What's a good starter DSLR?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 108676
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 108676

Guest
My wife and I travel and we like to take pictures of stuff we see when we're gone. We'd like to have one that takes pretty good pictures, but we don't need something with an enormous lens...because after all...we'll be carrying it everywhere. Are the basic DSLR's able to accept better len's if we chose to do so in the future?

I'd prefer one from Amazon on prime, if any of you link cameras.

Thanks.
 
What's your budget?
Is your only criteria interchangeable lenses?
How much do you plan to explore outside of auto-mode?
Are you set on a DSLR? What about mirrorless?

To answer your question directly, yes, something like a Canon Rebel or similar will give you great results, and can accept any of Canon's EF and EF-S lenses which is a huge variety. Just remember most of the "picture quality" has to do with the operator, not the camera. (not saying you're bad at shooting, just that there are way more variables than the gear)
 
1. $500ish?
2. Might as well get one that records video
3. Probably never unless I take a liking to it.
4. No idea what any of this means
 
I bought the Nikon D3300 just over 2 years ago (now superseded) and its turned out to be an incredible point and shoot with the kit zoom.
Its very light, the kit zoom (18-55) is tiny and uncompacts rapidly when needed.
There are a whole slew of old and new lenses for it and the newer model.
It even has the unfiltered 24Mp CCD and semi/full auto modes.
It also takes 60fps 1080p movies which is one of the features I use the most.
I also bought the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens (none zoom) as it has higher definition, focuses very fast and lets in more light. Only just over £100.
There are some bargains to be had for sure.
 
OEM said:
1. $500ish?
Click to expand...

That's enough for an inexpensive kit from Canon or Nikon.

OEM said:
2. Might as well get one that records video
Click to expand...

They all record video, however, video isn't a simple thing: particularly if you want something that can hold focus on a subject well during video, you'll need to more than double your budget and look at a Canon 80D (a step above the Rebel line).

OEM said:
3. Probably never unless I take a liking to it.
Click to expand...

Referring to 'auto mode', auto still works for pros- but cameras aren't omniscient, which is why you should take a stab at learning exposure, which is learning how to best set shutter speed, aperture, and ISO to get the best result from the lighting available.

OEM said:
4. No idea what any of this means
Click to expand...

A 'DSLR' has the ability for you to look through the lens optically, and employs a mirror to make this happen. 'Mirrorless' cameras many times use the same larger sensors, but have no mirror, and thus your viewfinder works the same way as your camera phone works, by showing you what the camera is seeing on a monitor.

There are advantages and disadvantages to mirrorless, but generally speaking image quality isn't one of them. Without knowing what type of photography you're most interested in it is hard to make a recommendation here, but battery life, ergonomics, and speed of operation are still firmly DSLR advantages, especially at lower cost of entry.


Within your budget, grabbing a Nikon D3x00-series camera with 18-55 kit lens is your best bet. Take pictures, make mistakes, and come back and talk!
 
OEM said:
1. $500ish?
2. Might as well get one that records video
3. Probably never unless I take a liking to it.
4. No idea what any of this means
Click to expand...

A DSLR is a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera - basically it means the viewfinder looks straight through the lens. There is a mirror box in the middle of it that redirects light from the lens upwards into a prism that bounces light out the viewfinder. When you take a photo, the mirror flips up and out of the way inside the box, allowing light to pass straight to the sensor on the back of the camera. The benefit is you see optically through the lens. Mirrorless cameras can be similar to or better than DSLR's when comparing specific models, it's just they don't have a mirror box and are always in "live view mode" i.e. the sensor is recording what light is coming through the lens and showing it on a screen. It's kind of a personal preference between the two, but facts are that mirrorless cameras will be smaller - something I'd highly consider for travel.

If you're interested in mirrorless, maybe check out the sony a6000 as a starting point. Same size sensor as the Canon Rebel's and the like.

Also, don't be afraid to buy used. I usually check out Adorama for a starting price on used gear: https://www.adorama.com/Used

EDIT: IdiotInCharge beat me to it... sorry bud
 
Canon 5d mark iii. Anything less than that and you will have second thoughs about why are you taking pictures that looks similar than an iphone 7.
 
ElBerryKM13 said:
Canon 5d mark iii. Anything less than that and you will have second thoughs about why are you taking pictures that looks similar than an iphone 7.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true gearhead.

