Photographers- Help me choose a good entry level DSLR

Check out Canon's Refurbished cameras

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/cameras/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras

I bought two of them, a T3 (for me) and a T4i (for my son). These were in perfect condition when I got them. Most of them are just dealer overstock.

Bonus: call canon's "Customer Loyalty" number, and see if they have any special deals on refurbished cameras for current canon owners. When I bought my T3, I got an additional discount for turning in an old, useless (to me) Canon film camera.

Samsung

Canon T3i (or t4i or t5i not sure if much has really changed in the new models) is great entry camera. Does really good video as well

Don't sleep on what camera feels best in your hand. I have bigger hands, and the entry level Canon and Nikon cameras were too small for me. Ended up with an Olympus, which is a tick below in terms of image quality (or was 3+ years ago when I bought), but feels great in my hand so I love to shoot with it. Unfortunately Olympus has gone full bore into the m4/3 format, with smaller cameras.

That's the problem. E5 was a good camera with excellent lenses, but Olympus and the other manufacturers are going full mirrorless and EVFs are annoying.

Canon or Nikon are safe bets especially for sports.

Pentax was ok too, but they refuse to releases a full frame camera even though the mount is full frame. I can't recommend them because of this.

Eventually you'll want to upgrade to full frame and you can with Canon or Nikon. They also have the most lenses to choose from. Full frame is coming down in price with much better IQ and larger viewfinders. It is a heated debate, but the truth is full frame images just look better.

It really depends on WHAT you are interested in photographing. Different cameras have different strengths and weaknesses and there is no "all-around best entry-level dslr" because different photography genres require very different settings, equipment, skill-sets, etc.

For example, I shoot almost entirely athletics and I have never really needed a full-frame camera, but instead I needed to focus on a manufacturer that had the best long fast lenses (200mm and longer). Unfortunately for me, sports photography is one of the most expensive genres because it does rely heavily on the equipment; mostly the lenses and not always the body. I have used a Canon 7D for many years now and all of my lenses out-cost my body by many many thousands of dollars. For landscapes, or people, or sports, or low-light, or macro, or celestial, etc, all demand slightly different aspects from your gear.

Please remember that if you choose Canon or Nikon (please don't even consider pentax, olympus, samsung, etc) that you are buying into a SYSTEM because most of your other gear will need to be compatible with your body. My canon body only cost about $1500 and yet all of my camera gear is currently worth a bit over $10,000.

You are looking for an entry-level camera but also please seriously consider the lenses that interest you as well. Canon and Niko are leaps and bounds above all other camera manufacturers in this regard.

I highly recommend the photography forum

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

for all of your questions. I have learned so much from that place.

So, what are you interested in shooting?

My (old) portfolio all shot with a Canon 7D:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ewheeler20/sets/72157630442199728/

Pro Sports Photographer wrote:

It really depends on WHAT you are interested in photographing.

(please don't even consider pentax, olympus, samsung, etc)

Fully agree with first statement, but I feel it conflicts with the second. Yeah, Canon and Nikon are best at what YOU do (sports with big, fast SLRs and lenses where high performance, motion tracking autofocus is king), but not necessarily what the OP wants to do (they haven't told us yet).

For instance, if OP wants to go hiking or backpacking in their beautiful surroundings and take landscape photos, maybe a super small and light micro four thirds camera from Olympus, like the OM-D EM-10 (http://www.dpreview.com/products/olympus/slrs/oly_em10), would be a lot better than a DSLR. These little cameras still offer the same level of full manual controls and customization as with a serious DSLR (and more of these things than comparably priced entry level DSLRs, like a Nikon D3300 or Canon 1200D). M43 also has a wealth of lenses to choose from much like Canon and Nikon, with plenty of quality zooms and primes.

Really I think the only reason to go dSLR these days is if you need high performance autofocus for tracking fast moving subjects. Optical viewfinders are certainly nice to use, but newer electronic viewfinders are really pretty good, and of course have their own advantages. With an eVF you can see how the image will look in real time, before you snap the picture. So if you're shooting in manual mode and have chosen to bright of an exposure setting, the image will look overly bright in the eVF. I could see this being helpful for a beginner, but it's useful for anyone really.

Smaller sensor systems like micro four thirds, and to a lesser extent APS-C, do sacrifice depth of field isolation compared to full frame cameras. OP, this is the ability to have sharp focus on say a person's face but have the background totally blurred out. Larger sensors give you a greater ability to do this, so if taking portraits is important OP should try to go at least for APS-C if not full frame. Smaller sensors will tend to have more depth of the scene in focus, which can be beneficial for landscapes where generally you want everything to be sharp.

But even if you want to go full frame or APS-C, which is traditionally the realm of DSLRs, there are now many APS-C mirrorless options (Sony alpha series and Fujifilm being the two best systems) and Sony is even introducing full frame mirrorless options now (A7 series).

I do agree that going to a camera store and seeing how you like the feel of different size and style of cameras is important. Not nearly as good, but much easier, is this web site that lets you compare the sizes of cameras (with lenses too) side by side:

I put in a range of current interchangeable lens cameras, from a tiny M43 option from Panasonic that is the size of a little point and shoot and will fit in your pocket (if you don't have a big lens on it), all the way up to the big full frame Nikon D610 (and they have even bigger ones than that, if you want a tank for a camera).

