Hello all,
I'm a graphic designer and I'm looking to get into photography as a hobby and hopefully later as a little side job. I'm obviously a beginner in photography so I'm looking for a good DSLR camera to start. I don't want the beginner beginner cameras or the super expensive professional ones (like the 5D mark III) but one in the middle. I want a good one so that I can learn all the settings and stuff. I was looking at the Canon 70d or the 60d, but not I'm not sure. That's why I turned to you guys since you guys know more than me.
Can you guys help me and help recommend a good one? Thanks!
First of all, you need to think a lot about ergonomics before you start. Do you really have the gumption to haul a DSLR and 2-3 lenses around every time you want to shoot? If you get at all serious, expand that to a DSLR, tripod, 3-5 flash units, 5-8 lenses, 2-3 extra batteries...
If the answer to that is honestly "yes," then forget all your preconceived notions about "beginner." A DSLR is a body, power source and sensor. The price delta between "beginner" and "intermediate" is normally stuff that makes it "easier" to access manual settings, or the capability at all. Furthermore, cameras like the 5DmkIII are actually "prosumer" bodies, the professional bodies cost much more. But the difference between the entry level bodies and the pro bodies are things that are mostly corner cases and durability. If you treat your camera well, the only durability issue is shutter life if you purchase used.
Now, the next issue is brand. There are essentially three brand choices: Canon, Nikon and "Not Canon or Nikon." The first two own the lion's share of the DSLR market. As top dogs, they have the option of pricing and releasing what they want, when they want and where they want it. Everyone else has to offer more value for the same amount of money. If you want access to a wide range of 3rd party accessories (especially flashes and flash triggers,) the ability to borrow or rent lenses, a wider lense assortment and an easy resale and used lens market, your only logical choice is to go with one of the big two. If you're quirky and non-conformist, or if you don't like big players, or if you want a lot of features not offered at a low price point by the big two, then look carefully at the other players- but choose wisely if you do.
Ok, so now we get to "Canon or Nikon?" That is, of course if we haven't lost you to a third brand.
Advantages: Nikon- Eats its parents.
Nikon- Lens compatibility.
Nikon- Noise (today, it switches brands as sensor generations come out.)
Canon- Warranty, especially internationally.
Canon- Better tilt/shift lens options, though they're outside your budget.
Canon- Popularity (You're more likely to have a friend who has one.)
If you travel a lot internationally and expect to someday move out of the consumer-grade cameras, then Canon is the easy choice. If you think you'll just grab the next well-priced body, then the first advantage I list for Nikon needs explaining. Nikon has happily release consumer-level and prosumer-level DSLRs that have features that outperform their last generation of professional DSLRs. They don't seem to mind outclassing a $3500+ camera body when the technology is ready but the high-end refresh isn't.
A bit on lens compatibility. Nikon lenses made since about 1977 work on every body they produce with a couple of exceptions that don't really matter. That makes for a huge pool of older lenses on the used market. Some of those lenses still perform very well, so if you think you'll eventually want some old, heavy but cheaper than new glass, it's a bonus. More importantly, both Nikon and Canon started out making DSLRs with "crop" sensors- and all the consumer models and some of the professional models are or were crop bodies. Nikon's crop lenses (DX in Nikon parlance) fit and work in "crop mode" on Nikon's "full-frame" (FX in Nikon parlance) bodies. Canon's crop lenses are incompatible with Canon's full-frame bodies. So if you see yourself going to a larger sensor in the future and may want to use a specialty lens, like an ultra-wide angle that you've purchased in the intervening years, then it's a good feature.
Now for a caveat that may be obvious- I shoot Nikon and have since the late '80's. There was a period of time in the 90's where I'd have changed if I could have, and now there's no way I'd change- each vendor gains an advantage here and there for a period of time. For example, there was a period of time where Canon's multi-thousand dollar super-telephotos were cheaper than Nikon's by the price of a pro camera body! Last time I seriously hunted, that situation was almost exactly reversed.
Let's just revisit that "entry level" assumption again.
A $1700 lens on a $600 body will outperform a $600 lens on a $1700 body under 98% of shooting conditions. Inside that 2% it will matter greatly what features either body has.
There are a couple of other things to think about:
Ergonomics: Especially if you have smaller hands, how a body fits and balances and how easy it is to change common setting while you're shooting may be important. Once you get used to a particular set of ergonomics, then it's easier to shoot that vendor's line without thinking. If you have the chance, go fondle potential candidates as well as their brethren in a vendor's lineup to see how they "fit" you.
Used: You can save a heck of a lot of money getting a generation or two's older body and used lenses. With the body, the big things are (a) a chance to test it and (b) knowing how many shutter activations it's had. With a lens, the big thing is the ability to take and analyze test shots, or at least look at shots taken with the specific lens.
Paul
