Good Beginners DSLR?

[vimwiz]

A Canon EOS 1100D (I think thats called a Rebel T3something in the US) with the 18-55 IS kit lens will be $500 or just under, i think. Good started DSLR, older so could get some good discounts (I got mine for just over £200 UK pounds), also very cheap used. And a great intro to canon cameras, takes all the EF and EF-S lenses, shoots video, etc...

 

[JerryLove]

I'm beginning to dislike the term "starter camera". I'm leaning more towards the terms "trial camera" and "in budget camera". Here's why:

If I don't know if I'm going to get into photography seriously, I might not want to spend a lot of money on something I won't take advantage of. Hence I might buy something "less" or "cheaper".

Same with a restricted budget. Given $X, how that's best allocated across bodies and lenses might be different than an ideal body.

But if we assume I will be pursuing this seriously: why buy a body that I will then replace (other than budgetary need). "Starter" might move from "general purpose" (zoom lenses) to "special purpose" (prime lenses); but I don't see how a T3i is better for a beginner than a 5DmkIII.

To answer the question asked: I agree with the "used" suggestion. One of many up-sides is you can recoup basically your costs when you upgrade.

 

[cynicaster]

I'm beginning to dislike the term "starter camera". I'm leaning more towards the terms "trial camera" and "in budget camera". Here's why:

If I don't know if I'm going to get into photography seriously, I might not want to spend a lot of money on something I won't take advantage of. Hence I might buy something "less" or "cheaper".

Same with a restricted budget. Given $X, how that's best allocated across bodies and lenses might be different than an ideal body.

But if we assume I will be pursuing this seriously: why buy a body that I will then replace (other than budgetary need). "Starter" might move from "general purpose" (zoom lenses) to "special purpose" (prime lenses); but I don't see how a T3i is better for a beginner than a 5DmkIII.

To answer the question asked: I agree with the "used" suggestion. One of many up-sides is you can recoup basically your costs when you upgrade.

Call it whatever you want, the point is, it's plain silly for any total noob (who is not stinkin' rich) to spend $3500 on a piece of equipment they haven't the first clue how to use, when it is entirely possible to learn all the same ropes using a product that costs $500.

Then, if they end up sticking with it (which is not a foregone conclusion, I don't care how determined they think they are to be a photographer), they can always upgrade to something better once they identify what specific equipment limitations are preventing them from taking the kinds of photos they want to take.

 

[jamesparker1250]

I got my D3200 about a month ago and really love it the kit lens does really good .

 

[JerryLove]

Call it whatever you want, the point is, it's plain silly for any total noob (who is not stinkin' rich) to spend $3500 on a piece of equipment they haven't the first clue how to use, when it is entirely possible to learn all the same ropes using a product that costs $500.

Why is it plain silly?

If the sole goal of owning the camera was "to learn the ropes", then I agree. $3500 is silly when it can be done as well for $500.

But if they are going to buy a $3500 camera to take pictures, it's silly to buy an additional $500 camera to just put up on the shelf once you've "learned the ropes", when you can learn them just as well on the camera you are going to eventually buy regardless.

Obviously "available budget" is always an issue, but I touched on that.

Then, if they end up sticking with it (which is not a foregone conclusion, I don't care how determined they think they are to be a photographer), they can always upgrade to something better once they identify what specific equipment limitations are preventing them from taking the kinds of photos they want to take.

Hence "Trial camera". It's only silly to start with the 5D if, in fact, you don't stick with it (or never need a 5D).

My trial camera was an XSi. Next camera will be the best I can afford without stepping into features I don't need (which given that I've got Canon glass, will likely mean a 6D)

I agree with you that the semantics are not terribly important; but I believe that your first paragraph, without the caveat of your second one, is wrong. BTW: There's a second caveat that would also support getting an inexpensive camera... not knowing which features are important. Playing with a $400 and kit lens starts to let you know which body sizes work for you, and how much you care about frame rate, and what lenses you actually need, before you invest many dollars in the *wrong* thing.

Would be horrible to buy a 5DmkIII and some lenses only to discover that a micro 4/3 would better suit your needs.

