Are 'baby' model camera bodies good for beginners?

[Light Artisan]

^ that.

Well thought out and written. I feel guilty putting such a short response, but to me there's not much else to say.

Thoughts?

 

[KmH]

The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.

Otherwise TPF would have A LOT more members.

 

[Drake]

The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.

And don't you think they are wrong, choosing equipment that is not right for them?

I still think entry level DSLRs are the perfect choice for amateurs. I've been interested in photography for a couple years. I am not a pro. I don't make any money this way. I can't spend thousands of dollars on photo equipment. But I love shooting and try to build a useful collection of gear over time. What's wrong with an entry level Rebel? Well, it's not built like a tank, doesn't feature a gazillion of AF points or shoot 10 fps. But it still has a good enough sensor and dedicated buttons for all the most important functions. I really don't see why I should spend my money on a better body, instead of getting some better lens or perhaps a good flash unit.

 

[orb9220]

The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.

And don't you think they are wrong, choosing equipment that is not right for them?

I still think entry level DSLRs are the perfect choice for amateurs. I've been interested in photography for a couple years. I am not a pro. I don't make any money this way. I can't spend thousands of dollars on photo equipment. But I love shooting and try to build a useful collection of gear over time. What's wrong with an entry level Rebel? Well, it's not built like a tank, doesn't feature a gazillion of AF points or shoot 10 fps. But it still has a good enough sensor and dedicated buttons for all the most important functions. I really don't see why I should spend my money on a better body, instead of getting some better lens or perhaps a good flash unit.

As to KmH brings up a valid point about intent of the new owner. When approached and asking or telling me they are considering upgrading from the P&S arena. All I have to do is ask them a half a dozen questions. About are they willing to spend time and discipline to learn photography? Are they aware they will be spending more monies in lenses,flash,tripod,ect... and that the body is not the most expensive part to photography.

Or are they just wanting better camera to capture family & friends events or actually want to learn photography. And have the inclination to go out multiple times during the week or take their camera everywhere with them to Practice and learn photography.

Generally I end up 7 out of 10 times recommending the more capable 12x-18x Optical zoom Bridge camera first.

As to Drake statements. Yep another crux of the matter. Is the assumption of If it fits my needs. It therefore should for all starting out users. Is flawed as not all intents or needs are known. Even the person starting out doesn't know what path they will be traveling down. And it is all just guessing.

Personally I would have appreciated not be aimed to the D40 first to save a few bucks. As became frustrated in 6 months with no in body motor or dedicated controls & features that all can appreciate. Instead I had wasted funds & time on what I should have gotten in the first place a more capable camera. And would have saved money in the long run as good buy cheaper quality glass that would AF on my cam. And able to use my SB-600 wireless and ended up selling and forced to buy a SB-800 and use the SU-4 mode as no flash commander in camera. Also the bigger viewfinder & LCD and dedicated controls did was lower my frustration and added to my enjoyment for learning and getting the shot.
.

 

[KmH]

The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.

And don't you think they are wrong, choosing equipment that is not right for them?

I still think entry level DSLRs are the perfect choice for amateurs. I've been interested in photography for a couple years. I am not a pro. I don't make any money this way. I can't spend thousands of dollars on photo equipment. But I love shooting and try to build a useful collection of gear over time. What's wrong with an entry level Rebel? Well, it's not built like a tank, doesn't feature a gazillion of AF points or shoot 10 fps. But it still has a good enough sensor and dedicated buttons for all the most important functions. I really don't see why I should spend my money on a better body, instead of getting some better lens or perhaps a good flash unit.

No I don't think they are wrong buying entry-level dSLR equipment. In fact, it's one of the camera makers major design considerations for their entry-level lineups, catering to the point and shoot dSLR owner.

They still have the capability of using interchangable lenses and many take advantage of that option, even though they still have no intention of gaining an understanding of how the camera works.

There is nothing wrong with an entry-level Rebel or "baby" Nikon, as long as the owner doesn't mind being constrained by their technical limitations.

 

[Drake]

There is nothing wrong with an entry-level Rebel or "baby" Nikon, as long as the owner doesn't mind being constrained by their technical limitations.

Yeah, and about that technical limitations. How would a nikon D80 be less limiting than a 1000D? New entry level cameras have better IQ and pretty much all the features of the few years old lower-mid level cameras.

 

[djacobox372]

Most people don't consider buying used, that's all. If you're buying all brand-new gear, the d80 and d200 aren't available to you, and AF-S lenses are just about all you can find.

I try to point as many prospective new owners to bodies like the d80 as I can, it's cheaper then a d3000 with more features.

 

[djacobox372]

There is nothing wrong with an entry-level Rebel or "baby" Nikon, as long as the owner doesn't mind being constrained by their technical limitations.

Yeah, and about that technical limitations. How would a nikon D80 be less limiting than a 1000D? New entry level cameras have better IQ and pretty much all the features of the few years old lower-mid level cameras.

Hard comparing nikon to canon. The nikon autofocus motor issue makes it a much bigger deal in the nikon line; it's a major feature lacking from all their entry level cameras, which makes the older mid-range more desirable.

The D80 vs. D3000 is the most relevant current example--they have the same sensor, the d80 just has more features and an af motor for around $100 less.

Since Nikon has started putting CMOS sensors in their entry level line (all except the d3000), there's less of a reason to go with the older mid-range. Although people still do come on these boards looking to buy a d40 or d60, and i try to sway them towards the af-motor bodies when I can.

 

[flightless_beaker]

The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.