If you want to speak on technical terms, a 28 mm lens that the iPhone offers is going to give a distinctive look that other lenses will not.
If you think 200mm looks like 28mm then your eyes need to get checked. If you think a 1cm sensor is going to outperform any crop sensor you've missed it. If you think 12MP outresolves 24MP, I don't know what to tell you. If you think a smaller sensor has better ISO performance than a much larger one, then you don't notice grain. If you think that a jpeg has more dynamic range than a RAW file, you should probably learn how to edit a photo.

If you want to have a practical discussion, then you've missed the boat there too. As any camera, even a 10 year old one will offer a significantly larger amount of control and speed that an iPhone cannot, even one with a more robust piece of camera software. For one, the iPhone regardless of program cannot change the Aperture. But more importantly has no physical controls to quickly change said settings. Or has a meaningful swapable lens system.

And what the hell is "less" than a 5d3? Because if you feel like you'd discount every film camera in existence because it's "lesser" then you really have no respect for art or the craft of photography. Your viewpoint is incredibly narrow and has next to understanding of the medium or the work that goes into it.

In other words: troll somewhere else. That advice was tantamount to offering no advice.
 
Most people don't know the differences between iphone pictures and dslr. You gotta have high end gear to differentiate from iphone pictures and dslr. Heck even iphone 7 video is better than mark 3 video.
 
ElBerryKM13 said:
Most people don't know the differences between iphone pictures and dslr. You gotta have high end gear to differentiate from iphone pictures and dslr. Heck even iphone 7 video is better than mark 3 video.
Click to expand...

You don't know shit. You haven't consider the 'process'. Only your half assed belief of the result.
Your idea of solving a $500 maximum solution is to spend another $1000 (if you can find it used for around that price) or $2k for a new one. What are you, in middle management somewhere, spending someone elses money?
If this is your advice then keep it to yourself.
Seriously, fuck off.
 
Relax dude. Your opinion is not worth a penny more than mine.

Also the best camera is the one that you carry with you all the time. And most of the time that is a phone.
 
ElBerryKM13 said:
Relax dude. Your opinion is not worth a penny more than mine.

Also the best camera is the one that you carry with you all the time. And most of the time that is a phone.
Click to expand...

Yeah it is. If you're a working professional, we can have this discussion. If you're just throwing your potshots from the sidelines with an "opinion" about how professionals work from the field, you're an arm chair jocky.
If you think a $700 phone can replace any dSLR as a professional working tool, you have no idea what it is we do and frankly it's insulting.
Show me your body of work with any tool and we can talk. You don't even know what these tools are or do.
Now I definitely think you're in middle management somewhere because you clearly also think you know everyone's jobs better than they do.

So no, I won't relax. And yeah, you can really fuck off.
 
ElBerryKM13 said:
Relax dude. Your opinion is not worth a penny more than mine.

Also the best camera is the one that you carry with you all the time. And most of the time that is a phone.
Click to expand...
Bro I have seen UnknownSouljer post some amazing pics on this forum and I haven't seen anything from you. When I comes to a photography related question I think his opinion is worth a hell of a lot more that yours, at least thats how I feel. The D3300 that was linked will blow the pants off an iphone if you know what you are doing.
 
Still doesn't give him the right to insult people. I never claimed to be a photographer either. All I'm saying is if you are spending money on a real camera do it right the first time or you will just be wasting money because you will not take your cheap dslr anywhere after you compare the pictures you take with the ones with your iphone. At least if you get a good camera you will be inclined to take it anywhere you go so you could get better at taking photos.
 
ElBerryKM13 said:
Still doesn't give him the right to insult people.
Click to expand...

That's the part that is most infuriating. You don't get or see how you've insulted photographers. When you stated that the only solution to a photographic problem was buying an extremely expensive dSLR, you essentially stated that photographers play no part in the making of a photo. That 'quality' could only be achieved by spending money on equipment. And that isn't true. The irony is that you then tried to use the "best camera is..." maxim essentially trying to hedge onto both sides. I'd have more respect for you if you at least would've stuck to your belief that money was the solution.


ElBerryKM13 said:
I never claimed to be a photographer either.
Click to expand...

No one said you did. But when you make blanket statements about an entire industry and what makes their work "good" then you had better have the chops to prove you know what you're talking about. If you don't, then frankly you don't deserve a spot in this discussion. To illustrate that point, I'll put it another way:
Do you spend a lot of time questioning what type of lumber or tools a contractor uses?
Do you question the type of mouse or tablet a designer uses?
Do you think that a "better guitar" makes a "better guitarist"?
Do you think it matters if an accountant uses a PC or a MAC?

