Support NeoGAF

[Delicious Waffles]

So I'm going on vacation in a few months and I really wanted to step my camera game up.

I've been using a Fujifilm FinePix S4080. It was given to my sister as a gift and, since she's not too great with technology, I mainly use it. It takes some nice pictures but its biggest drawback is that it's powered by 4 AA batteries. It drives me nuts since, whenever I'd like to take a picture, most of the time the batteries are dead, which costs money to replenish. I decided I wanted to get a new camera and spend the money on something quality.

I started looking into DSLRs and stumbled onto a Nikon D3300. From the reviews I've read, it's very user friendly for someone just getting into DSLRs and produces quality pictures/video. Also, it has a rechargeable battery, which is pretty sweet.

Before making a decision, I thought I'd ask GAF their thoughts.

- Would this be a solid choice for someone new to DSLRs?
- If not, is there a better option (price wise, I'm looking around the same as what I posted)?
- What size memory card and accessories, if any, would you recommend?

Any tips and/or recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

 

[nhlducks35]

Do you plan on buying and upgrading lenses in the future?

Is portability a big thing for you?

Most entry-level DSLR suck IMO, they have tiny viewfinders and lack a lot of the controls that make DSLR's good.

I would recommend getting a mirrorless camera, something like the A6000 or Olympus Em10. Or you can even get a camera like the new RX100IV or RX10II.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Go mirrorless before you go DSLR. The advantages of a DSLR aren't things you'll appreciate, and mirrorless have 95% of what a DSLR has, at a cheaper price to boot.

 

[Delicious Waffles]

Do you plan on buying and upgrading lenses in the future?

Is portability a big thing for you?

When it comes to lenses, I don't know. Didn't think of that.

As for portability, it would definitely be nice but not totally necessary. The one I've been using is pretty bulky so I'm used to it.

Most entry-level DSLR suck IMO, they have tiny viewfinders and lack a lot of the controls that make DSLR's good.

I would recommend getting a mirrorless camera, something like the A6000 or Olympus Em10. Or you can even get a camera like the new RX100IV or RX10II.

I'll look into those, thanks.

Go mirrorless before you go DSLR. The advantages of a DSLR aren't things you'll appreciate, and mirrorless have 95% of what a DSLR has, at a cheaper price to boot.

Are there any you would recommend?

 

[Aurongel]

Go Mirrorless, get a Sony a6000, trust me.

It punches above its weight in almost every regard, is compact, has an EVF, great burst rate and decent AF performance.

 

[nullref]

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/which-camera-should-i-get/

My girlfriend bought an Olympus OM-D E-M5 a couple years ago. She's been very happy with it.

 

[VAD]

I'm rocking an Olympus E-m10 and I couldn't be happier: has an evf, is light and has twin dials just like the Nikon D70s I used previously. It also has a great selection of lenses.

The Sony a6000 is great too.

 

[Vorg]

Are you new to dslr cameras or photography in general? Because if it's the latter, maybe you could look into an advanced compact like the canon s120 before diving head first into buying an expensive dslr. Those have some advantages like being pretty small, cheap and providing good image quality for the sensor size, while retaining full manual controls. On the other hand, the sensors are much smaller than dslr cameras, so low light shots won't be the same. Just a thought.

 

[Delicious Waffles]

Thanks for all the suggestions so far. It's definitely got me thinking.

http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/which-camera-should-i-get/

My girlfriend bought an Olympus OM-D E-M5 a couple years ago. She's been very happy with it.

Thanks for that link. Looking through it now.

Are you new to dslr cameras or photography in general? Because if it's the latter, maybe you could look into an advanced compact like the canon s120 before diving head first into buying an expensive dslr. Those have some advantages like being pretty small, cheap and providing good image quality for the sensor size, while retaining full manual controls. On the other hand, the sensors are much smaller than dslr cameras, so low light shots won't be the same. Just a thought.

