Beginner looking for a good entry camera

[tdar]

Hello everybody

I am totally new to photography (except some smartphone experience ). I decided to buy my first "real" Camera. I was checking out the Canon EOS 750D and the Panasonic Lumix G70.

Does anyone have experience with the Lumix G70? Does anybody want to convince me of the G70?

 

[weepete]

I'd take a 750D over the panasonic any time. The other one to think about would be a Nikon D5300

 

[goodguy]

Would not bother with the Panasonic, the micro four third sensor is just too small and low light performance is not too impressive.
From the two I would go for the Canon 750D or as we call it here T6i but I would actually direct you to consider the Nikon D5300 or even better the Nikon D5500, very good cameras.
I consider the Nikon D5500 to have the best sensor in its price range but the t6i is also a very good camera.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Your first camera is something special . So choose wisely. You are going to chose a brand and with it in the lens lineup and accessories in case you ever want to upgrade. I'd also take a look at the sony mirrorless cameras. I've been a Canon photographer for a long, long time. Nevertheless I've recommended Nikon for a while, but now I recommend Sony. The a6000 would be within your price range it seems.

 

[robbins.photo]

Your first camera is something special . So choose wisely. You are going to chose a brand and with it in the lens lineup and accessories in case you ever want to upgrade. I'd also take a look at the sony mirrorless cameras. I've been a Canon photographer for a long, long time. Nevertheless I've recommended Nikon for a while, but now I recommend Sony. The a6000 would be within your price range it seems.

Don't get me wrong, Sony makes a nice body and the size/weight of a mirrorless option might be attractive to some. However considering the limited number of lenses available for Sony EF mount, I'm curious as to why you would recommend this in preference to either Nikon or Canon unless size/weight is a primary concern?

Both the Nikon and Canon system have a great deal more variety in lenses available and a much larger used market for each. With Sony you'd be looking at buying new for most of your lenses, and as far as telephoto goes you have very few native options and for long telephoto you have pretty much none. That means getting an adapter of some sort, all of which seem to have some issues and only the extremely expensive ones allow you to maintain autofocus.

So, for the op - since your new to photography and probably aren't really sure what areas of photography will interest you the most just yet, I'd recommend you start with a basic DSLR setup from either Canon or Nikon.

If you at some point decide that say, street photography is your thing and your not really interested in wildlife and don't need much telephoto, well then maybe at that point a smaller form factor camera might be of interest to you.

But for all around versatility you can't beat a DSLR. So for now, that's where I'd start. Once you've identified your specific needs and the type of photography that interests you most, then it might be worth looking at investing in more specialized systems, such as Sony.

 

[goodguy]

Totally agree with "robbins.photos", Sony does make nice camera and their lens line up is slowly improving but it is still really basic and lacking compared to Canon and Nikon.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Your first camera is something special . So choose wisely. You are going to chose a brand and with it in the lens lineup and accessories in case you ever want to upgrade. I'd also take a look at the sony mirrorless cameras. I've been a Canon photographer for a long, long time. Nevertheless I've recommended Nikon for a while, but now I recommend Sony. The a6000 would be within your price range it seems.

Don't get me wrong, Sony makes a nice body and the size/weight of a mirrorless option might be attractive to some. However considering the limited number of lenses available for Sony EF mount, I'm curious as to why you would recommend this in preference to either Nikon or Canon unless size/weight is a primary concern?

Both the Nikon and Canon system have a great deal more variety in lenses available and a much larger used market for each. With Sony you'd be looking at buying new for most of your lenses, and as far as telephoto goes you have very few native options and for long telephoto you have pretty much none. That means getting an adapter of some sort, all of which seem to have some issues and only the extremely expensive ones allow you to maintain autofocus.

So, for the op - since your new to photography and probably aren't really sure what areas of photography will interest you the most just yet, I'd recommend you start with a basic DSLR setup from either Canon or Nikon.

If you at some point decide that say, street photography is your thing and your not really interested in wildlife and don't need much telephoto, well then maybe at that point a smaller form factor camera might be of interest to you.

But for all around versatility you can't beat a DSLR. So for now, that's where I'd start. Once you've identified your specific needs and the type of photography that interests you most, then it might be worth looking at investing in more specialized systems, such as Sony.

