Which SLR for a beginner/entry level

[LGShepherd]

Wow! Thanks for all of the posts and advice!! I didn't expect such fantastic help (you tend to get grief when you're a newbie in something on forums, well, you do from my experience)

I am going to have a wander down to a few shops at the weekend and do what every one has suggested.

As a beginner, I know whatever I buy won't make the most amount of difference like it would for all of the professionals on this board, but I do want to get the best thing for me.

I am swaying toward the Nikon, but not for any particular reason, but just a gut feeling and this may not be wise. Some would argue that this may be a good thing as you have to comfortable with what you use etc, but I will not be buying anything quickly as I need it to be right.

Thanks again everyone!

 

[JackHobbs]

I am very happy with my camera which is a Canon. That said when I bought my first DSLR I really fancied buying a Nikon. Mainly so I could walk around with a camera strap saying Nikon and for no other particular reason. In the end I went with a Canon 350D as it was getting better reviews at the time. I then bought some lenses and therefore was more committed to the Canon system. Several upgrades later I am still a Canon user. I still sort of hanker for a Nikon but ... I do love my camera!
Whatever you buy enjoy it.

 

[classicaliberal]

I'd recommend you stick with the Micro Four Thirds format...

You get all the lens switching benefits of DSLRs, but your equipment will be cheaper, much smaller, and all of the old legacy equipment for sale on Ebay, etc. will work with micro four thirds... unlike CAnon which only uses canon lenses or Nikon which only uses Nikon.

I'd recommend the Panasonic GH2 or Olympus M5. If you want portable, go with the Panasonic GX1.

 

[ChrisA]

...
I am swaying toward the Nikon, but not for any particular reason, but just a gut feeling and this may not be wise. Some would argue that this may be a good thing as you have to comfortable with what you use etc, but I will not be buying anything quickly as I need it to be right....

The reason to select a Nikon over Canon or vice versa is because you have looked over the selection of lenses each company makes the maybe you see that a used Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 is a great value on the used market for $600 and getting the same lens from Canon costs double at least. Or maybe there is some Canon lens that you want. Or maybe you like the Nikon flash system

In other words the brand of the body will force you to always in the future buy that same brand. In the end you will spend MUCH more then the price of an entry level DSLR body on the system.

Figure out what you might buy in the first five years and plan ahead.

The one thing you do NOT want to do is choose a brand based on the specs of one SLR body. You will upgrade that body sooner than you think but switching brands is expensive if you have to dump a large collection of parts.

 

[ChrisA]

Really good glass (lenses) on a basic camera body will make better images than crappy glass on the most expensive camera body. Over the course of owning a camera system you will spend way more on lenses than on the camera body.

It's the same with HiFi stereos. Beginners worry about which amplifier to buy when it hardly matters compared to (1) the speakers and (2) how the room itself is treated and (3) the location of the speakers and the listener. But what does every beginner do? Spend all the budget of electronics, buy cheap spears and then put them where ever they fit in the room without much thought.

For some reason people LIKE SLR bodies and stereo amps, even if they matter the least.

For kid photos you will want a "fast" lens, one that goes to f/2.8 at least and you will want one that focuses quickly. The two go together. Mostly this is to blur out the backgrounds. With a posed formal portrait you can select a background but with fast moving kids you can't and it is best to blur it out by using a shallow DOF. An f/5.6 kit lens "ain't no way gonna do that." I like to use either my 50 f/1.4 or the 85mm f/1.8. I really like my 85mm in a larger room. No zoom but I have working feet.

 

[Dark Goob]

SLRs are obsolete, get an SLT or mirrorless. With SLRs you are Paying for a useless mirror to flap around needlessly creating vibration.

Best values today: SLT-A35 sony, SLT-A57; Olympus E-PL3 or E-PM1 or clearance E-PL2; Sony NEX-5N or NEX-C3; Panasonic G3, GF2, clearance GH1.