Pretty much. The thing is, I wanted to invest in something solid that I could learn and grow with. That's how I came up with the camera in the original post due to the feedback I've read about it. However, after reading through the responses so far, I agree in thinking I'm diving into the deep end.

 

[entremet]

DSLRs are very bulky and mirrorless cameras have gotten much better of the years.

Everyone I know with a DSLR just has it collecting dust in a drawer somewhere.

 

[Daria]

I had a lot more wrote up before I closed out on accident so I'll try to sum it up again the best I can.

I'm taking your $500 budget since that's the D3300 listed price. What are your opinions on buying used? You'll get a much better bang for your buck if you go this route. A better camera body, lens, & flash.

To give your a quick rundown you have to look at a couple things:
- The aperture of the lens (the f number i.e. f/1.8) as this tells you how much light the lens will allow in. The smaller it is, the more light will come in, the less light you need to take your picture.
- The usable ISO of the camera body. I don't know the D3300 exact numbers but for example, say it can be bumped up to 1000ISO without giving you too much noise (think film grain) whereas the D5000 can be used up to 1800ISO without giving noise.
-The type of environments you want to use your camera in. Do you want to use it inside with lots of lighting, outside in the summer time with your family, or inside a dark hall for concerts or parties? The lens you pick and camera body you chose will dictate what you're going to be able to do realistically and have pictures be usable.

If you want to buy used, you can go either for Canon or Nikon (both reputable DSLR companies) but they have a little different lens selection. I recommend using a prime lens (fixed focal length) in the beginning so you get comfortable using your feet to zoom instead of turning lens.

Canon lenses range from entry level (50mm "nifty fifty" f/1.8) for $100 to the Bazooka (70-200L f/4, one hell of a buy) for ~$450 used. The L are Canon's higher end glass, the distinguished red rings.

Nikon has a 50mm f/1.8 as well but it costs double the price, at almost $225. They also have higher end glass that doubles, triples in price.

There are third party lens companies such as Sigma which give you high quality for lower prices for BOTH Canon and Nikon.

Now since this is an unorganized post I'll sum it up and give you an idea on what you can get in the used market for your $500.

Canon

• Canon 40D (semi pro body) - ~$240
• Canon Nifty Fifty 50mm f/18 - $110 new (!!) // or an used Japan model for $119 on eBay <-- Japan has a metal mount compared to the plastic US model.
• Yonguno YN-560 flash - $65

 

[Delicious Waffles]

A lot of great information there. Thank you!

 

[Marty Chinn]

DSLRs are very bulky and mirrorless cameras have gotten much better of the years.

Everyone I know with a DSLR just has it collecting dust in a drawer somewhere.

That's weird since I see DSLRs everywhere, especially with parents.

 

[Futureman]

The thing is, I wanted to invest in something solid that I could learn and grow with.

DON'T get a mirrorless then.

If you get a traditional DSLR you will want to learn your gear, get new lenses, and basically have a way more versatile system to play and grow with. If you are really interested in photography as a hobby I think a DSLR makes more sense.

in the end though, gear isn't so important, it's more about the passion and drive to take better photos.

 

[John Kowalski]

That's weird since I see DSLRs everywhere, especially with parents.

Dads aren't hip. That and imo mirrorless are still a enthusiast thing. I mean a random person isn't going to care about using legacy glass, they just want a serious camera with a kit lens for not a lot of money.

Honestly if you just want a camera to learn you can buy a used DSLR from, like, four gens ago. Like a 550D or whatever the Nikon equivalent is. They're perfectly good cameras and excellent for learning.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Dads aren't hip.

Actually, they tend to be moms and not dads surprisingly.

 

[Delicious Waffles]

Actually, they tend to be moms and not dads surprisingly.

This is true.

My cousin has a heavy duty camera she brings everywhere to take pictures of her kids.

I'd ask her for her opinion but we aren't on the best speaking terms, haha.

 

[luxarific]

DON'T get a mirrorless then.