Nothing wrong with different opinions
You sure are right with lens choice at the moment. But especially e-mount is growing rapidly and sony is doing quite some innovation. For me that means that a beginner can easily get what he needs at the moment. Probably a kit lens and maybe a telezoom. I've recommended the a6000 to my father in law and two friends, all of them are more than happy.
I currently use my Canons only for studiowork. For everything else I use Sony mirrorless cameras. One thing I particularely like about mirrorless is taking a look at my images in bright sunlight, looking through the electronic viewfinder rather than the monitor. Another one being the ability of mirrorless cameras to recognize faces and eyes of people and focussing on them all over the screen estate rather than the limited number of focus points that are rather close to the center. This is just so much easier and faster - even for me who is used to shooting DSLRs. How much easier does it have to be for somebody who is just starting out.

Edit: one more big pro for the a6000: 11 frames per second continuous shooting is hard to beat, and a very nice add on to fetch the right moment for anything that moves.

 

[sashbar]

Nikon 5300 or 5500 is an excellent start for a beginner. Robbins.photo is spot on.

 

[The_Traveler]

Disagree with most of what has been said.
If you are like 95% of all people who try a camera, you'll eventually decide that photography just isn't for you as a serious hobby requiring fairly significant investment of time and money.
Buying a dslr at the beginning commits you to a good deal of learning some extra expense for lenses and learning something about editing.

The beginner with no experience is exactly what bridge cameras are designed for.
Bridge cameras typically have lots of zoom, no removable lenses and lots of user modes.
See if you like photography and want to go further, if not, then you've invested as little time and money as possible.

The wife of a good friend has had a Canon dslr for 4 or 5 years, she had several lenses and took bazillions of photos. But carrying camera and lenses, changing lenses, all got to big too big a burden for her. She bought a higher end bridge camera, the photos are good enough for her and she put her big stuff away.

Google search for best bridge cameras of 2016

 

[robbins.photo]

Nothing wrong with different opinions

Never stated that their was...

You sure are right with lens choice at the moment. But especially e-mount is growing rapidly and sony is doing quite some innovation. For me that means that a beginner can easily get what he needs at the moment. Probably a kit lens and maybe a telezoom. I've recommended the a6000 to my father in law and two friends, all of them are more than happy.

I'm assuming neither is into say, wildlife photography for example. I doubt either Sigma or Tamron is likely to make a 150-600mm in the Sony E mount anytime soon, not until Sony manages to dramatically increase it's market share. For now it just isn't worth it for either company to do lenses like that in an Emount, they wouldn't sell enough of them to make it worthwhile.

So yes if all you need is a lightweight camera with a kit lens, Sony's are a nice choice. But if you want to diversify.. ugh. Those lenses get expensive, quick. You don't have lower cost options, and if you want even medium length telephoto.. yikes. A 70-300 mm for the sony emount is something in the neighborhood of $1000.

Need 400mm? Double that. Need more than 400mm? Well, your buying yourself a $500+ dollar adapter plus the lens in another mount and crossing your fingers a ton hoping it will mostly work.

Shooting outside? Not the best places to change lenses on a mirrorless unless your in a relatively calm environment. Nothing protecting the sensor whatosever when you pull that lens off. Need service? Wow.. there's a serious can of worms.

So yes, if all you plan to do is family photos then the A6000 doesn't make a bad choice overall. But if your looking at getting into photography seriously, well I wouldn't choose one or recommend one under most circumstances.

Folks that have been into photography for a while might certainly choose one if they are aware of the limitations of the Sony system and realize they don't need much more than one or two lenses.

However for a beginner who is choosing his first system and wanting to do serious photography? Eh, not my first choice by a long, long shot. Better to have more options open if say he buys a camera and decides, you know what, I need a better zoom lens because I'm going to be shooting my kids soccer games. That 70-300mm sony would charge you a grand for? You can get new for Nikon for a little over $400. Buy used or something like a Tamron, you can get it even cheaper.

If he decides he needs a faster zoom because he's shooting indoors and wants say a 70-200 2.8? Sony, one choice, $2500. Nikon? Quite a few choices, ranging from something used like say the Sigma HSM I I use currently at around $400 all the way up to a brand spanking new 70-200mm VR II at around $2000. But the thing is he's got a lot of options, and he can find a ton of stuff used if he wants.

That's the difference between buying a camera, and investing in a system.