Nate, I suppose you are right in thinking that I may have jumped the gun so-to-speak about excluding non-canon/nikon equipment. I agree that we should first try and suss out if the OP's photography interests even warrant a DSLR. If not, then I agree that there are many fantastic options other than canon/nikon that would probably meet and exceed most of the OP's needs.

But I stand by the notion that if a DSLR is determined to be the right option, canon or nikon is the way to go.

nice nickname

The Oppie's nic is the giveaway. He wants to take super closeup, HQ quick-shots (see the pores on the skin), and long-range shots into private backyards from high up in a tree (see backyard secrets).

Thanks for the info everyone. Pro Sports Photographer, my main focus will be landscapes. As stated previously, I live in one of the most geographically diverse/ scenic places in the USA, and maybe the world. Landscape photography has always interested me, and I have the time, money, and one of the best settings I could ask for, to get into it.

Get the DSLR made in China.

.

The Pentax K-30.

excellent entry-level weather sealed camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-x4lCFBCeM

.

Just lurking -I know zip about this topic. What kind of money and what equipment do you need to be a serious entry level amateur?

Ballpark.

thanks

Nate, I... wrote:

Really I think the only reason to go dSLR these days is if you need high performance autofocus for tracking fast moving subjects.

I couldn't disagree more.

If you're deciding between anything bigger than a camera phone and a DSLR, you're already accepting the fact that you're going to carry the camera on its own strap, across your shoulder. The mirrorless systems all have, frankly, atrocious autofocus by the standards of modern DSLRs. You don't have to be shooting sports of fast moving toddlers to appreciate the fact that you can have instant focus and an instant image when you press the shutter button. I absolutely hate shooting candids with a mirrorless camera.

Really, you should get a Nikon or Canon, and it should be the cheapest entry level body available. Only those two brands are fully dedicated to their DSLR systems. They have a huge selection of fantastic lenses, and they'll be around, supporting those lenses in 30 years. Bodies get outdated in 18 months. A D3300 vastly outclasses the best professional bodies from just a few years ago. No need to spend extra cash on a higher end body.

From my perspective, the main reason to go Nikon is that they have the superb f/1.8 35mm DX lens. It's cheap, tiny, and for many people I know, it's on the camera 90% of the time.

For fast long zooms, I'd go third party. There are QC issues with Sigma and Tamron lenses, but they're very good about returns, so if you run them through a few tests, and they're not as spectacular as you'd hoped, they'll send replacements until you're happy.

Instamatic104 is more my speed wrote:

Just lurking -I know zip about this topic. What kind of money and what equipment do you need to be a serious entry level amateur?

Ballpark.

thanks

"serious entry level amateur" is an odd category but I'll take a stab at it. Somewhere around $3,000:

-$1000 for 1 camera body. (most professionals have multiple bodies worth anywhere from $700-$4000+ each)

-$1500 for 2-3 lenses. (Lenses can range in price from $50-$12,000. Average cost of 1 professional series canon/nikon lens is about $1200 [excluding the 300mm+ long/fast ones])

-$300-$800 for misc equipment such as flashes, strobes, tripods, mounting gear, etc.

Now all that being said, a super entry level photographer can spend under $800 for everything they could ever need and still produce absolutely amazing photos. It's just that it is certainly easier to achieve your visions sometimes with "better" gear especially when your focus of interest is a specialty genre of photography such as macro, athletics, etc.

thanks,So in general we are looking at more than a set of name brand golf clubs type of investment. I'd think quality 12 club set goes around $US1500-2,000

Would saying a Boston Qualifier type committed amateur level help?

I shoot for my city's newspaper, population 110 thousand, with a single Canon D60 and am able to our multimedia with it too.

I use a basic 50mm 1.8 for most everything. The D60 sensor is a 1.6 crop meaning the 50mm has the same focal length as an 85mm. This is good for portraits, and if you zoom with your feet, I crawl into bed with my subjects sometimes, you can do things very close up.

The kit lens, 18-135mm, with the crop is 29mm to 216mm. So with 2 lens you cover 29mm-216mm and the 50mm, a prime, will give you tack sharp shots. The 18-135mm is a 3.5 so it's not as great in low light but serviceable. 200mm is all you need for NCAA Div. I basketball which I shoot. I've only pulled out a 300mm and 400mm once per season and even that wasn't really necessary but one time for breaking news when the police kept me away and I needed the shot. I use EF-S lenses which have auto focus. The L series, pro, are great but not necessary. If you buy an adapter, you can use FD series lenses on a modern Canon body but you won't have auto focus. What you will have are lenses that can be bought for as little as $20.

As for strobes, that's the domain of studio work and if you're keen to learn flash-fill tickets with a handheld strobe then get yourself some Pocket Wizards and a solid portable strobe with a strong guide number rating.

Are you really shooting with 1.8f 50mm? You should really try a 1.4f. Sure it 2-3x the price of the 1.8 but the narrower depth-of-field of the 1.4 is a look you will really like.