A good DSLR for beginners?

Zenbaas said:
Prices on these new models are insane! Can't almost start looking at the "big boys" for the prices they're selling at.
Click to expand...

+1 The prices are too much for me. For now I'd like to get some great pics of landscape mostly. So probably an older model which I'll be using for 4-5 years to come.
 
Oj0 said:
Petapixel

My take on it: I'm suitably impressed. As a Canon fanboy, I would have SERIOUSLY considered the D3300 over my 600D. It might not have a flip-out screen, but image stabilized kit lens? Check. An extra 6 MP for those times when you need to crop to really maximize your zoom? Check. Two extra AF points? Check. An extra 1.3 FPS? Check. Double the ISO capabilities? Check. DAMNIT NIKON, STOP MAKING TEMPTING CAMERAS!
Click to expand...

I really wanted to get this over the D3200, but price is a factor and in SA it's probably gonna cost about R8000+ with kit lens.

But what I really want to know is about the AF points. Why is more better? There are some with 35 or 51 AF points, which are super huge.
 
More AF points means there's a higher chance that the exact spot you want to focus on will be covered by an AF point. Of course, you can always focus and recompose. As for local pricing, I don't know. When I bought mine from Orms the price was better than if I just took the $ price and did a straight conversion.
 
Oj0 said:
More AF points means there's a higher chance that the exact spot you want to focus on will be covered by an AF point. Of course, you can always focus and recompose. As for local pricing, I don't know. When I bought mine from Orms the price was better than if I just took the $ price and did a straight conversion.
Click to expand...

Does Orms have a local shop?
Edit: Found it lol.
 
Just to add my 2 cents, read this, maybe watch the videos. Trey is a very popular photographer that was a hardcore Nikon DSLR fan and completely moved from DSLR to mirrorless cameras.

Here are his recommendations for cameras, lenses, etc.

To me, a DSLR was too big and bulky but I still wanted the functionality and quality of a DSLR. I went with a Sony NEX mirrorless camera and I don't regret it at all. All the major brands make mirrorless cameras.
 
Last edited:
A problem I find with mirrorless cameras is their slow tracking/continuous autofocus, a semi-decent DSLR is far better at keeping a moving target in focus. A small sensor also means worse noise performance, it isn't all about megapixels. Maybe one day they'll get there, but for the foreseeable future I'll stick to an SLR thanks.
 
I have also recently just started out, and I decided on a 650D. My interests are also landscape, here are some shots I have taken with it to give you an idea of what sort of results you can achieve with the camera as a beginner (like myself).

http://www.panoramio.com/user/7997213

I've found that photographing the night sky with a crop (APS-C) body does not really work, unless you create star trails. :( What you can do is go to a sight like Flickr or 500px and search for images taken with a 650D or 3100 and you will see some great stuff on there :) cant go wrong either way IMO, although I do believe that canon is cheaper.
 
Oj0 said:
More AF points means there's a higher chance that the exact spot you want to focus on will be covered by an AF point. Of course, you can always focus and recompose. As for local pricing, I don't know. When I bought mine from Orms the price was better than if I just took the $ price and did a straight conversion.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing you shoot canon rather than Nikon?
 
waveparticle said:
Between a canon eso 650D and a nikon D3200, what would you recommend? And in terms of lens, which affordable one for landscape would you suggest?
Click to expand...

Have a look here: http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-650D-vs-Nikon-D3200

Don't take it as the alpha and omega, but it gives a decent breakdown of the cameras.

I would suggest that you go out and play with these two. Get a feel for them. That is the reason I went Nikon. It just felt better and my hands.
 
I've had a Canon for years now, and while I'm happy with it, the couple of times I have shot with a Nikon, the Nikon has

1. Felt better in the hand
2. Felt 'smoother', more accurate on the AF's, and seemed to lock-on quicker - dunno, could just be "grass is greener" effect :o
 
Badprop_za said:
Have a look here: http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-650D-vs-Nikon-D3200

Don't take it as the alpha and omega, but it gives a decent breakdown of the cameras.

I would suggest that you go out and play with these two. Get a feel for them. That is the reason I went Nikon. It just felt better and my hands.
Click to expand...

Using the Snapsort criteria there appears to be no competition from Canon all the way up to the 60D which is regarded as a semi-pro camera.

At half the price of a 60D, the D3200 appears to be a no-brainer for as an entry level DSLR.

From what I can see, the significant weighting is on image quality - a Dixmark score made up of equal weighting between color depth, dynamic range and image quality at high iso. I suppose the only caveat for me is that this particular score is based on RAW measurements - given that I, as a rank amateur, don't even bother with RAW, I'm not sure how much significance I should accord to this (would be nice to see this rating on the in-camera processed .jpg rather than RAW - although, if you start off with high RAW in-camera, I suppose the resultant .jpg would naturally be better quality).