So no, for a beginner who wants to get serious about photography, Sony would probably be the last system I'd recommend. For someone who's been into photography for a while and knows what sort of equipment he/she needs? Naturally that's a completely different story. Like I said, Sony makes a fine camera body. No argument there. But on the whole, as a complete system? Eh, not so much really when compared to Canon or Nikon. If you only need the options Sony offers, well fantastic. But for somebody that is just getting serious about photography, well it's pretty difficult to know if their needs will be met by the Sony system or not.

 

[beagle100]

Hello everybody

I am totally new to photography (except some smartphone experience ). I decided to buy my first "real" Camera. I was checking out the Canon EOS 750D and the Panasonic Lumix G70.
Does anyone have experience with the Lumix G70? Does anybody want to convince me of the G70?

I agree, I now shoot with Canon and a refurbished Canon 70D or 80D could be a better choice but it depends on your budget, features, lens and the photo subject -
sports ? portraits ? landscapes ?
And like others have indicated, also take a look at the mirrorless options from Sony, Fuji, etc.

 

[robbins.photo]

Disagree with most of what has been said.
If you are like 95% of all people who try a camera, you'll eventually decide that photography just isn't for you as a serious hobby requiring fairly investment of time and money.
Buying a dslr at the beginning commits you to a good deal of learning some extra expense for lenses and learning something about editing.

The beginner with no experience is exactly what bridge cameras are designed for.
Bridge cameras typically have lots of zoom, no removable lenses and lots of user modes.
See if you like photography and want to go further, if not, then you've invested as little time and money as possible.

The wife of a good friend has had a Canon dslr for 4 or 5 years, she had several lenses and took bazillions of photos. But carrying camera and lenses, changing lenses, all got to big too big a burden for her. She bought a higher end bridge camera, the photos are good enough for her and she put her big stuff away.

Google search for best bridge cameras of 2016

Lew makes an excellent point here, if your not really sure you're gonna become a dedicated shutter bug a bridge camera might be a good place to start.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[SquarePeg]

The first thing I'd recommend if you are going to buy your first dslr - strongly consider buying used/refurb from a reliable online store (B&H, Adorama, Cameta etc.) You can save enough on the camera body to buy the lens. Personally, I'd go for the Nikon 5300 or 5500 and a standard kit lens of either 18-55 or the 18-140 if you can find it. I don't know anything about Canon. One last tip - don't buy anything else until you've learned your camera inside and out (speaking from experience here as I bought several lenses I really didn't need).

 

[photo1x1.com]

Nothing wrong with different opinions

Never stated that their was...

You sure are right with lens choice at the moment. But especially e-mount is growing rapidly and sony is doing quite some innovation. For me that means that a beginner can easily get what he needs at the moment. Probably a kit lens and maybe a telezoom. I've recommended the a6000 to my father in law and two friends, all of them are more than happy.

I'm assuming neither is into say, wildlife photography for example. I doubt either Sigma or Tamron is likely to make a 150-600mm in the Sony E mount anytime soon, not until Sony manages to dramatically increase it's market share. For now it just isn't worth it for either company to do lenses like that in an Emount, they wouldn't sell enough of them to make it worthwhile.

So yes if all you need is a lightweight camera with a kit lens, Sony's are a nice choice. But if you want to diversify.. ugh. Those lenses get expensive, quick. You don't have lower cost options, and if you want even medium length telephoto.. yikes. A 70-300 mm for the sony emount is something in the neighborhood of $1000.

Need 400mm? Double that. Need more than 400mm? Well, your buying yourself a $500+ dollar adapter plus the lens in another mount and crossing your fingers a ton hoping it will mostly work.

Shooting outside? Not the best places to change lenses on a mirrorless unless your in a relatively calm environment. Nothing protecting the sensor whatosever when you pull that lens off. Need service? Wow.. there's a serious can of worms.

So yes, if all you plan to do is family photos then the A6000 doesn't make a bad choice overall. But if your looking at getting into photography seriously, well I wouldn't choose one or recommend one under most circumstances.

Folks that have been into photography for a while might certainly choose one if they are aware of the limitations of the Sony system and realize they don't need much more than one or two lenses.

However for a beginner who is choosing his first system and wanting to do serious photography? Eh, not my first choice by a long, long shot. Better to have more options open if say he buys a camera and decides, you know what, I need a better zoom lens because I'm going to be shooting my kids soccer games. That 70-300mm sony would charge you a grand for? You can get new for Nikon for a little over $400. Buy used or something like a Tamron, you can get it even cheaper.

