Best camera for begining

[jessedpeters]

Hey so I'm wanting to get into photography. Manly for my own pleasure. Not anything extremely serious. What I want to get is a good camera that I don't have to kill my wallet for and still be able to take good quality pictures for a few years. Not interested in making videos. My main focus will be nature and wildlife. What would be a good camera and a set of lenses for what I want? Any serious suggestions are appreciated!

 

[Overread]

What kind of budget are you thinking of? A rough idea would help as there are both low cost and high cost approached.

Also what is nature and wildlife to you? Birds, foxes, dolphins, fish, dragon(flies), flies, insects, flowers etc...? A rough idea of what your primary interests along with the budget will help give some kind of feel for what would best suit your situation.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hey so I'm wanting to get into photography. Manly for my own pleasure. Not anything extremely serious. What I want to get is a good camera that I don't have to kill my wallet for and still be able to take good quality pictures for a few years. Not interested in making videos. My main focus will be nature and wildlife. What would be a good camera and a set of lenses for what I want? Any serious suggestions are appreciated!

Nature as in landscapes, etc doesn't really require a good telephoto lens and as a result you can generally get a lot of relatively inexpensive options. Nature as in birds or wildlife usually to get decent results requires a good telephoto lens, and those get expensive, quick.

Assuming your looking at taking pictures mostly in bright, sunlight conditions a bridge camera is another option - they are lower cost than a DSLR - because of their smaller sensors they won't give you the image size/quality a DSLR will and they really aren't good for taking pictures other than in bright lighting however many of them do come equipped with built in telephoto lens that can give you some pretty extreme magnification. The Canon SX50 is one such example, I've also owned the Panasonic FZ-200 which is a good, usable little camera that produces some decent images. But the final image won't really compare to a true DSLR, so a whole lot depends on your budget.

 

[jessedpeters]

What kind of budget are you thinking of? A rough idea would help as there are both low cost and high cost approached.

Also what is nature and wildlife to you? Birds, foxes, dolphins, fish, dragon(flies), flies, insects, flowers etc...? A rough idea of what your primary interests along with the budget will help give some kind of feel for what would best suit your situation.

My budget can be more if it needs to be, but it would take me longer to get the money. My idea right now is around $800-$1000.

And when it comes to nature and wildlife, I mean like outdoors and all kinds of animals. But the ability to do more I guess wouldn't be bad. Are there certain kinds of cameras for certain things? Or do most work well in most situations? Does it depend on the lens you use? I really don't know much yet about photography. I'm literally just getting into it.

 

[jessedpeters]

Nature as in landscapes, etc doesn't really require a good telephoto lens and as a result you can generally get a lot of relatively inexpensive options. Nature as in birds or wildlife usually to get decent results requires a good telephoto lens, and those get expensive, quick.

Assuming your looking at taking pictures mostly in bright, sunlight conditions a bridge camera is another option - they are lower cost than a DSLR - because of their smaller sensors they won't give you the image size/quality a DSLR will and they really aren't good for taking pictures other than in bright lighting however many of them do come equipped with built in telephoto lens that can give you some pretty extreme magnification. The Canon SX50 is one such example, I've also owned the Panasonic FZ-200 which is a good, usable little camera that produces some decent images. But the final image won't really compare to a true DSLR, so a whole lot depends on your budget.

What is the significance of a DSLR? What does that mean exactly?

 

[jessedpeters]

Is the Canon a good camera to get? Would the Rebel series be reliable? What about Nikon?

 

[robbins.photo]

What kind of budget are you thinking of? A rough idea would help as there are both low cost and high cost approached.

Also what is nature and wildlife to you? Birds, foxes, dolphins, fish, dragon(flies), flies, insects, flowers etc...? A rough idea of what your primary interests along with the budget will help give some kind of feel for what would best suit your situation.

My budget can be more if it needs to be, but it would take me longer to get the money. My idea right now is around $800-$1000.

And when it comes to nature and wildlife, I mean like outdoors and all kinds of animals. But the ability to do more I guess wouldn't be bad. Are there certain kinds of cameras for certain things? Or do most work well in most situations? Does it depend on the lens you use? I really don't know much yet about photography. I'm literally just getting into it.

