light Artisan]

I agree, if someone insists on new you're more limited in what you can recommend. It's not that they would get a bad camera, this isn't about that. But there are arguably more capable cameras for close to the same (sometimes less) money.

 

[Overread]

Ahh, but the more capable bodies aren't necessarily more expensive. If you read my post I give examples of this - and (at least for Nikon) the D80/D90/D7000 do have an Auto mode, at least 2 of them (D7000 has many more). I would imagine Canon is very similar, if not more so.

Far as I know once you leave the rebels you're limited to program and full auto as the only mostly auto modes on the camera (60D might or might not have changed this as its a new market position but I don't know).

The thing is whilst you consider the lack of sports; landscape; portrait etc.. modes not to be a problem to a total novice or someone moving up from a point and shoot the lack of those modes that they are expecting could be seen as a detrimental component of the camera body for them.

 

[RauschPhotography]

I say go with the D90, personally. Based on how much you shoot and your level of familiarity with DSLRs already, it's probably best to take that step up.

 

[flightless_beaker]

Auto modes? Who cares? Aren't people getting a DSLR because they want more control of their photography?

Eh. I wouldn't go that far. I used to work at Best Buy and I'd talk to a lot of people who had SLRs and would be shooting auto. A lot of people don't go in the other modes because they get incredibly overwhelmed. Heck, I've lost sales to SLRs because people would look at them and freak out. A lot of the consumer market are really towards soccer moms and dads who just want better pictures of their kids than what a compact camera and super zoom camera can do. They don't want to be bothered with how to functionally work the camera and learn all the features.

 

[manaheim]

Some great answers so I'm just going to support some of those comments by repeating them because I like to hear myself talk.

I'm kidding... I do have something to add and a bit of a spin, but I also want to reinforce some comments (like Derrel's and O||||||O's).

As Josh mentioned... People do have a habit of recommending based upon their own budget. I think it's a defense mechanism in a lot of cases. They cannot afford more, and so they have to say to themselves that what they have is good enough, so they have to violently defend their choice by telling you it's the right one.

But us guys who have more expensive gear sometimes do the same thing. I see people all the time on here say things like "Don't spend money on a body until you buy this $2000 lens." Also foolishness.

The only real answer to the question of "what camera should I buy" is "You should buy the most capable camera that you can afford for the kind of photography you like or expect to do."

Artisan... you nailed it. People always assume the only or best option is new... but sometimes you can just spend that same money on a better (more capable) body that's used.

Capability boils down to some of the other things you glanced off of... internal focusing motor, higher ISO capabilities, higher frame-rate, more on-body physical controls, etc.

The one thing I tell people is never buy a camera without an internal focus motor if you can avoid it. Simple fact is that you cut off your options (or seriously increase your costs) when going for new lenses.

I haven't checked in a while... but a good example was the 100-300 4/5.6 lens... for a camera with a focusing motor, it was like $135. CHEAP. For a camera without one... $300 or so. Why? Because it has to have an on-board focusing motor. Now sometimes the lenses are different (such as the 80-200 2.8 for $900 and the 80-200 2.8 VR1 for $1500... the latter of these two is technically a better lens in some respects) but the point is you don't even have the OPTION to go with the cheaper one here because you don't have that focusing motor.

There are many examples like this.

So, yeah... never. Never buy one without a focus motor. You're just burning yourself later. It's just a bad idea.

As Derrel mentioned, sometimes people will comment that they would like a smaller body. This is one of the very few cases I've heard for buying a "baby body" that I can somewhat understand. There is a MAJOR weight difference between a D60 and a D300 (for example). And the D60 IS a fair bit smaller. That said... it's not so much smaller that you're going to be ramming it into your pocket, so you have to keep some perspective. If you're Elven, then a D60 may be for you... if you're anything close to standard human size, even a D3-sized camera is something you WILL get used to handling.

Another part of the problem here is that I'm not giving you a concrete answer. I'm not saying "Buy a D300!" I think one of the reasons why this gets dragged out so much is people think that there is a SPECIFIC and obvious answer tailor-made exactly to them, and that someone is going to be able to tell them what that answer is... and generally with not a lot of info. Unfortunately, that's not really possible. In fact, in my experience... any one that tells you "BUY XXXXX!" is not giving you a useful answer and should be discounted. Unless they give you a range of possible options based upon quite a bit of data about your budget, what you shoot, your preferences, etc. they are just wasting your time.