Entry-level, budget dSLR?

[lixuelai]

Originally Posted by soco

I want to say thank you to all of you who have offered advice. I think I'll be checking out the T3i, D3200, and whatever else I can get my hands on. I'm excited!

I'm not going to be buying crazy lenses or anything. I just want a nice camera to learn finer photography with. I do appreciate the lens recommendations though. Thank you!

I asked what I thought was a simpler question, and wound up getting a little scared here lol. I'll keep it simple for now. We'll get complicated and expensive later.



Can you link to this?

Here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._PRO_9000.html

[coy-technocrat]

Originally Posted by fireman32

Go to your local camera store and hold them in your hand. Decide on the one brand that feels comfortable to you. I would also say stick with Cannon or Nikon. I am a Nikon guy and would say the D3200 is the best entry level camera on the Nikon side. The T3i would be on the Cannon side. Good luck and let us know what you decided

I know this doesn't sound scientific but this is a very valid point. About 7-8 years ago when I got my first DSLR I was number crunching and review reading for MONTHS. I was leaning towards Nikon (the D200) over the 40D (I think at the time?) anyway - point is - the thing that sold me on the Nikon was how comfortable the D200 fit in my hand- how everything was laid out, and it felt amazingly solid, etc, etc. It still feels like an extension of my arm... that builds something specs can't give you- confidence and speed. This will obviously be one of those YMWV bits of advice but probably the best way to find out is to go to a camera store (not best buy or something like that) I only say that because a camera shop will have better selection and more than likely a staff that can accurately answer your questions.

When you buy a camera you're also buying into a brand that determines something more important- lenses. Canon or Nikon... in the end both are great professional lenses... but you won't likely be spending 1-2k plus on glass anytime soon so don't sweat brand loyalty just yet as you also wouldn't be using a full frame camera that would really need brand name glass either. So you can stick with the cheaper DX (or whatever glass is cropped specifically for a APSC sensor)... Also when you have APSC you can take advantage of buying cropped glass from Tameron, Tokina (nikon only), and Sigma... for either Nikon or Canon. I know you probably don't want to buy a "crazy lens" yet but I would HIGHLY suggest buying a body only (a DSLR without a lens) online somewhere (recommend B and H photo 100%) and use some of the money you saved and buy a great fast lens like a Tameron 17-50 2.8. It's one of the most versatile lenses I have for my D200 and I think can be had for $500. It's worth it because you will be able to get the results you were thinking about when you buy a DSLR. Kit lenses are thrown into a DSLR box usually because they are worthless in terms of aperture range. You want a lens that has a fixed open (low number like 2.8 not 4.5) aperture for zoom ranges within 200mm. I'm just saying my photography really "opened up" for me when I bought my first prime lens and later when I started investing in 2.8 or better lenses... I don't know what results you are looking for exactly(like if you did action photos you would want a 200mm or 300mm 2.8) But to sum up my last bit of advise. sell plasma, sell something on craigslist, or put it on a credit card- if you buy a decent 2.8 something to something lens you. will. not. regret. it. If the budget IS really tight (i've been there) then get the one with kit lens but buy a nifty fifty (50mm 1.8 for $100... not the 1.4 - those are a few hundred more in price) that lens will work out to be about 85mm on your camera and is a fantastic "nifty" lens that will let a lot of light in and give you silky bokeh). Simply put it's the best value you could possibly get in a lens.

[shawncooper78]

Well it is a great idea to take photography seriously. First of all i would like to tell you that quality of photos does not depend on camera. However it depends on the photographer and his adeptness in using his gear. After buying a camera you should digest the manual thoroughly and click as much as you can because trial and error is the best method to learn. Canon T3i or Nikon D5100 fits to your need. Canon will be the better option as its pretty easy to use for beginners.

[MCAsan]

Remember that a camera manual, that the one for a car, tells you where functions are located and what they do. But a camera manual can not tell you how to do photography any more than a vehicle manual can teach you how to drive.


“How do you get to Carnegie Hall?” “Practice, practice, practice.”

[carter2]

Go with T3i...I am currently using it and having no issues..Its in budget and very helpful for beginners

[zombiecakes]

I'm not going to be buying crazy lenses or anything. I just want a nice camera to learn finer photography with.

You will have a tough time with that using the kit lens. You are overestimating the usefulness of a kit lens, it is fine for taking standard snapshots, but taking "finer photography" with one is something for the experts and definitely not for beginners. A better lens is more versatile, needs FAR less skill to take good pictures with and better to learn with since it can do more.

If your goal is artistic photography a kit lens will do nothing but frustrate you and make you think you cant take good pictures. If you are interested in photography mainly as a cutting edge gadget then get a new body, otherwise get a good lens.

[ctyhntr]

Here are some shots from 'kit' lenses and other cheap $300 lenses.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canonds...3729878/page4/

Its the Indian, not the Arrow.

[js81]

Originally Posted by zombiecakes

You will have a tough time with that using the kit lens. You are overestimating the usefulness of a kit lens

Originally Posted by ctyhntr

Here are some shots from 'kit' lenses... Its the Indian, not the Arrow.

I see both sides. I am NOT an expert photographer; not even close. As most of us probably do, though, I know plenty of complete novices who spend thousands on their setup to get mediocre (at best) shots.

But for someone who is an amateur, who knows the basics but is far from professional (ME! lol), even a slight glass upgrade can make a noticeable difference. Case in point - after (stupidly) getting rid of my 18-55mm kit lens (the only 18mm wide lens I owned), I replaced it with a Sigma 18-50 f2.8-4.5. World. Of. Difference. (And the Sigma is FAR from a high-end lens)

My suggestion: Whatever camera you buy OP, look into a bright prime (probably a 50mm, since they're typically cheap). I paid $75 for a 50mm Minolta f1.7 prime for my Sony, and that was money very well spent. That said, a 35mm prime WOULD be more useful, but cost more money.