 

[Clix Pix]

Chris is right and I want to reiterate the points he and others have been making:

1) it's the lenses in a system which are far more significant than the camera body

2) in shooting an active young child, whether it be indoors or outdoors, you'll need and want the fastest lens you can afford

3) it is important how a camera body feels in the hand, where the controls are, if everything falls into place naturally for you during use, if the menu system is easy to figure out and navigate, etc.

4) as mentioned, the Nikon D3100 (and the newer D3200) work with AF-S lenses as far as autofocus; other AF lenses will need to be manually focused because this camera does not have an internal screw motor drive. Nikon has issued the basic lenses in AF-S so that is not as much of an issue as it might seem. For instance, there is the very nice, fast 50mm f/1.8, the fast 35mm f/1.8, etc.

5) zoom lenses are very useful but don't overlook the value of a good prime lens, especially a fast one. While the kit lens that comes with the D3100/3200 is pretty decent, it's also not a very fast lens, which would become apparent when shooting in low light conditions.

In other words, think about the kind of shooting situations you're likely to engage in, and where, and what kinds of results you'd like to have. Portraits of your child that you can print and frame? Photos of family trips? Scenic views around your home area?

In addition to considering camera gear, don't forget that you will also need to purchase software for the computer in order to process the images. iPhoto is OK, but it is really lacking in some ways, so many people choose a specific editing program such as Photoshop Elements, Aperture, Lightroom, etc....

As far as the new four-thirds (4/3) or other mirrorless camera systems that are available today, yes, that is another possibility that you should check out. Most of them are not quite as quick as a DSLR but there is minimal shutter lag, certainly far better than in any point-and-shoot. With mirrorless cameras again you have the flexibility of interchangeable lenses, and that is truly valuable. With many of the new cameras you can purchase an adapter and then use older "legacy" lenses. More and more photographers who have long used DSLR systems are adding a mirrorless camera and lens(es) to their gear, as often the lighter weight, smaller camera does nearly as well as the heavier and bulkier DSLR.

I have been shooting for years and have accumulated lenses along the way which I use on my Nikon D3 and D300. I also have recently added the D3200 and the Sony NEX-7 to my gear. Frankly, I love the Sony NEX-7 to death -- it's a marvelous little gem and the image quality I'm getting is quite impressive. However, in shooting wildlife, even the ducks and geese around home, I still prefer to have a DSLR and longer lens(es) in my hands.

Affordability: as others have said, I'll reiterate: put your money into a good lens and don't worry a lot about the camera body itself, as in a few years you'll want something else and yet you'll still have that good lens to put on it.

Good luck!

 

[Cheffy Dave]

I gave my daughter the D 3100 for her trip to England. She took over 800 stunning photos, seems she is a bit of a natural for photography, who knew?

 

[elppa]

There are lots of "pro-sumer" models available. These are models that don't have interchangeable lenses, but instead have a single optical zoom lense. Not as flexible as an SLR, but better than an iPhone. And cheaper. And smaller than an SLR.

I don't see the appeal of these so called bridge cameras. They nearly all use the same small sensor found in a point and shoot. So you aren't getting any great step up in terms of image quality. And the lenses aren't generally that fast. Even worse, you can typically pick up a entry level compact system camera for the same sort of money.

Sony NEX lenses are inferior, but as a beginner, you might not notice that or care.

Some NEX lenses are "inferior". Some are excellent.

 

[fa8362]

Some NEX lenses are "inferior". Some are excellent.

I doubt that any are excellent.

 

[elppa]

I doubt that any are excellent.

And why would you doubt that? Based on what?
Some of the lenses have received very favourable reviews.

 

[snberk103]

I don't see the appeal of these so called bridge cameras. They nearly all use the same small sensor found in a point and shoot. So you aren't getting any great step up in terms of image quality. And the lenses aren't generally that fast. Even worse, you can typically pick up a entry level compact system camera for the same sort of money.
...