And don't you think they are wrong, choosing equipment that is not right for them?

I still think entry level DSLRs are the perfect choice for amateurs. I've been interested in photography for a couple years. I am not a pro. I don't make any money this way. I can't spend thousands of dollars on photo equipment. But I love shooting and try to build a useful collection of gear over time. What's wrong with an entry level Rebel? Well, it's not built like a tank, doesn't feature a gazillion of AF points or shoot 10 fps. But it still has a good enough sensor and dedicated buttons for all the most important functions. I really don't see why I should spend my money on a better body, instead of getting some better lens or perhaps a good flash unit.

Thing is upgrading to an entry level DSLR even though they have no intent on using the SLR to its potential still is the right equipment. Consumer soccer moms buy SLRs because they give a better picture than their p&s counterparts. A lot of customers also had bought SLRs from me because they want the interchangable lenses so they can actually get their kid playing baseball. So a Rebel would be the right equipment for them, even though they are staying in auto. Whereas that's blasphemy to me, all they want is a glorified point and shoot that takes better quality pictures.

I have to agree 100% with your statements. If you are an amateur, you can still take fantastic photos with a Rebel and just upgrade gear over time. That's why I like to recommend Canon to people looking to do that. They can buy a Rebel XS, buy higher quality glass and flashes then just upgrade the body when they're ready. Another thing I like is they still use the same image processors and similar sensors.

 

[ausemmao]

Saying this as a recent entrant to the SLR world but one not entirely unfamiliar with it on entry:

Opportunity cost. Someone just starting out is not going to want to buy used because generally buying used means you haven't got the warranty support a new camera would have. That peace of mind is certainly worth something, especially after the sticker shock an SLR body can create. New also means you have that 7-28 days to return the body if it really disagrees with you - something again used cannot provide.

When it comes to controls, i'd tried friends' 50D and 500D. The difference in access to controls especially the dual control wheels vs single was nice. It wasn't a massive difference from holding the exposure button to get the single wheel to shift mode - like shiftclicking on a computer. There weren't many things that were just plain not possible on one but doable on the other.

Then I got to looking at the D3100, 5000 90 and 7000. The whole older lenses thing is a bit of a red herring. A beginner is not likely to buy used lenses for largely the same issues as buying the body. And given all of Nikon's new lenses have been AF-S for a while, it's becoming less and less of an issue with time. Even Canon's lenses despite their bodies having motors have most (all?) of their production lenses having in lens motors.
Image quality wise and this was by far the most important for me, the D3100 was only bettered by the 7000, a body nearly 3 times the cost. A cost differential that's allowing me to build a decent lens collection, with a nice 17-50, looking around for a 90mm macro/portrait lens and a decent zoom (though I'm waiting to see if nikon release a 70-200f/4 like Canon's - the 2.8 is beyond my means).

That aforementioned price difference gets you a lot of nice things - better low light, the in body motor, nicer ergonomics, sturdier body, some weathersealing, good burst rates. Of those only 2 actually affect the images you can capture (the frame rate and the low light, though low light can be compensated for by nice lenses), the ergonomics just make it harder to get to things rather than outright preventing something, and sturdiness and weathersealing - how many new SLR owners abuse their cameras, bearing in mind the lenses can't take the same kind of punisment unless they're costing as much or more than the body), and how many of you would take your pro bodies out in the rain unprotected? The extra stuff the outlay gets you is nice if you already know what you want. If you don't, the value is in my eyes questionable. Which is why I got the D3100 now, got a nice 17-50mm, will get a 90mm, and a 70-200 (or 55-200 if it doesn't show soon).

Then at the end of the year I'll know what I want and where the kit really limited me if at all and will be happy buying a used D7000 off the people upgrading to D400/D800/D4

 

[KmH]

Even Canon's lenses despite their bodies having motors have most (all?) of their production lenses having in lens motors.

None of Canon's camera bodies have a focus motor in them, and haven't since 1987, the introduction of the EOS (Electro-Optical System) having the EF-mount.

 

[ausemmao]

Even Canon's lenses despite their bodies having motors have most (all?) of their production lenses having in lens motors.

None of Canon's camera bodies have a focus motor in them, and haven't since 1987, the introduction of the EOS (Electro-Optical System) having the EF-mount.

No idea how I got that confused. Thanks for correcting me

 

[Fujito]

I don't know the Nikon bodies, but I do recommend beginners getting the equivalent of a Canon Rebel.

When one gets better they will want to upgrade. They can then get a nice full frame sensor camera, which costs thousands. So it's good to buy cheap now and learn, then spend more later for a very nice one.

 

[carmanj]

What Nikon would be the equivalent of a Canon Rebel. I have the same issue. My 20 year old son, who is not real responsible is taking a photography class at a local community college this semester. I bought him a new Nikon powershot 6000, but have since learned the class requires a SLR Camera. I now have to charge another camera for him. So, I assume the Nikon D90 is the one? I have a Nikon D300 and I'm not lending it to him. thanks for your help.

 

[ghache]

i wouldnt never recommend a low end bodys to anyone who really wants to get into photography. Thats what people recommended me to buy when i first started and now what. 2 years later, i am at my 3rd bodys with too much time lost and money spent on changing bodys.

I always recommend people to buy the best thing they can afford. I always tell them that if they wanna buy used, they will get more for the money they havbe. On the long run they save money, time and they dont find themself limited by a low end body because YES low end bodys are limiting (if you plan on really putting effort and time in photography)
And the learning curve from a d40 and a d300 is not that different. Aperture, iso, shutter speed and all that craps stays the same.