Can you recommend an entry-level DSLR for me?

[DiskoJoe]

This
Nikon D3200 018208254927 | eBay

or this
Sony Î alpha A55 027242798816 | eBay

I like sony cause you get a lot for your buck and basically get a mid level camera for the prices of other companies entry level.

I also recommend buying the same brand as friends so you can borrow gear amongst each other.

 

[ulrichsd]

D5100 factory demo w/ 18-55mm kit lens for $620. I bought my D90 as a demo there and it is perfect (only 200 shutter actuations on mine).

I feel like I see a lot of people on here complaining that entry level Nikon's don't have a focus motor built in, while in reality, no modern Canon camera has a built-in motor. Most lenses for Nikon have motors so this is really a non-issue. You just can't autofocus with older Nikon AF lenses, but with Canon you can't use any older lenses period.

 

[jrizal]

D5100 factory demo w/ 18-55mm kit lens for $620. I bought my D90 as a demo there and it is perfect (only 200 shutter actuations on mine).

I feel like I see a lot of people on here complaining that entry level Nikon's don't have a focus motor built in, while in reality, no modern Canon camera has a built-in motor. Most lenses for Nikon have motors so this is really a non-issue. You just can't autofocus with older Nikon AF lenses, but with Canon you can't use any older lenses period.

Downside (at least for me) is that due to the lack of an AF motor makes Nikkor lenses more expensive. Photography is an expensive hobby though. But those with a limited budget this is an issue that should be considered. Functionwise, this should not be an issue.

 

[belial]

I like sony cause you get a lot for your buck and basically get a mid level camera for the prices of other companies entry level.
.

This isn't actually true. With Sony you get a greater frame rate but the same beginner style body with many settings even more buried in menus than other companies and a build quality the same as competitors. Really I've never understood the statement that you get more from Sony. Unless frame rate is really important to you I don't see the appeal

 

[sovietdoc]

Newer camera, so it will last 1 extra generation longer on top of 3100 or t3i

Just like newer gen computer will last 1 generation longer than the old one.


Actually, I wouldn't recommend D3200 to anyone using stock lenses. It's got a huge sensor resolution which means that the effects of your cheap glass will be a lot more profound. The only reason to get this big of a resolution on your sensor is either to crop your shots or to do large pro prints.

With cheap glass, printing it full-size and cropping won't be as useful because when you look at images up close you'll see missed focus, CA, ISO noise and poor IQ. With huge resolution of the camera sensor you'll also need top of the line glass (which will cost you 3-4 times as much as the camera did) just to see that resolution in it's pixel-peeping detail. Lower quality lenses just aren't that good to show you all that quality. Smaller resolution is actually better because you can use lower quality glass with it and get better results. Of course, if you're buying a camera and are already thinking about some $1500 lenses to go with it, get 3200 by all means because you'll be able to see that quality. And in time you'll be able to take amazing shots using pro glass on a entry DSLR body. But if you're not planning on investing multiple thousands into glass, getting a very high res sensor will just keep ruining your shots in comparison to what your buddy can get with his cheap lens on his 12-18 mp.

I'd never recommend 24mp to a beginner because it's like recommending a surgical scalpel to a guy who just needs to cut some rope. It's so sharp it must be the best choice right? No.

 

[ulrichsd]

Downside (at least for me) is that due to the lack of an AF motor makes Nikkor lenses more expensive. Photography is an expensive hobby though. But those with a limited budget this is an issue that should be considered. Functionwise, this should not be an issue.

Less expensive compared to non AF-S lenses? Or compared to Canon lenses? Of course AF lenses are cheaper than their modern AF-S counterparts. I'm not sure I buy that Canon lenses are less expensive overall vs Nikon and if they are then they are probably cheaper quality. For instance Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6L is $1500 compared to Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR is $590. Some Canon lenses are more, some Nikon lenses are more.

 

[maaatter]

Downside (at least for me) is that due to the lack of an AF motor makes Nikkor lenses more expensive. Photography is an expensive hobby though. But those with a limited budget this is an issue that should be considered. Functionwise, this should not be an issue.

Less expensive compared to non AF-S lenses? Or compared to Canon lenses? Of course AF lenses are cheaper than their modern AF-S counterparts. I'm not sure I buy that Canon lenses are less expensive overall vs Nikon and if they are then they are probably cheaper quality. For instance Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6L is $1500 compared to Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR is $590. Some Canon lenses are more, some Nikon lenses are more.

You're comparing Canon's top of the line L lens to a plastic Nikon variant. Of course the L will be more. Compare something a little more equal, like 50 1.8. Canon's 50 1.8 is $119, Nikon $219. Both are pretty much all plastic besides Nikon's mount is metal compared to Canon's plastic.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I like sony cause you get a lot for your buck and basically get a mid level camera for the prices of other companies entry level.
.