Ah well, when I win the Lotto :D
 
Oj0 said:
A problem I find with mirrorless cameras is their slow tracking/continuous autofocus, a semi-decent DSLR is far better at keeping a moving target in focus. A small sensor also means worse noise performance, it isn't all about megapixels. Maybe one day they'll get there, but for the foreseeable future I'll stick to an SLR thanks.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree, the Sony NEX 3/6/7 range have APS-C sensor size which is exactly the same as the Nikon D3200 for example. The Sony A7R mirrorless has a Full Frame sensor. That is just Sony.
 
russellO said:
Just to add my 2 cents, read this, maybe watch the videos. Trey is a very popular photographer that was a hardcore Nikon DSLR fan and completely moved from DSLR to mirrorless cameras.

Here are his recommendations for cameras, lenses, etc.

To me, a DSLR was too big and bulky but I still wanted the functionality and quality of a DSLR. I went with a Sony NEX mirrorless camera and I don't regret it at all. All the major brands make mirrorless cameras.
Click to expand...

Not a fan of mirrorless cameras... and not a fan of Trey "HDR" Ratcliff.
 
AfricanTech said:
Using the Snapsort criteria there appears to be no competition from Canon all the way up to the 60D which is regarded as a semi-pro camera.

At half the price of a 60D, the D3200 appears to be a no-brainer for as an entry level DSLR.

From what I can see, the significant weighting is on image quality - a Dixmark score made up of equal weighting between color depth, dynamic range and image quality at high iso. I suppose the only caveat for me is that this particular score is based on RAW measurements - given that I, as a rank amateur, don't even bother with RAW, I'm not sure how much significance I should accord to this (would be nice to see this rating on the in-camera processed .jpg rather than RAW - although, if you start off with high RAW in-camera, I suppose the resultant .jpg would naturally be better quality).

Ah well, when I win the Lotto :D
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough I can't do nearly as good a job with NR on my PC as my camera can turn out shooting JPGs. I hardly shoot anything in raw (nb the lack of capitalisation - Unlike JPG/JPEG, raw is not an acronym) these days. :)
 
russellO said:
I completely disagree, the Sony NEX 3/6/7 range have APS-C sensor size which is exactly the same as the Nikon D3200 for example. The Sony A7R mirrorless has a Full Frame sensor. That is just Sony.
Click to expand...

You're 100 % correct. When I hear mirrorless, I think M4/3. That A7R is almost the same size as a DSLR, it's lost the one big advantage of going mirrorless.
 
My advice for someone starting off, is to consider a 2nd hand body that has better controls. I started with a D40 and got a D90 later. The D90 (with more buttons and jog wheels, and extra screen on top) is much nicer to work with - easy access to all the settings you need. It will allow more room to grow...

So if you are keen on Canon, why not try a 60D? Or a Nikon D7000?
 
pixel_ninja said:
I have also recently just started out, and I decided on a 650D. My interests are also landscape, here are some shots I have taken with it to give you an idea of what sort of results you can achieve with the camera as a beginner (like myself).

http://www.panoramio.com/user/7997213

I've found that photographing the night sky with a crop (APS-C) body does not really work, unless you create star trails. :( What you can do is go to a sight like Flickr or 500px and search for images taken with a 650D or 3100 and you will see some great stuff on there :) cant go wrong either way IMO, although I do believe that canon is cheaper.
Click to expand...

Wow, these are beautiful pictures and exactly the thing I'm looking to shoot. Are you using the kit lens to shoot these?

And regarding Exposure time, is there an option or something for long exposures(30 mins)? I have seen some night sky pics with exposures of 30 minutes and the stars are like spirals. Really beautiful stuff.
 
waveparticle said:
Wow, these are beautiful pictures and exactly the thing I'm looking to shoot. Are you using the kit lens to shoot these?

And regarding Exposure time, is there an option or something for long exposures(30 mins)? I have seen some night sky pics with exposures of 30 minutes and the stars are like spirals. Really beautiful stuff.
Click to expand...

Yep, for long exposure you can set your shutter speed to bulb. You'll need a remote though.

Although depending on what I'm shooting (star trails for instance), I prefer to set the shooting mode to continuous and take lots of pics at a fixed shutter speed like 30 seconds, then merge them into one. Reason being that noise tends to accumulate over time.

Below is my first attempt at star trails. Still a bit too noisy for my liking, but it would have been much worse with a single long exposure shot.
 

Attachments

  • uploadfromtaptalk1389801291258.jpg
    uploadfromtaptalk1389801291258.jpg
    111.1 KB · Views: 88
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X