If he decides he needs a faster zoom because he's shooting indoors and wants say a 70-200 2.8? Sony, one choice, $2500. Nikon? Quite a few choices, ranging from something used like say the Sigma HSM I I use currently at around $400 all the way up to a brand spanking new 70-200mm VR II at around $2000. But the thing is he's got a lot of options, and he can find a ton of stuff used if he wants.

That's the difference between buying a camera, and investing in a system.

So no, for a beginner who wants to get serious about photography, Sony would probably be the last system I'd recommend. For someone who's been into photography for a while and knows what sort of equipment he/she needs? Naturally that's a completely different story. Like I said, Sony makes a fine camera body. No argument there. But on the whole, as a complete system? Eh, not so much really when compared to Canon or Nikon. If you only need the options Sony offers, well fantastic. But for somebody that is just getting serious about photography, well it's pretty difficult to know if their needs will be met by the Sony system or not.

You sure are right regarding the rather high prices of e-mount lenses. For me that is one of two major drawbacks of the e-mount system (the other one being the use for studiowork I mentioned).
But the mentioned wildlife photography is rather specific. Also using those long telephoto lenses for kids sports. 99% of the people I know shoot with a kit lens + (if at all) a relatively cheap telephoto lens up to 200mm.
Looking at the development in this industry, I bet in 5 years from now things will look totally different. There are so many great new lens manufacturers just starting out. The market is in a state of change.
The OP was looking for a good entry camera, and for the moment the cameras I mentioned are hard to beat for several reasons.
But I'm not a fanboy, so your points are valid and I think the mentioned options including the bridge camera give the OP some thoughts.
A note regarding bridge cameras though: one thing people (especially enthusiastic beginners) keep asking me over and over is: how can I get that nice blurred background. One factor for that is sensor size, and there bridge cameras have some limitations. Just to add another thought.

 

[sashbar]

Disagree with most of what has been said.
If you are like 95% of all people who try a camera, you'll eventually decide that photography just isn't for you as a serious hobby requiring fairly investment of time and money.
Buying a dslr at the beginning commits you to a good deal of learning some extra expense for lenses and learning something about editing.

The beginner with no experience is exactly what bridge cameras are designed for.
Bridge cameras typically have lots of zoom, no removable lenses and lots of user modes.
See if you like photography and want to go further, if not, then you've invested as little time and money as possible.

The wife of a good friend has had a Canon dslr for 4 or 5 years, she had several lenses and took bazillions of photos. But carrying camera and lenses, changing lenses, all got to big too big a burden for her. She bought a higher end bridge camera, the photos are good enough for her and she put her big stuff away.

Google search for best bridge cameras of 2016

Lew makes an excellent point here, if your not really sure you're gonna become a dedicated shutter bug a bridge camera might be a good place to start.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

Yes it is a valid point, but a bridge camera is a very controversial thing. On one hand it is cheap, very easy to operate and quite versatile with its large zoom. On the other hand it is not exiting, and that is a problem.

Shooting for a while with a bridge camera and deciding that photography is not for me is like drinking coffee in McDonalds for a month and deciding that coffee sucks.

I have my own theory of aesthetic threshold: there is a certain threshold where you start getting exited about pictures. You look at your pics and see colors, shades, depth, gradations, sharpness variations, saturations etc etc and most of all emotions - and you get exited by the possibilities. You get exited by photography. And to me personally the threshold lays with baby DSLRs.

I think it is very, very important for beginners. When you advance and get more sophisticated aesthetically, you find that photography is not that straightforward and even realise that in your chosen genre exiting stuff can be shot with a simple p&s or an iPhone. But you need to be pretty advanced for that.

Beginners need this in-you-face image quality where even poor photos ( and that will be the first 1000 as we know) may look exiting or interesting enough to keep going.

I think bridge cameras killed hundreds of thousands of talented photographers.

So yes, a used Nikon 5300 or 5500 with a kit lense in good shape is the safest and most effective way atm imho. You can shoot with it for a year or so, try some primes, learn some post production. Decide what kind of photography you are into. Then flog it back on ebay with a minimum loss and start building a system that you need. Or invest this money more wisely, like in beer and women. It is win win situation.