This isn't actually true. With Sony you get a greater frame rate but the same beginner style body with many settings even more buried in menus than other companies and a build quality the same as competitors. Really I've never understood the statement that you get more from Sony. Unless frame rate is really important to you I don't see the appeal

the a55 i suggested has the same sensor chip as the d5100 and d7000 and also has a focusing motor which the d5100 does not have and it cost the same price. The lenses are thus cheaper.

I would suggest you do some more research to back up your statements. And why would getting more frames per second not be a good thing? Why would Nikon use the sony designed chips? Why would canon adopt a EVF in one of their new models? Why did Leica use sony technology?

Plus I have a friend that owns a d5100 and I have a a580. Our pictures look almost identical when we both use sigma lens but my camera cost less and has a focusing motor.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Newer camera, so it will last 1 extra generation longer on top of 3100 or t3i

Just like newer gen computer will last 1 generation longer than the old one.


Actually, I wouldn't recommend D3200 to anyone using stock lenses. It's got a huge sensor resolution which means that the effects of your cheap glass will be a lot more profound. The only reason to get this big of a resolution on your sensor is either to crop your shots or to do large pro prints.

With cheap glass, printing it full-size and cropping won't be as useful because when you look at images up close you'll see missed focus, CA, ISO noise and poor IQ. With huge resolution of the camera sensor you'll also need top of the line glass (which will cost you 3-4 times as much as the camera did) just to see that resolution in it's pixel-peeping detail. Lower quality lenses just aren't that good to show you all that quality. Smaller resolution is actually better because you can use lower quality glass with it and get better results. Of course, if you're buying a camera and are already thinking about some $1500 lenses to go with it, get 3200 by all means because you'll be able to see that quality. And in time you'll be able to take amazing shots using pro glass on a entry DSLR body. But if you're not planning on investing multiple thousands into glass, getting a very high res sensor will just keep ruining your shots in comparison to what your buddy can get with his cheap lens on his 12-18 mp.

I'd never recommend 24mp to a beginner because it's like recommending a surgical scalpel to a guy who just needs to cut some rope. It's so sharp it must be the best choice right? No.

So are you saying nikon is going the wrong way their new entry level design?

 

[jrizal]

Downside (at least for me) is that due to the lack of an AF motor makes Nikkor lenses more expensive. Photography is an expensive hobby though. But those with a limited budget this is an issue that should be considered. Functionwise, this should not be an issue.

Less expensive compared to non AF-S lenses? Or compared to Canon lenses? Of course AF lenses are cheaper than their modern AF-S counterparts. I'm not sure I buy that Canon lenses are less expensive overall vs Nikon and if they are then they are probably cheaper quality. For instance Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6L is $1500 compared to Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR is $590. Some Canon lenses are more, some Nikon lenses are more.

You're comparing Canon's top of the line L lens to a plastic Nikon variant. Of course the L will be more. Compare something a little more equal, like 50 1.8. Canon's 50 1.8 is $119, Nikon $219. Both are pretty much all plastic besides Nikon's mount is metal compared to Canon's plastic.

Spot on! But I wouldn't mind using high end lenses (and body) from either brand assuming I can afford them!

 

[unpopular]

Newer camera, so it will last 1 extra generation longer on top of 3100 or t3i

Just like newer gen computer will last 1 generation longer than the old one.


Actually, I wouldn't recommend D3200 to anyone using stock lenses. It's got a huge sensor resolution which means that the effects of your cheap glass will be a lot more profound. The only reason to get this big of a resolution on your sensor is either to crop your shots or to do large pro prints.

With cheap glass, printing it full-size and cropping won't be as useful because when you look at images up close you'll see missed focus, CA, ISO noise and poor IQ. With huge resolution of the camera sensor you'll also need top of the line glass (which will cost you 3-4 times as much as the camera did) just to see that resolution in it's pixel-peeping detail. Lower quality lenses just aren't that good to show you all that quality. Smaller resolution is actually better because you can use lower quality glass with it and get better results. Of course, if you're buying a camera and are already thinking about some $1500 lenses to go with it, get 3200 by all means because you'll be able to see that quality. And in time you'll be able to take amazing shots using pro glass on a entry DSLR body. But if you're not planning on investing multiple thousands into glass, getting a very high res sensor will just keep ruining your shots in comparison to what your buddy can get with his cheap lens on his 12-18 mp.

I'd never recommend 24mp to a beginner because it's like recommending a surgical scalpel to a guy who just needs to cut some rope. It's so sharp it must be the best choice right? No.