If you get a traditional DSLR you will want to learn your gear, get new lenses, and basically have a way more versatile system to play and grow with. If you are really interested in photography as a hobby I think a DSLR makes more sense.

in the end though, gear isn't so important, it's more about the passion and drive to take better photos.

Eh, there's plenty of lenses for mirrorless. I have an EM-10 and I use it far more than my full frame Nikon D810. It's lighter (oh, so much lighter, which means I take it with me more than I do the NIkon) and more low profile (it's amazing how often my subjects get freaked out by the size of my Nikon). Image quality is more than sufficient for all my needs.

 

[UpperCaseN]

My honest opinion:

I hate carrying around a large (or even medium) sized camera. I leave my DSLR at home now and opt for a point and shoot, cuz when I'm out I don't want to have a giant ass camera with me. Unless I'm headed out specifically for taking photographs (which for me is never) my point and shoot does a great job at capturing vacation moments.

 

[Daria]

The argument between DSLR and mirrorless over weight is beating a dead horse. Yes, if you look at them side by side there is no denying that weight is different between them both, but he's looking for something to grow with and learn on. DSLR will be his better option without spending a lot of money on a higher end mirrorless camera that will allow interchangeable lenses.

If you want to do photography, get a DSLR, shoot RAW and use Lightroom.
If you want to do photography as a hobby and don't care about editing or any of the fun stuff, get a cheaper mirrorless.

 

[theepicoftyler]

If you want to do photography, get a DSLR, shoot RAW and use Lightroom.
If you want to do photography as a hobby and don't care about editing or any of the fun stuff, get a cheaper mirrorless.

This is dumb.

I was in OP's position last year and bought a Sony NEX-5 and it's been the best purchase I've ever made... and I do tons of editing in Lightroom. Thing was relatively cheap, and is incredibly powerful. The only thing I don't like about it is inability to use a remote shutter with a lock on it, and my hands are huge so it sometimes feels a little too small.

I'd tell the OP to go look at a Sony a6000 and see how they feel about it. Great cameras to learn the basics of photography with.

 

[Tugatrix]

Go mirrorless instead is the future

 

[sarcastor]

Canon

• Canon 40D (semi pro body) - ~$240
• Canon Nifty Fifty 50mm f/18 - $110 new (!!) // or an used Japan model for $119 on eBay <-- Japan has a metal mount compared to the plastic US model.

Came here to post this. You want a prosumer camera, not a entry level camera. A 40D takes great photos, is durable and can be found for cheap. Rebels and other cameras in the same price range are tiny and made of cheap plastic.

Get a used camera, get a used lens, and START SHOOTING. <--- Most important part.

Also get a better lens when you can. I see people walk around with DSLLRs all the time with a kit lens. Do not use the kit lens

 

[luxarific]

The argument between DSLR and mirrorless over weight is beating a dead horse. Yes, if you look at them side by side there is no denying that weight is different between them both, but he's looking for something to grow with and learn on. DSLR will be his better option without spending a lot of money on a higher end mirrorless camera that will allow interchangeable lenses.

If you want to do photography, get a DSLR, shoot RAW and use Lightroom.
If you want to do photography as a hobby and don't care about editing or any of the fun stuff, get a cheaper mirrorless.

Nearly every major mirrorless camera manufactured within the last two years can shoot raw. I can control aperture, shutter speed, and ISO to as fine a level on my EM-10 as I can on my D810. If he wants a camera to grow with and learn on, he's far better off with a mirrorless that he is much more likely to take with him on his day-to-day travels. Weight and size are really important. The best camera is the one you have with you, and he's far more likely to grab his mirrorless on the way out the door, than pack up a full-size DSLR.

 

[Marty Chinn]

The best camera is the one you have with you, and he's far more likely to grab his mirrorless on the way out the door, than pack up a full-size DSLR.

What's to pack up? Mine is always in a camera bag ready to go. It takes no more effort to grab it than a mirror less.

 

[Warm Machine]

Pentax anything.