 

[minicoop1985]

Maxxum, you say... Hmm. Your lenses will work on a Sony, so you could get away with just a body. If you can stand an electronic viewfinder (I'm not a fan, but that's personal preference), an a57 would be a good pick. It gets better reviews than the a58 that replaced it. The one drawback: those bodies are miniscule. I can't fit my whole hand on it, and with a Tamron 17-50 f2.8, it looks a little comical. I put it on a Sigma 170-500 APO once, and that was terribly amusing as it barely looks like there's a camera attached to the lens.

 

[sonicbuffalo]

Sony makes great cameras but they are expensive for what you get. I loved getting started with my Nikon D5100 and I have David Busch's book on the D5100 and two practically brand new Nikon batteries for it. I just recently bought the D7100. I can send you a picture if you message me. Great price for a practically brand new camera in excellent condition.

 

[mark.0015]

I started off ussing a cannon t3 that i got off amazon. it was perfect for me to use. it was simple and a good way to learn. heres a link to the camera on amazon just incase you are intrested.

Amazon.com: Canon EOS Rebel T3 12.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm IS II Lens and EOS HD Movie Mode (Black): Rosewill: Camera & Photo EOS Rebel T3 12.2 MP

 

[mark.0015]

I started using the cannon t3 as a begginer. The camera was really easy to use a easy to learn off. i suggest if you are new to photography to get the cannon rebel. ill provide a link off the rebel i bought off amazon.

Amazon.com: Canon EOS Rebel T3 12.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR with 18-55mm IS II Lens and EOS HD Movie Mode (Black): Rosewill: Camera & Photo EOS Rebel T3 12.2 MP CMOS

 

[xj0hnx]

Personally IMO as in a "knowing what I know now" situation, I would take that $500 and hit Ebay, and get the last generation Nikon, D90, D7000, D5100/D5200. You'll get more camera, and probably a better lens. Minicoop has a really good point too, your lenses now will fit a Sony. If I didn't think I'd get reamed to hard I'd even suggest a D2X/D200. Honestly if you were to take pictures from just about any name brand DSLR made in the last 6-8 years and take the same photo most people would be hard pressed to tell the difference. The lens on the other hand is a different story, to a point.

 

[CmazzJK]

Whatever you decide just know that if you buy a bottom end basic camera you may regret not spending a couple hundred bucks more after you grow out of it. Do yourself a favor and spend the extra couple bucks on a Nikon D5200 or comparable model starting out probably save yourself a lot of time and trouble down the road. The only reason I can understand buying a bottom of the line camera as a good idea is if you really don't have the money for something more expensive or you're not planning on getting serious about it. I wish I would of listened to that advice when I bought my first camera last year, just my 2 cents.

 

[JerryLove]

Conversely: go *really* bottom-end so you don't mind if the money is just "lost to the learning process". My first DSLR cost me about $150 at a pawnshop with bag and kit lens.

 

[minicoop1985]

Conversely: go *really* bottom-end so you don't mind if the money is just "lost to the learning process". My first DSLR cost me about $150 at a pawnshop with bag and kit lens.

My first one was free, and repaired under warranty. Last week I gave it to a friend whose camera quit on her. These deals are out there, just gotta find them. But as mentioned, Maxxum lenses fit Sony Alphas, so I'd grab an old a230 body, as ergonomically horrible as it is. They can be had for $150, kit and all, on eBay, working. Just sold my wife's for $165 I think, actually.

 

[ConradM]

Sony makes great cameras but they are expensive for what you get. I loved getting started with my Nikon D5100 and I have David Busch's book on the D5100 and two practically brand new Nikon batteries for it. I just recently bought the D7100. I can send you a picture if you message me. Great price for a practically brand new camera in excellent condition.

How do you figure? You get much more bang for the buck with Sony as opposed to canon or nikon.

 

[nickthefish]

The D3200 is nice and you can find them cheap refurbished. I got mine for $350 with the kit lens 18-55mm.
I would also recommend getting a good fast lens like the 35mm or 50mm f1.8 if you can. You will need the AF-S if you want autofocus on a D3200.
Also, try getting some dirt cheap manual focus lenses which will make you more aware of exposure, focus and your shooting circumstances. Literally got a Series E 75-150 f3.5 (constant aperture) lens for $9 plus shipping. Manual everything is making me become very good at judging exposure, pre-focussing and all sorts of other fun stuff that photogs used to have to do.