Well. First of all, no. You don't load down cameras with applications which are built to modern standards. A previous generation camera will last just as long as a current generation camera provided that they are taken care of. All you'll be missing are the bells and whistles. But the camera will 'last' and the only reason why you'd want to upgrade a camera that 'works' is gear envy.

Second lower capture resolution will not improve the quality of the lens when printed at a similar size as a larger file. A scaled 24mp file will likely look similar to an unscaled 12mp file provided that the lens resolves at or below the pixel pitch of the 12mp camera. However, while a 12mp camera would not fair any better with a lens of higher resolution than it's pixel pitch, a 24mp file scaled to 12mp may be slightly sharper.

But in the end, if you use a lens which can resolve 12mp of data, it won't perform better on the 12mp camera or worse on teh 24mp camera - only that you will not be able to resolve 24mp data. This really has more to do with how large an image you can effectively print, rather than overall image quality.

 

[ulrichsd]

Downside (at least for me) is that due to the lack of an AF motor makes Nikkor lenses more expensive. Photography is an expensive hobby though. But those with a limited budget this is an issue that should be considered. Functionwise, this should not be an issue.

Less expensive compared to non AF-S lenses? Or compared to Canon lenses? Of course AF lenses are cheaper than their modern AF-S counterparts. I'm not sure I buy that Canon lenses are less expensive overall vs Nikon and if they are then they are probably cheaper quality. For instance Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6L is $1500 compared to Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR is $590. Some Canon lenses are more, some Nikon lenses are more.

You're comparing Canon's top of the line L lens to a plastic Nikon variant. Of course the L will be more. Compare something a little more equal, like 50 1.8. Canon's 50 1.8 is $119, Nikon $219. Both are pretty much all plastic besides Nikon's mount is metal compared to Canon's plastic.

That's my point exactly, the lineups are different and there are pros and cons to which ever lens you are trying to buy. Canon's 50mm 1.8 uses a cheap 5 bladed aperture design and cheaper build quality. So in both cases, you pay more, you get more. But I agree its not fair to compare an L lens, I didn't realize Canon has the cheaper variant for $620, which is still $30 more than the comparable Nikon version.

 

[belial]

Newer camera, so it will last 1 extra generation longer on top of 3100 or t3i

Just like newer gen computer will last 1 generation longer than the old one.

Actually, I wouldn't recommend D3200 to anyone using stock lenses. It's got a huge sensor resolution which means that the effects of your cheap glass will be a lot more profound. The only reason to get this big of a resolution on your sensor is either to crop your shots or to do large pro prints.

With cheap glass, printing it full-size and cropping won't be as useful because when you look at images up close you'll see missed focus, CA, ISO noise and poor IQ. With huge resolution of the camera sensor you'll also need top of the line glass (which will cost you 3-4 times as much as the camera did) just to see that resolution in it's pixel-peeping detail. Lower quality lenses just aren't that good to show you all that quality. Smaller resolution is actually better because you can use lower quality glass with it and get better results. Of course, if you're buying a camera and are already thinking about some $1500 lenses to go with it, get 3200 by all means because you'll be able to see that quality. And in time you'll be able to take amazing shots using pro glass on a entry DSLR body. But if you're not planning on investing multiple thousands into glass, getting a very high res sensor will just keep ruining your shots in comparison to what your buddy can get with his cheap lens on his 12-18 mp.

I'd never recommend 24mp to a beginner because it's like recommending a surgical scalpel to a guy who just needs to cut some rope. It's so sharp it must be the best choice right? No.

Even an older camera provided it is in new condition can last just as long. This isn't the same as a computer where increasing software performance and size demands a better model every couple years. A camera can last until the user outgrows it or the shutter burns out.

 

[belial]

Less expensive compared to non AF-S lenses? Or compared to Canon lenses? Of course AF lenses are cheaper than their modern AF-S counterparts. I'm not sure I buy that Canon lenses are less expensive overall vs Nikon and if they are then they are probably cheaper quality. For instance Canon 70-300mm 4-5.6L is $1500 compared to Nikon 70-300mm 4.5-5.6 VR is $590. Some Canon lenses are more, some Nikon lenses are more.

You're comparing a pro canon lens to a high grade Nikon consumer lens. Of course the canon pro is more. Try the EF 70-300 is which is the same grade level as that nikon lens

 

[belial]

I could never recommend Sony because they have no upgrade path to the pro level. And yeah I've done plenty of research into Sony. About the only thing I like about Sony is the ability to use old Minolta lenses of which there are a couple that are on the nice side. But the evf ruins the whole thing.