K Mount lenses work on their whole line. The body design makes so much sense and is fully featured. They are build super tough and are weather sealed so you can shoot in the rain.

I've shot on Pentax since early 2000s.

 

[Daria]

Since it's not been asked yet and everybody seems to think it's a big issue.. OP, how big are your hands? The last thing you want is to get a "small" and "light weight" camera with giant hands and you don't feel comfortable holding. All of this is personal opinion of course. I'd much rather carry a 40D or 1D around with me all day and know that piece of metal is a study piece over a camera the size of my iPhone.

Have you held a full size DSLR? Have you had a mirrorless P&S?

And to add onto the "pack up a DSLR" comment. Do you not store your body inside it's bag with a lens already attached? Your extra lenses are usually always in your bag when not in use, all you have to do is grab the body and throw it in with the rest. It takes the same amount of effort as it would a smaller camera.

 

[BigJonsson]

Keep in mind how expensive lenses are

 

[Risible]

I had a lot more wrote up before I closed out on accident so I'll try to sum it up again the best I can.

I'm taking your $500 budget since that's the D3300 listed price. What are your opinions on buying used? You'll get a much better bang for your buck if you go this route. A better camera body, lens, & flash.

To give your a quick rundown you have to look at a couple things:
- The aperture of the lens (the f number i.e. f/1.8) as this tells you how much light the lens will allow in. The smaller it is, the more light will come in, the less light you need to take your picture.
- The usable ISO of the camera body. I don't know the D3300 exact numbers but for example, say it can be bumped up to 1000ISO without giving you too much noise (think film grain) whereas the D5000 can be used up to 1800ISO without giving noise.
-The type of environments you want to use your camera in. Do you want to use it inside with lots of lighting, outside in the summer time with your family, or inside a dark hall for concerts or parties? The lens you pick and camera body you chose will dictate what you're going to be able to do realistically and have pictures be usable.

If you want to buy used, you can go either for Canon or Nikon (both reputable DSLR companies) but they have a little different lens selection. I recommend using a prime lens (fixed focal length) in the beginning so you get comfortable using your feet to zoom instead of turning lens.

Canon lenses range from entry level (50mm "nifty fifty" f/1.8) for $100 to the Bazooka (70-200L f/4, one hell of a buy) for ~$450 used. The L are Canon's higher end glass, the distinguished red rings.

Nikon has a 50mm f/1.8 as well but it costs double the price, at almost $225. They also have higher end glass that doubles, triples in price.

There are third party lens companies such as Sigma which give you high quality for lower prices for BOTH Canon and Nikon.

Now since this is an unorganized post I'll sum it up and give you an idea on what you can get in the used market for your $500.

Canon

• Canon 40D (semi pro body) - ~$240
• Canon Nifty Fifty 50mm f/18 - $110 new (!!) // or an used Japan model for $119 on eBay <-- Japan has a metal mount compared to the plastic US model.
• Yonguno YN-560 flash - $65

This person knows what's up. The 40D is a great body, and the nifty fifty is fantastic. You can take a ton of greats photos with just those two.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I see some people have the idea that MILC's can't do a lot of things that DSLR's do... which is so beyond not the case. I have more control over my a6000 than my mom has over her (was $800) Canon EOS. And mine is like half the size, taking better pictures, with the same sensor size. So saying that you need a DSLR to be able to grow with, are wrong. You only need a DSLR if you need a mirror based viewfinder. I literally shut off the JPEG feature on my camera because I only ever deal in RAWs so I can edit in Lightroom and Photoshop. I have control over ISO, Aperture, exposure, and a billion other things. And I have a viewfinder, even if it's not mirror based.

OP, just go buy an a6000, it's an amazing camera.

 

[Wreav]

Mirrorless, mirrorless, mirrorless, mirrorless.

If you're just getting started, something like the Olympus E-M5 is perfect. Lenses won't break the bank, the body is extremely capable with in-body OIS, and it's extremely portable.

I say this after being heavily invested in the Canon full frame DSLR ecosystem for almost a decade.