If you're paying attention, the answer to all of those questions is "no". And the reason WHY it's "no", is because the tools they use has NOTHING to do with the end result. The result comes from the skillset, expertise, technical, and artistic ability of the person that wielded it. This is why Skrillex made millions of dollars with an old laptop and a busted speaker and hobbyists only dream they could.

Similarly, a 5D3 will NOT net you a better result. In that way your iPhone comment was some-what correct. But that is what makes you irritating, because you then think that any "lesser" camera is inferior and is incapable of producing incredible results.

===

To that point, I challenge you to look at any National Geographic from 1989 or before (long before digital cameras were even a dream) and compare it to whatever your favorite iPhone or 5D3 photography is.
There has been incredible photography long before the 5D3. Done with fully manual cameras, film, and technique. Joe McNally, Steve McCurry, Richard Avedon, and Herb Ritts would all shred your idea of defeating art with technology to bits.


ElBerryKM13 said:
All I'm saying is if you are spending money on a real camera do it right the first time or you will just be wasting money because you will not take your cheap dslr anywhere after you compare the pictures you take with the ones with your iphone. At least if you get a good camera you will be inclined to take it anywhere you go so you could get better at taking photos.
Click to expand...

Spending a bunch of money on a camera doesn't get them to want to carry it around. Wanting to take photographs and enjoy your hobby does. You've set a limitation on other people. I don't care if you spend $100k on a camera (and yes, those exist), that cost doesn't get you to take a single photo. So I'm sorry that for you to be motivated you have to spend a lot of money, but other people want to work on an art or a craft. And they don't need a ridiculous barrier to entry like: "you have to spend $2500 to get started". It's a lie, and all it does is hinder would be people that want to get started.

What you've said is: "why bother with being a photographer or photography as a hobby if you can't spend $2500, just don't bother." And not only is that intellectually dishonest, but people that at least want the opportunity to try can't because they think they have to spend some dumb amount of money. All the while not realizing that yes, $500 is plenty to get started with in photography, to not only see if you like it, but to fully understand and master the technical as well. Because it isn't the cost of the tool, it is the skill of the practitioner. Start with what you can, where you can.

Want to see that in action? Want me to put my proverbial money where my mouth is?
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7ECB90D96DF59DE5
Spend an hour or two watching that series. Pro photog cheap camera challenge. These guys destroy on skill.

If you watch only one, watch Vincent Laforet do some street photography:



===


I've already given you a ton of time an information. Most of which you've glossed over already (especially when confronted with the technical aspects of photography a few posts back). Lets see if you will actually read through this post and LEARN something.
 
ElBerryKM13 said:
Still doesn't give him the right to insult people. I never claimed to be a photographer either. All I'm saying is if you are spending money on a real camera do it right the first time or you will just be wasting money because you will not take your cheap dslr anywhere after you compare the pictures you take with the ones with your iphone. At least if you get a good camera you will be inclined to take it anywhere you go so you could get better at taking photos.
Click to expand...

Ummmm.. dude, what are you smoking?

I've got a couple of "cheap DSLRs" in regards to the price.

A Pentax K-30 and a Pentax K-01. Both use the same sensor and produce the same exact quality shots. The K-01 is a mirrorless and not near as fast as the K-30 but it has it's place.

Even my old K-10d 10MP would have blown away ANY phone any pretty much any point and shoot out there.

Now there are a very small number of high dollar point and shoot cameras that can produce excellent results, but I would still take an old DSLR above them pretty much any day of the week.

Not take my "cheap DSLR" with me after comparing to an iPhone... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
 
Yes you can get wonderful photos with cheap dslr. My point is get a good camera from the get go so you will be compelled to use it. Cheap dsl and it will get no love after a few months.
 
ElBerryKM13 said:
Yes you can get wonderful photos with cheap dslr. My point is get a good camera from the get go so you will be compelled to use it. Cheap dsl and it will get no love after a few months.
Click to expand...

It's truly disheartening to see people adopt this viewpoint. While I'm not entirely certain what you mean by 'a good camera', but nearly every recommendation in this thread thus far qualifies. A Canon Rebel is a good camera. A Canon 5D MkIV is a good camera (I'm a Canon guy an't don't have a ton of experience with Pentax/Nikon.) One of those cameras costs ~$400, one costs $3500.

A beginning photographer would be no better served by the 5D than he/she would by the Rebel simply because the higher-end cameras include features and utilities that even hobbyist photographers fail to use. These higher end cameras are expensive for reasons that a novice would not understand. The best course of action is for the beginner (the OP, in this case) to purchase the best camera that he is comfortable buying at this juncture, which would seem to be in the $400-$500 Rebel territory. If he takes a liking to the craft, he can then explore a more expensive purchase with the knowledge to actually make an informed decision.