They are attractive for some simply because they are a "bridge". Recall that the OP is moving up from a cell phone camera. One of the huge advantages of a cell phone cam is that it is usually handy and easy to use. There is no question that a DSLR is capable of generally producing better photos, when used correctly and competently. However, due to the increased complexity of using the system, many cameras don't get used at all. So, in end, they don't take any photos at all... good or bad.

My reasoning was simply that the OP wants to get better photos of their family. One does not need to invest in a DSLR to a get 'better' photos... you can get better photos with a camera that lives in a drawer and is dead easy to use. And that actually gets used. Are they going to be the "best" photos in the world? ... maybe not... but they will be better photos than any photo missed because it was too cumbersome to pull the big camera out.

Also.... without knowing the OP, I am not advising that this the best course to take.... just that they should consider it as an option. Only the OP knows how committed they want to be to photography.

 

[fa8362]

And why would you doubt that? Based on what?
Some of the lenses have received very favourable reviews.

I still doubt it. I investigated the NEX awhile back and at the time, all the available lenses were mediocre or worse.

----------

However, due to the increased complexity of using the system, many cameras don't get used at all. So, in end, they don't take any photos at all... good or bad.

Most anyone can get good photos in most photographic situations with a DSLR by using the P Mode. The P Mode has been available on cameras since the 70s. All you have to do is turn the camera on, turn the dial to P and press the shutter. The camera does the rest.

 

[snberk103]

...
Most anyone can get good photos in most photographic situations with a DSLR by using the P Mode. The P Mode has been available on cameras since the 70s. All you have to do is turn the camera on, turn the dial to P and press the shutter. The camera does the rest.

Yes they can, though what's the point of a full-fledged DSLR then? Most of the students I teach are in a similar situation as the OP. Want to take better photos - moved right up to a good DSLR - and now are struggling to figure it out. They can just turn the thing to P - but because they now have this fancy-shmancy camera they feel that they have learn how to fully use it. Some do.... and I'm pleased as punch when I see their images in the annual Camera Club show (opened last night, btw). Most just end storing the thing.

The other thing about a DSLR is that it's big. It usually doesn't fit in a drawer, or a small bag. So, when there is a candid family moment happening you can't just reach into a kitchen drawer you have to go and get the thing.

I think what is happening in this discussion is that I am focussing [pun!] on the psychology of camera ownership as much as the tech specs. And, as stated in the 1st post, I think the psychology is that the OP may find that they use a bridge camera far more often than a full DSLR. The best camera is always the one that gets used...not the one sitting in storage.

 

[Clix Pix]

I still doubt it. I investigated the NEX awhile back and at the time, all the available lenses were mediocre or worse.

Maybe you'd better get with the times, then, as I can assure you from personal experience that the three lenses I have for my NEX-7 are all excellent: the 30mm macro, the 50mm f/1.8 and the 18-200mm. Eventually I'll be getting the 24mm f/1.8 (made by Zeiss). To be fair, though, yes, I have heard that the "kit" lens is merely so-so and there are some users who are not fond of the 16mm pancake lens. I bought the camera body-only so I didn't bother with the kit lens, since I knew I'd have a lens which would cover that range and more. I don't do a lot of shooting with wider perspectives, so didn't even look at the 16mm pancake. Those three lenses I have have been more than satisfactory and I look forward to more e-mount lenses coming along in the future. If there is something else that I want/need to shoot which wouldn't be covered by those lenses, there is the option of purchasing an adapter and using some of my excellent Nikon lenses, or simply using a Nikon lens on one of my Nikon bodies, too.

 

[kaielement]

I used to sell cameras and I know a ton about them. I would say if you want to go low and still want quality I would stay with cannon. I would look at the t2i or t3i. The t3i does 1080p and the t2i does 720p so if video is important that is something to think about. The t3i also has a movable screen with is cool. You can usually find them used for good deals on ebay and what not. This is just my two cents. Hope this helps.

----------

Oh and about the Nex's if you are worried about lens you can get adapters that fit canon, nikon, and sony's alpha slr lens. Just a thought.