Love my Oly! Just upgrade my E-M5 to the E-M1, if you end up leaning towards mirrorless, let me know, about to sell my E-M5 dirt cheap.

If you want to do photography, get a DSLR, shoot RAW and use Lightroom.
If you want to do photography as a hobby and don't care about editing or any of the fun stuff, get a cheaper mirrorless.

Dumb, dumb post. Lightroom/RAW is my main workflow for mirrorless.

 

[Risible]

I see some people have the idea that MILC's can't do a lot of things that DSLR's do... which is so beyond not the case. I have more control over my a6000 than my mom has over her (was $800) Canon EOS. And mine is like half the size, taking better pictures, with the same sensor size. So saying that you need a DSLR to be able to grow with, are wrong. You only need a DSLR if you need a mirror based viewfinder. I literally shut off the JPEG feature on my camera because I only ever deal in RAWs so I can edit in Lightroom and Photoshop. I have control over ISO, Aperture, exposure, and a billion other things. And I have a viewfinder, even if it's not mirror based.

OP, just go buy an a6000, it's an amazing camera.

I agree that mirrorless will be the future. However, the price point here is $500 total. The a6000 body (which is sweet) is over $500 for the body only.

You can get a used Canon 40D and great lens for $350 or so.

 

[FStop7]

Spend less on a body and more on glass.

Good glass pays for itself over and over and over.

 

[TxdoHawk]

Definitely go mirrorless, they are great cameras to grow with. $500 will easily get you something gently used in the Sony NEX series with the kit lens, that would be my choice. But there are plenty of good options. What you can get for $500 now is completely insane compared to when I started.

Spend less on a body and more on glass.

Good glass pays for itself over and over and over.

This is good advice, but the OP should figure out what system they want to invest in before they drop $$$ on glass.

 

[Darth Pinche]

FWIW, I have a Nikon 3100 that I bought used and I love it. I got the body with a 18-55 zoom and 55-200 zoom, with a case for about $330 on Amazon. They are kit lenses, but still nice enough to get started. If you can try one out in person that is best. You need to see if it feels like it fits your hands as well as to see what the viewfinder is like. When I was shopping , many of the camera I was comparing at my price point has smaller viewfinders compared to the D3100. At least for me, since i wear glasses (it also has a viewfinder diopter which is nice).

 

[FStop7]

Definitely go mirrorless, they are great cameras to grow with. $500 will easily get you something gently used in the Sony NEX series with the kit lens, that would be my choice. But there are plenty of good options. What you can get for $500 now is completely insane compared to when I started.



This is good advice, but the OP should figure out what system they want to invest in before they drop $$$ on glass.

Nikon or Canon SLR. Best variety of quality but (relatively) inexpensive glass.

 

[Jpop]

Honestly people are going to recommend Nikon and Canon, but I disagree as it would be your first DSLR.

My first DSLR I used which was around 4 years ago was a Pentax K10D. Pentax is in no way inferior to Nikon and Canon but it is cheaper as it does not have the market penetration that they have.

You can also get an adapter so you can use lenses from the other brands as well, even without that as a beginner you would be fine using Pentax lenses.

Can I also recommend you start with some film era lenses, they do not automatically focus but I think having to learn how to manually focus and compose and image is incredibly important.

Edit:

Also what others above said. The lens is the most important part, the body not so much.

 

[Ape Gone Insane]

In a choice between the Sony A6000 and a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which is the better option?

 

[Rolio]

Pentax K-50 w/ weather sealed 18-55 lens & 16GB memory card - $389

weather sealed body and lens
100% field of view viewfinder
dual control dials
16 megapixel

 

[Ty4on]

Nikon or Canon SLR. Best variety of quality but (relatively) inexpensive glass.

There's not much quality inexpensive glass for APS-C that is wide though. Kit lenses are kinda unavoidable unless you go full frame (original 5D is also a bargain, but very dated with 3FPS and no video recording).