Most DSLR's are pretty versatile because you can purchases lenses and other accessories for them based on your needs. If your shooting mostly still photography and not doing a lot of video then my recommendation would be to take a look at the Nikon D3200. It's a very good starter camera, it will give you an easy to use guide mode for when your first getting started but will also give you the ability to take more control and set more of the camera's settings once you get more comfortable with photography.

It has a 24 mp sensor which produces very high quality images. Normally I recommend you start out with the standard kit lens and practice with it for a while, and then decide what other lenses you'd like to add once you get a good handle on using the kit lens and using it to figure out what you need from there.

 

[goodguy]

Nikon D3200 is a good starters camera, pretty powerful tool for all your basic needs.
Start with its kit lens and then add another lens when you know better what you need.

 

[CdTSnap]

Is the Canon a good camera to get? Would the Rebel series be reliable? What about Nikon?

Both a great, for $1000 id go for either a Nikon D7100 set or a Canon 70D maybe

What is the significance of a DSLR? What does that mean exactly?

DSLR = Digital Single Lens Reflex ( A mirrored camera where your eye peace is looking through the lens via a mirror instead of a digital view finder.

 

[W.Fovall]

just get the kit package from Costco.. comes with everything you need..

 

[jessedpeters]

Most DSLR's are pretty versatile because you can purchases lenses and other accessories for them based on your needs. If your shooting mostly still photography and not doing a lot of video then my recommendation would be to take a look at the Nikon D3200. It's a very good starter camera, it will give you an easy to use guide mode for when your first getting started but will also give you the ability to take more control and set more of the camera's settings once you get more comfortable with photography.

It has a 24 mp sensor which produces very high quality images. Normally I recommend you start out with the standard kit lens and practice with it for a while, and then decide what other lenses you'd like to add once you get a good handle on using the kit lens and using it to figure out what you need from there.

Ok this is great help thanks! Last question. Between the D3200, D5100, and D5200 what makes them different? Is it significant? I may be able to find a good price on the D5200 that's why I ask.

 

[JoeW]

First of all, welcome to the addiction...er...uh...I mean the avocation and art of photography. Prepare to have your life taken over by this.

Okay, some thoughts:

1. As others pointed out, for landscape photography, you don't really need a special lens (and contrary to amateur belief, a longer focal value...like 200mm isn't going to be used that often for landscape). More likely a focal length of 35mm or 50mm. The three items (besides the camera and lens of course) you'll most likely use in landscape work are:
--circular polarizer (to deal with glare, add punch to your clouds)
--neutral density filter (when shooting sunsets or in bright light and you want a longer exposure...like blurring a waterfall).
--a tripod (no, not a cheap $50 POS but one that will allow you to do a 1-2 second exposure or shoot star trails).

2. For wildlife, as an earlier post noted, there's a big difference between shooting a ladybug (that's really more macro photography) or a moose or falcon. For bigger wildlife (that is "wild") you probably need to start with a lens that has a focal length of 200mm and it's even better if you can get something longer. Talk to any serious birder or someone who photographs critters like moose and they'll tell you that they're shooting with 300mm or 400mm. Also, just a word of warning--in an ideal world, you'd get a zoom of 200mm or more that was fast (i.e.: an aperture around f2.8). But that's going to be outside of your budget (for now). You want that lens b/c not all wildlife come out at noon on a sunny day. Some emerge at sunrise or sunset or come out to feed at the stream when the light is weak. And a 200mm zoom with an f5.6 isn't going to work if it's a mobile creature (like an eagle) unless it's in bright light.

I mention all this b/c you need to do more than just get a camera. So budget accordingly.

Okay, as to the camera...you photo has you hiking. Your interests imply you're a hiker. What that tells me then is that you want a camera that will work well for hiking. I'd seriously look at the Nikon D3XXX or D5XXX series. Both camera series (D3100, D3200, etc.) don't have autofocus motors in the body of the camera--they rely on the lens to have the autofocus motors (and most modern lens do). This means that these bodies are smaller and lighter than cameras of comparable technology. And to someone who does hiking seriously, that's a really important factor. Even if you don't mind the extra weight, it just means it will be easier to get it out of your backpack when you're on the trail and see a big horn ram up ahead.