 

[wingnut8]

I used to sell cameras and I know a ton about them. I would say if you want to go low and still want quality I would stay with cannon. I would look at the t2i or t3i. The t3i does 1080p and the t2i does 720p so if video is important that is something to think about. The t3i also has a movable screen with is cool. You can usually find them used for good deals on ebay and what not. This is just my two cents. Hope this helps.

----------

Oh and about the Nex's if you are worried about lens you can get adapters that fit canon, nikon, and sony's alpha slr lens. Just a thought.

The t2i does 1080p as well...

 

[Prodo123]

Here's my advice. Get an entry-level DSLR, like the D5100 or the T3i (otherwise known as 600D). I'd stay away from the four-digit Canons as they are practically point-and-shoots with interchangeable lenses. If your budget is low, get the D3200 or the T2i (550D).
If shooting video, between the T2i and T3i, I would go with the T2i. This is because it's much more compatible with Magic Lantern, which ever since I installed it I cannot live without. Focus peak, intervalometer, "Magic Zoom", and movie mode remap are among the most-used features on my ML T2i.
If stills only, I'd still go with a non-swivel T2i. Swivel screens tend to let users depend on the Live View much more, which sort of defeats the purpose of getting a DSLR, doesn't it?

Good lenses are better than good cameras. I'm assuming you'll want to carry around only one lens, as that will be the most convenient option. In that case I recommend paying the extra money to get the 18-135mm lens kit for Canon or body only D5100 with 18-105mm lens. This combo will give you the best setup for the buck. Both Canon and Nikon will cost around $1000 or less at B&H.

My current setup is a T2i with a 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, with Magic Lantern for extra but indispensable features. I debated over getting a 7D or this lens, but settled on the lens as it's much more useful.

 

[fa8362]

Maybe you'd better get with the times, then, as I can assure you from personal experience that the three lenses I have for my NEX-7 are all excellent: the 30mm macro, the 50mm f/1.8 and the 18-200mm.

Your personal experience is worth nothing to me. On the internet, people rate junk highly all the time. I'm not saying the Sony lens is junk, because I've never used it, but I certainly am not going to trust you about it. And neither should anyone else.

 

[Prodo123]

Your personal experience is worth nothing to me. On the internet, people rate junk highly all the time. I'm not saying the Sony lens is junk, because I've never used it, but I certainly am not going to trust you about it. And neither should anyone else.

I think a person who has actually used the camera is more trustworthy than a person who has no idea what he's talking about.
NEX cameras are great in their own respect. They are the only APS-C sized sensor MILC cameras. Which means they can achieve shallow depth of field compared to Micro Four Thirds cameras. Also, when used with the more expensive α mount converter, NEX cameras can do full-time phase detection autofocus. Now that's something all DSLR movie shooters will be jealous of.
Carl Zeiss makes amazing lenses for Sony cameras. For example, the Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM.

Having held a NEX-7 and played around with it in my local camera shop, I can personally tell you it and its lesser counterparts' build quality is superb. Design is, as expected of Sony, very sleek and reminiscent of Carl Zeiss lenses. The NEX-7 is very ergonomic with its dual wheel, which in concept is similar to Nikon's dual wheel design. I'm not a fan of EVFs, but out of the bunch the NEX line has the best ones.

If these personal testimonies do not matter to you then you can live in your own ignorance.

@OP these Sony MILCs are awesome. They won't replace DSLRs for a long time but they are fantastic cameras. In no way are they "bridge" cameras like the Olympus PEN cameras, which are also decent.

 

[elppa]

One does not need to invest in a DSLR to a get 'better' photos... you can get better photos with a camera that lives in a drawer and is dead easy to use. And that actually gets used. Are they going to be the "best" photos in the world? ... maybe not... but they will be better photos than any photo missed because it was too cumbersome to pull the big camera out.

It's a fair point - but I should reiterate I wasn't talking about a full blown DSLR.

I was comparing Bridge Cameras vs Compact System Cameras.

My point was (and remains) that the bridge cameras I have seen often end up being as big or bigger than some compact system cameras, but don't have any of the advantages (larger sensors, interchangeable lenses).