In a choice between the Sony A6000 and a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which is the better option?

5D mk2 is miles better in most cases. FF means cleaner and sharper images. The A6000 has better video focusing, can adapt more lenses and has better dynamic range at low ISOs.

 

[Warm Machine]

For a first lens I recommend a versatile zoom. At least 18mm to 180mm. Because you might like shooting super wide, or you may be a more telephoto person. The lens gives you the flexibility to learn and it doesn't cut you off creatively at the knees.

Now people are going to complain that a zoom like that isn't going to give you super clarity and they are right. However where are most of your shots going to end up? Flickr, Facebook, GAF, 5x7 prints, your 1080p TV? You will be using less than 1/4 of the resolution of your camera anyway. Everything looks great at that size. I've gotten shots blown up on canvas at more than 36" wide and you cannot tell the pixel quality at all.

When I travel I exclusively use a zoom like this. Because too often I'm sitting there scrambling to change a lens and I've missed the shot I wanted.

 

[BokehKing]

I'm perfectly happy with my Nikon d32
I have Sigma headquarters around the block from my house so I just stop in there and get lens on the cheap


One day I'll upgrade though

 

[Diamond Dog]

I use a Nikon D3000 mainly. Most Nikons on the D line are fairly standard and easy to use and all come with that useful re-charge battery. Anywhere between £250-£300 is reasonable for most SLR's currently.But from what I've seen recently theres plenty of point n shoots that easy best some DSLR in terms of pure picture quality so I'd shop for them first (especially if you find lunging around a slr a chore like I can at times).

 

[Risible]

Pentax K-50 w/ weather sealed 18-55 lens & 16GB memory card - $389

weather sealed body and lens
100% field of view viewfinder
dual control dials
16 megapixel

I know nothing about Pentax but that seems like a heck of a deal.

 

[Tablo]

Pentax>>>>>canon entry level

 

[Ptaaty]

In a choice between the Sony A6000 and a Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which is the better option?

These are extremely different. Full frame vs APS-C, full DSLR vs mirrorless. A 5D with the glass to go with it is a much larger investment, more $$ now, more moving forward, more weight.

Even though I am consumer / hobby only, I absolutely love shooting with full frame on a DSLR (D600 here), way more control (by virtue of dual dials, way more buttons...not absolute settings through menus), great handling, can go wide, and a huge thing to me is pentaprism viewfinder.

That is a tradeoff though - weight, size, cost. In addition, Sony platform allows for adaption with manual use of many lenses.

By and large for most folks - go A6000. If you are used to DSLRs and have shot with full frame (and own gear!!), shoot professionally or landscape, wide, it changes things, then you might want the 5D. I wish I went with the Sony system...now that I have used a D600 and have Nikon stuff - I would have a hard time going the other way.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Pentax>>>>>canon entry level

I'm glad there's Pentax love. I love mine.

 

[Ptaaty]

Pentax K-50 w/ weather sealed 18-55 lens & 16GB memory card - $389

weather sealed body and lens
100% field of view viewfinder
dual control dials
16 megapixel

That is an exceptional deal. One thing to keep in mind is you are buying into a system (most likely) and you will add to it and buy lenses, flashes, etc as you go.

Pentax has some significant drawbacks in lens coverage in some aspects (new lenses, rental, range, 3rd party)...but really amazing for others (great backward / old film era support).

Really think about it - it can't be overstated - you are buying into a system...and if you aren't (you are one and done...) then buy something like the RX100. Even consider what your friends, coworkers, etc have.

 

[aerts1js]

Go mirrorless; Sony A6000.

 

[luxarific]

What's to pack up? Mine is always in a camera bag ready to go. It takes no more effort to grab it than a mirror less.

If you own a mirrorless, you know there's zero competition between the two systems in terms of portability and weight. Mirrorless is just vastly superior in these two respects.

Size and weight comparison:

http://ilovehatephoto.com/2015/01/1...irrorless-system-with-examples-nikon-to-sony/