Nikon vs. Sony lens-wise (on a budget)

ArtFreak · Dec 30, 2013

I am inlove with photography and ready to upgrade from my point-and-shoot Nikon p500 to a DSLR.
I have been doing research and reading reviews on cameras almost constantly for the past few weeks (my family thinks I am insane :lol:

). Basically, I have come to the conclusion that the lenses are really what is important for image quality and so forth, and that as long as you have a decent camera body not to stress too much over which one it is. I can't afford to spend a lot of money on lenses or a camera body right now, but would have to build up a collection of lenses over time. The cameras that I am most interested in are the Nikon d3200, the Nikon d5200 and the Sony a65. I have heard that Sony can be a bad company to buy cameras from because they have a limited amount of lenses available and you are stuck with only their compatible lenses. BUT I also noticed that both the Nikons in my price range that I am considering lack an auto focus motor, so that the lenses used with these cameras would have to have an internal motor IN the lens to be able to use AF (which is a big deal to me because most of the portraits that I do are of small children who rarely hold still long enough for MF). Lenses with built in AF-S seem to cost more, and having to buy this type to be able to use AF would also limit my choice of lenses. The Sony a65 has an AF motor in the camera body and is compatible with old Minolta lenses.
So here comes the question...would it smarter (bang for your buck wise, but not sacrificing image quality) to go with a bigger camera brand like Nikon that has more lenses available, or with Sony and buy old Minolta lenses without having to worry whether they are AF-S?
I have also heard many negative things about the a65 and low light, but is that something that can be fixed with the right lens? Or are the Nikon options really superior?
Thanks in advance for any advice, suggestions, opinions or experiences you are willing to share! I am very excited to be diving into the world of DSLRs (or in Sony a65s case DSLT) but there is just so many options and so much information out there that it can be overwhelming! :study:

dxqcanada · Dec 30, 2013

There are a lot of good Minolta A-mount lenses still floating around for fair prices.
... and Yes, Sony does not have the greatest assortment of lenses, but they have some nice G and Zeiss lenses ... which doesn't do you any good if you are on an under $1000 budget.

Most will tell you to go with Nikon vs Sony ... I really can't tell you as I have never owned a Nikon.

astroNikon · Dec 30, 2013

Have you thought of a used nikon d7000?
you get your focus motor and a great camera
that was my route andi bought older AF-D lenses
the kit 18-105 is really nice too

robbins.photo · Dec 30, 2013

ArtFreak said:
I am inlove with photography and ready to upgrade from my point-and-shoot Nikon p500 to a DSLR.
I have been doing research and reading reviews on cameras almost constantly for the past few weeks (my family thinks I am insane ). Basically, I have come to the conclusion that the lenses are really what is important for image quality and so forth, and that as long as you have a decent camera body not to stress too much over which one it is. I can't afford to spend a lot of money on lenses or a camera body right now, but would have to build up a collection of lenses over time. The cameras that I am most interested in are the Nikon d3200, the Nikon d5200 and the Sony a65. I have heard that Sony can be a bad company to buy cameras from because they have a limited amount of lenses available and you are stuck with only their compatible lenses. BUT I also noticed that both the Nikons in my price range that I am considering lack an auto focus motor, so that the lenses used with these cameras would have to have an internal motor IN the lens to be able to use AF (which is a big deal to me because most of the portraits that I do are of small children who rarely hold still long enough for MF). Lenses with built in AF-S seem to cost more, and having to buy this type to be able to use AF would also limit my choice of lenses. The Sony a65 has an AF motor in the camera body and is compatible with old Minolta lenses.
So here comes the question...would it smarter (bang for your buck wise, but not sacrificing image quality) to go with a bigger camera brand like Nikon that has more lenses available, or with Sony and buy old Minolta lenses without having to worry whether they are AF-S?
I have also heard many negative things about the a65 and low light, but is that something that can be fixed with the right lens? Or are the Nikon options really superior?
Thanks in advance for any advice, suggestions, opinions or experiences you are willing to share! I am very excited to be diving into the world of DSLRs (or in Sony a65s case DSLT) but there is just so many options and so much information out there that it can be overwhelming! :study:

Well I own a Nikon and given your budget, I'd recommend the Nikon. The reason for that is that Nikon is a more common brand than Sony - now I have nothing against Sony mind you, from what I understand they make a fine camera, however if your looking to get the most bang for your buck you'll most likely want to go used or refurbished, and frankly the used market is much stronger for Nikon than Sony because there are just so many more people out there who own Nikon, and when they upgrade they sell off their old gear which means you can get some really great deals particularly on used lenses. Nikon's bodies will also usually have better low light performance when compared to a Sony body in the same price range, when it comes to lower noise at high ISO the Nikon is usually the better choice.

If you really want something with the built in auto focus motor you do have some options, a used D300 for example would probably be in your price range and give you the built in autofocus motor. The other option would be a D7000, at the moment you can usually get a used one on Ebay for pretty close to the same price as a D5200. As for me I use a D5100 myself, and at least so far I haven't really missed not having a built in af motor - the AF-S lenses work wonderfully, they focus fast and accurate and they really produce great photos. Eventually I'll most likely upgrade to a D7100, but for now the D5100 has been doing the job admirably so I just haven't had the need to upgrade yet myself. Nice thing is you can always do what I did, start with a something more entry level and get a few lenses, then upgrade the body later.

If your interested in getting a telephoto lens I'd highly recommend the Nikon 70-300 mm VR 4.5-5.6, as far as image quality is concerned it's pretty much impossible to beat in it's class and price range. The D3200 is a nice camera, but I generally don't recommend them if you think you'll be getting serious about photography, they are a fine entry level camera and something that would probably serve you well if you were just taking pictures on an infrequent basis, but I think you'll find you'll outgrow it pretty quickly once you get pretty serious about taking pictures. So something in the 5x or 7x range would probably be the better option.

Hope that helps, be more than happy to expand on any of the various models listed above if you have more questions.

ArtFreak · Jan 4, 2014

Thanks everybody! I have been reading up on the Nikon D7000 and it looks just about perfect for me. I would have to buy it used though (my budget for the camera body is 600-700 tops) is there anywhere in particular online that is safest to buy used or refurbished cameras? Is Ebay a bad idea because it would have no sort of warranty?

Derrel · Jan 4, 2014

KEH.com deals heavily in used equipment and has established a truly exemplary return/replacement record over many,many years. Their grading system is also very conservative.

Roberts Imaging in Texas is a fine, honest dealer. Cameta Camera in New York state is another fine dealer that sells a LOT of refurbished Nikon equipment.

Adorama and B&H Photo in NYC are mega-stores that many people really like.

ArtFreak · Jan 4, 2014

looking at used cameras I keep seeing 'shutter count' listed. I guess this is the number of pictures taken with the camera? How important is this? For instance I found a d7000 on ebay for $545 with a 'shutter actuation count' of 8,270. Another D7000 is on KEH.com for $546, it is listed as being in excellent condition but is used and does not list shutter count. The ebay one comes with 18-55mm f3.5 lens and from what I understand the KEH.com camera is body only.
[h=1] [/h]

robbins.photo · Jan 5, 2014

ArtFreak said:
looking at used cameras I keep seeing 'shutter count' listed. I guess this is the number of pictures taken with the camera? How important is this? For instance I found a d7000 on ebay for $545 with a 'shutter actuation count' of 8,270. Another D7000 is on KEH.com for $546, it is listed as being in excellent condition but is used and does not list shutter count. The ebay one comes with 18-55mm f3.5 lens and from what I understand the KEH.com camera is body only.

8,2500 is a pretty low shutter count for a used camera, the shutter mechanisms are actually rated for 150,000 actuations - meaning that the ones they test usually last at least that long if not longer.