Put a fast prime on a compact micro four third and you end up with a smaller camera with better optics and every bit as easy to use a point and shoot. Win. win.

 

[snberk103]

It's a fair point - but I should reiterate I wasn't talking about a full blown DSLR.

I was comparing Bridge Cameras vs Compact System Cameras.
...

Fair enough. Same idea (a smaller system may be better) but two different ways to get there....

I don't really know all the different makes and models in the 35mm (equivalent) world. I have my (serious work) medium format camera and I have a carry-around Lumix. Both do what I need them to do really well, and I don't worry about what else is out there.

 

[elppa]

Fair enough. Same idea (a smaller system may be better) but two different ways to get there....

I don't really know all the different makes and models in the 35mm (equivalent) world. I have my (serious work) medium format camera and I have a carry-around Lumix. Both do what I need them to do really well, and I don't worry about what else is out there.

Fair enough – actually taking photos was, is and always will be far more important than specs!

I do think sensor size is important though (obviously your medium format is bigger than a full frame sensor) but the below diagram (credit) shows the differences well.

Typically a Bridge camera will use a 1/2.3 crop. Compact System Cameras are typically Four Thirds or APS-C. The sensors are significantly larger.

A small micro four thirds cameras (right) can be more compact than a bridge camera (left).

 

[fa8362]

I think a person who has actually used the camera is more trustworthy than a person who has no idea what he's talking about.
NEX cameras are great in their own respect. They are the only APS-C sized sensor MILC cameras. Which means they can achieve shallow depth of field compared to Micro Four Thirds cameras. Also, when used with the more expensive α mount converter, NEX cameras can do full-time phase detection autofocus. Now that's something all DSLR movie shooters will be jealous of.
Carl Zeiss makes amazing lenses for Sony cameras. For example, the Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM.

Having held a NEX-7 and played around with it in my local camera shop, I can personally tell you it and its lesser counterparts' build quality is superb. Design is, as expected of Sony, very sleek and reminiscent of Carl Zeiss lenses. The NEX-7 is very ergonomic with its dual wheel, which in concept is similar to Nikon's dual wheel design. I'm not a fan of OVFs, but out of the bunch the NEX line has the best ones.

If these personal testimonies do not matter to you then you can live in your own ignorance.

@OP these Sony MILCs are awesome. They won't replace DSLRs for a long time but they are fantastic cameras. In no way are they "bridge" cameras like the Olympus PEN cameras, which are also decent.

Obviously, lens quality doesn't matter much to you. Why don't you stick a real lens on that camera and see what you've been missing? Also, have you ever wondered why Nikon and Pentax can buy the Sony sensors and make a better camera that makes better images than your Sony?

 

[elppa]

Obviously, lens quality doesn't matter much to you. Why don't you stick a real lens on that camera and see what you've been missing? Also, have you ever wondered why Nikon and Pentax can buy the Sony sensors and make a better camera that makes better images than your Sony?

Firstly: the photographer makes the images, not the camera.

Secondly: to bring out the Sony fanboy card is harsh, when plenty of non Sony fans have had good things to say about NEX.

Finally: if a number of reviews from a variety photographic publications correlate and you refuse to believe them, then you just end up looking a bit ignorant. Particularly if you don't have any first hand experience of your own to call on.

Take this from Luminous Landscape rolling review:

I have held the new Sony Zeiss e Mount 24mm to a very high standard. The 24mm f/1.4 Summilux is a world-class benchmark lens, one of the finest fast wide angle lenses made. It is of course a full frame lens, while the E mount Zeiss covers APS-C. Also, the Zeiss is an autofocus lens, so in some ways we're comparing peaches and apricots. Also, there is more than a $5,000 price difference between the lenses.

Given all of the above, the 24mm Zeiss stands up to the Leica Summilux very well indeed. It bests it in some areas, holds its own in some, and falls slightly behind elsewhere. Overall this is a stunning performance.