Too much for a beginner?

bentcountershaft · Nov 28, 2009

As a beginner looking to purchase his first DSLR I've been reading reviews and suggestions like crazy. At some point in most any of these is a comparison to the next model up. It seems the entry level market is flooded with options that "for a couple hundred more you could have..." that eventually leads you our of the entry level and into Canon 7D or Nikon D300 territory. I'm not necessarily looking for suggestions on what to purchase, but on what should be considered too much camera for the average beginner with zero slr experience or if there is such a thing.

Would the array of options and features on a modern full frame confuse someone like me to the point of hindering my abilities? Not that I'm considering that but just for use as an extreme example. Say, for the sake of argument I decide to go with a Nikon and I don't want something without an in body focus motor so I'm relegated to a D90 or above. Too much too soon? I'm guessing there must be some point to where the ability of the camera so out weighs the ability of the photographer that it's more hindersome than advantageous. It's like learning to drive. I wouldn't have wanted to learn in a Lamborghini but I didn't learn in an old Pinto either. I'm just hoping to get something that I can learn on and still be satisfied with for a long time.

Markw · Nov 28, 2009

My first SLR was the Nikon N65 35mm. I loved it. My first DSLR was the Nikon D90. I would definately say go for it. It is an amazing camera, and not nearly too hard for a beginner. Read on here, the people are great and will help you with anything you need.

Mark

Provo · Nov 28, 2009

D90 is a good camera I would like to save up for a d700 or d3 series

KevinACrider · Nov 28, 2009

I started with a D40 and after 3 months I'm already looking into the D90. Mainly for AF support on the 50mm f1.8 lens and for the battery grip support.

I would suggest a D90 and if you outgrow it look into the D3.

Markw · Nov 28, 2009

I have now had the D90 for about a year, have since bought both the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and the battery grip. Amazing combo. I absolutely love it. I am thinking about saving up for a D3 or similar also. Itll be a while before I save all that much up, but its a definate possibility. I wouls ay the D90 is a great camera for your first camera.

Mark

KmH · Nov 28, 2009

bentcountershaft said:
As a beginner looking to purchase his first DSLR I've been reading reviews and suggestions like crazy. At some point in most any of these is a comparison to the next model up. It seems the entry level market is flooded with options that "for a couple hundred more you could have..." that eventually leads you our of the entry level and into Canon 7D or Nikon D300 territory. I'm not necessarily looking for suggestions on what to purchase, but on what should be considered too much camera for the average beginner with zero slr experience or if there is such a thing.

Would the array of options and features on a modern full frame confuse someone like me to the point of hindering my abilities? Not that I'm considering that but just for use as an extreme example. Say, for the sake of argument I decide to go with a Nikon and I don't want something without an in body focus motor so I'm relegated to a D90 or above. Too much too soon? I'm guessing there must be some point to where the ability of the camera so out weighs the ability of the photographer that it's more hindersome than advantageous. It's like learning to drive. I wouldn't have wanted to learn in a Lamborghini but I didn't learn in an old Pinto either. I'm just hoping to get something that I can learn on and still be satisfied with for a long time.

It's better to have a camera body you can grow into than one you'll be wanting to upgrade from in 4 months. That has happened to several regular posters on these forums, with them buying 4 different cameras in a years time.

Many have settled on the D90. It has good image quality, decent ISO performance and has all the basic features like CLS and auto bracketing, even if they are somewhat limited in performance. The D90 is still an entry-level digital SLR, though it's the top of the entry-level segment of the model lineup.

Many people make a big issue of the D40/D40xD60/D3000/D5000 not having a focus motor in the body. None, not one, of Canon's cameras has a focus motor in the body. There are a handful of prime lenses (designated AF) in Nikons line up that have to be manually focused on the above listed bodies. It's not that big a deal. The vast majority of Nikon lenses are AF-S meaning they have a focus motor in the lens and auto focus nicely on all the entry level Nikons.

I have a D60 and use AF lenses on it all the time (the D60 isn't my only Nikon body). AF lenses send distance info to the camera CPU and light up the in-focus indicator in the viewfinder. Works just fine for me.

Gaerek · Nov 28, 2009

The big thing to remember is that you're not really buying just a camera, you're buying into a camera/lens system. By far, most of your money will likely be spent on glass. I would rather have awesome glass on a lower end body than bad glass on a high end body. When you're talking about most shooting situations (decent light, 400 an below ISO, etc) it can be nearly impossible to tell if a shot was taken with a D3 or a D40. Pixel peepers could probably tell the difference, but with a web resolution image, it's going to be tough.

I think a D90 or a 50D with good glass will do you a lot more good than a D300 or 7D with not so good glass. Will a better body help? Of course it will. But good lenses is where the real difference is made.

PatrickHMS · Nov 28, 2009

Gaerek said:
Will a better body help? Of course it will. But good lenses is where the real difference is made.

There must be a lot more people than I thought who can just up and spend $1,000.00 on a camera body to start with.

That's a lot of money to many people out there.

Look at that thread of photos taken with D40 to see what it can do.

Camera bodies are disposable. Good glass is for keeps, and and a quality fast lens will always hold its' value.

bentcountershaft · Nov 28, 2009

Thank you all for taking the time to reply as it's given me plenty to think about. I'm definitely trying to look at it as a long term choice between the two lens systems. One of the reasons I have been considering the D90 was that I'm hoping lenses without focus motors would equal cheaper purchase prices. I'm still considering the Canons as well though almost because the availability of the in body motor isn't available anyway so there is no reason to go hog wild on my first body. I know, my reasoning is chock full of contradictions :lol:

. And as far as being able to afford $1000 on a first body I can only say this: I can afford to wait and save more. I can get by with my p&s for a few extra months if necessary. What I can't afford is to make a bad decision. Thanks again to you all.

Moodyville-ain · Nov 28, 2009

Those who throw $1000 or more on a body are usually professionals who are making a business investment. To them its not an option, its a must have. Its all a matter of what you are going to use it as. Me personally I can't justify that much money, because to me it's a hobby.

My advice is to buy what you can comfortably afford. Even though I'm no expert, I can say without a doubt, you should invest more in lenses, then body.

If I could go back, I would buy a camera body only, and get a good lens. The kit lens will frustrate you, to no end. The small savings you get from body only, is worth it in the end.

ANDS! · Nov 28, 2009

None, not one, of Canon's cameras has a focus motor in the body.

Thats not a fair comparison - at all. While Canon may have changed mounting systems, rendering their older lenses unusable with newer cameras, at least someone buying into the Canon brand doesn't have to worry about whether or not AF will work on their camera if they stick to compatible lenses. For Nikon users, even if a lens will mount doesn't mean it'll AF.

To the OP, if you have the ability to, nothing wrong with waiting. If someone HAS to have a camera now then an entry level camera with lenses that will last awhile is also a fine choice. But if you can wait, do so and get a camera (D300 hell even a D700 is fine) that will be there for awhile, especially once the prices start dropping.

Wolverinepwnes · Nov 28, 2009

i started on the D90!!!!! its an amazing camera, and you will learn a ton with it!!! so go for it and don't hesitate, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise! you will love it!

Markw · Nov 28, 2009

No. Hesitate, think, then rethink. Start right or dont start. Starting right is starting with what is good for you. If the D90 is good for you, great. I love it too. If not, so be it. Taking the little more time and thinking things through helps dramatically in the long run.

Mark