As to differences....the D5XXX series has an articulated screen. I don't like it and would probably never use it. But I know 2 people with D5XXX series body who swear by that screen for macro photography (one is a car mechanic and loves being able to put his camera places where he can't get his head and still take pictures). If you are used to taking a lot of pictures with an iPhone or iPad then you'll love that articulated screen. But to me, it's something to get dirt and grit in to, something to snag on and break. The D3XXX and D5XXX series aren't perfect cameras. But they are good, have good ISO performance (so good in low light), work well for hikers or people who don't want to schlep around a ton of stuff.

While the D5300 is under $1,000 and the best of these two lines (in terms of performance and technology) I wouldn't get that if I were you. There are some pieces of equipment you will want to get to really do what you want to do. Here's what I'd recommend:
--D3200 or D5200 (bodies only)
--the fastest 200mm zoom you can afford. I've seen the Tamron 18-270 zoom listed for as little as $200. With a lens like that, you'd put it on your camera and never take it off. You'd shoot landscapes and birds of prey in flight. Otherwise, I'd look at two lens...a 200mm zoom (probably something like an f5.6 70-200mm) and a Nikon 35mm f1.8 prime (dirt cheap, light, very sharp, great low-light performance, good for landscape)
--circular polarizer filter
--neutral density or graduated neutral density filter
--at least two SD cards and probably 3
--camera cleaning gear
--as a hiker, if you don't want to schlep around a full tripod, then look at something like a monopod or a gorillapod...much more hiker-friendly.

You can probably do all of that for under $1,000.

 

[robbins.photo]

Most DSLR's are pretty versatile because you can purchases lenses and other accessories for them based on your needs. If your shooting mostly still photography and not doing a lot of video then my recommendation would be to take a look at the Nikon D3200. It's a very good starter camera, it will give you an easy to use guide mode for when your first getting started but will also give you the ability to take more control and set more of the camera's settings once you get more comfortable with photography.

It has a 24 mp sensor which produces very high quality images. Normally I recommend you start out with the standard kit lens and practice with it for a while, and then decide what other lenses you'd like to add once you get a good handle on using the kit lens and using it to figure out what you need from there.

Ok this is great help thanks! Last question. Between the D3200, D5100, and D5200 what makes them different? Is it significant? I may be able to find a good price on the D5200 that's why I ask.

Well the biggest difference between the 3200 and the 5200 is the 5200 has an articulating screen and can do in camera hdr which is nice for landscapes.

I use the 5200 myself, I think it really is one of the best cameras available in it's price range.

The 3100/5100 are both older models based on a 16 mp sensor, I'd probably recommend going with the 3200/5200 instead if you a can afford it. Better image quality, better low light, better af systems... they really are worth the price difference.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[ConradM]

Hey so I'm wanting to get into photography. Manly for my own pleasure. Not anything extremely serious. What I want to get is a good camera that I don't have to kill my wallet for and still be able to take good quality pictures for a few years. Not interested in making videos. My main focus will be nature and wildlife. What would be a good camera and a set of lenses for what I want? Any serious suggestions are appreciated!

Get yourself a Sony Alpha and you'll save yourself a lot of headaches down the road -



They're easier and faster to use especially for a beginner. Conventional DSLR's use clunky flipping mirror and an optical viewfinder. What this means is they're slow and what you see through the viewfinder is not what the sensor see's. Which could mean that your picture won't turn out how you thought. Many times people will take a picture, adjust settings then snap another. This is called chimping.

With a Sony Alpha, the mirror is fixed and transparent and the viewfinder is electronic. The benefit is that what you see in the viewfinder is in real time. If you adjust white balance or exposure, you see it in the viewfinder. This eliminates the need to adjust and retake. The translucent mirror tech also lends to faster auto focus and fps. There is one drawback to this in that earlier generation Alphas don't do as well in low-light situations because they're losing some light through the translucent mirror.

That's a very simple break down, check out the video.

 

[chuasam]

Avoid the sony alpha. You'd be stuck with a system where it is hard to find lenses for.
I second the FZ200 idea. Great for learning and put the rest of the money aside for when you get better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk