What lenses do you want to buy? How many lenses are you going to buy? I have more lenses than most (including SLR lenses on an adapter fitted to the NEX) as most people seem to get around with a kit lens or possibly one other.
I'd had a few Sony Alpha SLT cameras and really like them. Very good image quality, built-in GPS and many 3rd-party lens makers make lenses for them. I know Sony SLTs aren't as popular as Nikon and Canon, but shouldn't be ruled out. I'd say that I'm a rebel, but then I'd be a Canon. Ba-dum-sch
What lenses do you want to buy? How many lenses are you going to buy? I have more lenses than most (including SLR lenses on an adapter fitted to the NEX) as most people seem to get around with a kit lens or possibly one other.
If someone buys a dSLR but only gets/uses the kit lens, I would argue they should have bought a compact, not a dSLR or mirrorless. There are great compacts out there, with good range, a quality lens, and full manual control if needed.
The whole idea of milc and dslr is that you change lenses.
I chose the Fuji X-E1 over the NEX for myself. The Fuji X range cameras have excellent IQ, portability and a growing number of good quality lenses at reasonable prices plus there are adapters for other makes of lens. Worth checking out.
Once you decide what you want to buy check out www.citiwideonline.com this has the best online camera prices I have found. But it is always worth checking local suppliers particularly for superseded models which are often sold at significant discounts
I chose the Fuji X-E1 over the NEX for myself. The Fuji X range cameras have excellent IQ, portability and a growing number of good quality lenses at reasonable prices plus there are adapters for other makes of lens. Worth checking out.
Yeah, I've been looking at them, too. More expensive system to buy into than the NEX, but in all the reviews I've read, people are pretty unanimous in how much they love them.
If someone buys a dSLR but only gets/uses the kit lens, I would argue they should have bought a compact, not a dSLR or mirrorless. There are great compacts out there, with good range, a quality lens, and full manual control if needed...
I think changing the lens is ONE advantage of the SLR. The other is the very fast handing and near zero shutter lag. and then the larger sensor. Even the APS-C or DX size sensore a huge compared to what is inside a compact camera so the noise you get in low light is much better with the SLR. Next the SLR will have many of the functions exposed on buttons and not so many down inside menus, faster to get at.
But if you have the SLR it's kind of a waste not to at least pick up a faster f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens.
I was looking for a dslr before taking a very scenic UK trip in a few weeks. I wanted something with decent water resistance so I could get any shot I wanted and have the piece if mind of no damage if it drizzled at all. I purchased a Pentax K-30 with a highly rated 18-135mm water resistant lens. The camera is FAR better than I expected. The pictures are amazing! I believe it's the only camera below $1000 with dual adjustament wheels which has been great for learning to become good at photography. If you will every want to take pictures when it's wet outside or at the beach don't overlook Pentax. I'm very glad I didn't.
The problem with them is the limited range of lenses - or you have to use adaptors.
The DSLR is also a quite fast and feels more natural to use in all conditions.
In any case, even a used D90 Nikon with some really good lenses will give you excellent results. Now I'm biased since I'm a Nikon shop as far as my camera gear, but I've used Canon before and still understand them pretty well.
I started out with a Nikon D3200 and can assure you that it's a great camera. It actually performs well beyond what a beginner can possibly need. The only reason I would recommend it over the D3100 is because of the better sensor and updated tech, and the price difference isn't that big.
Like everyone else before me, I will say the same thing: camera lens > camera body. I recommend getting the camera body only + the new Sigma 17-70mm. It's a very versatile lens and probably the only lens you'll need for a while. In my opinion, you'll find more benefit in this lens because you get:
larger apertures (f/2.8-4.0 vs f/3.5-5.6)
larger focal range (17-70mm vs 18-55mm)
it has macro capability (Nikon's kit lens doesn't)
like Nikon's 18-55mm, the Sigma has optical stabilization (Nikon calls it VR) and a focusing motor that'll allow it to autofocus with entry-level DSLRs, such as the D3200
I know - from firsthand experience - that focal range and aperture numbers can seem trivial in the beginning but they make a HUGE difference. On paper, 3.5 isn't that much bigger than 2.8 but when you're trying to shoot in low light, you'll see just how big a difference it makes. This lens costs $499 and if you get a good deal on the camera body you should be able to stay pretty close to your budget. You can read more about the lens here.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
First thing you need to do is play around with a Canon and a Nikon and see which menu system you like best. Other than that, they're basically the same quality.. so brand means nothing between the two.