Throwing money at the best camera you can buy is something I see people do all the time in LA. Someone decides they want to be a Cinematographer/Director and they go out and buy a RED/Arri on credit/loan (these camera packages can easily exceed $60,000) and then try to get jobs. Guess what? They don't, because they don't fully appreciate what makes these cameras expensive in the first place. Sure, they have tons of pixels, but pixels/megapixels are a very small part of the equation.

Your skillset should always, always, always be slightly ahead of your gear. If you're not picking up the camera because it isn't expensive enough, then perhaps the craft isn't for you.
 
Just want to add that the more expensive camera, such as the 5DIII, does not means it will make you want to take it everywhere anymore than other cameras. These cameras are usually heavier, bulkier, and is no fun to lug around to travel.

IMHO, something like the Canon Rebel, SL1, the Nikon D3300, or the Sony a6000 would be a much better choice starting out, while providing excellent image quality. Which is better is subjective. I would go to the local camera store and see which fits and feels comfortable in your hand.
 
So I got this for her for her birthday. I figured it'd be nice to have a tripod and all that.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01D93Z89W/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Anyway, she's at work today, so I'm learning some of the functions of it so I can teach her and all that. I have one ridiculously photogenic dog:

IMG_0187 by OEM +, on Flickr

One not so photogenic dog:

IMG_0246 by OEM +, on Flickr

One dog who thinks he has to lay down for every picture:

IMG_0125 by OEM +, on Flickr

A goat (we actually have 2 goats and a pregnant donkey...but those guys didn't want to come over for pictures:

IMG_0238 by OEM +, on Flickr

And Spencer who is the only one who will actually sit for pictures(Same as the first pic above)

IMG_0261 by OEM +, on Flickr

IMG_0262 by OEM +, on Flickr


I have no idea what I'm doing...but these are better pics than our iphones and any point and shoot...so we're happy. I think all of these except maybe the first one was on auto...I think the first one was on pastorate.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
ElBerryKM13 said:
Yes you can get wonderful photos with cheap dslr. My point is get a good camera from the get go so you will be compelled to use it. Cheap dsl and it will get no love after a few months.
Click to expand...

I would love to have the new FF Pentax DSLR (K-1).. but the price is just waaaay too high for me.

That being said, I have not spent more than $500 for any DSLR at this point.

I've been a Pentax fan ever since my K1000 film camera I had in college.

I have a bunch of lenses, and quite a few great lenses that I have paid very little for in regards to what I would have paid for them new.

Any time I want to take pics, my bag and both cameras go with me.

If you actually like photography, then you will take the time to learn the camera you have and use it.

For those who just think that they "need a better camera" so they can get better pictures, and don't take the time to learn the camera they bought for that purpose, they are going to be disappointed and go back to their junky phone or point and shoot camera.
 
ElBerryKM13 said:
Yes you can get wonderful photos with cheap dslr. My point is get a good camera from the get go so you will be compelled to use it. Cheap dsl and it will get no love after a few months.
Click to expand...
Its a good job you dont actually speak for people who use them.
My family has many photographers.
My father used to develop film himself.
I showed them my Nikon D3300 and all of them are amazed how featured it is and the image quality at such a low price.
I've had it well over 2 years, it still goes everywhere with me.
Bargain basement DSLR, amazing what you can do with one.
 
Don't be afraid to crop your pictures down to a better composition once they are on your computer. For example, I'd take a little off the top of the first one to get the dogs eyes a little higher up. When I do this I always save the new file with a "_crop" at the end. I hate overwriting the original of my better pictures because I'll find one day I want an 8x11 for a picture frame or a 4x6 the next day, 5x7 ect. You don't want to permanently crop out the picture because you may need that for a different printed picture ratio later.

The last one is cute as is.
 
MN Scout said:
Don't be afraid to crop your pictures down to a better composition once they are on your computer. For example, I'd take a little off the top of the first one to get the dogs eyes a little higher up. When I do this I always save the new file with a "_crop" at the end. I hate overwriting the original of my better pictures because I'll find one day I want an 8x11 for a picture frame or a 4x6 the next day, 5x7 ect. You don't want to permanently crop out the picture because you may need that for a different printed picture ratio later.

The last one is cute as is.
Click to expand...

And that is one of the reasons I shoot only in RAW mode... you never actually mess up the original. The other reason is that RAW files have a ton more data and you can recover a whole lot from too dark of pictures. Blown out areas can't be recovered.. but that is because there is no actual data there to recover form complete whiteness.

And, in-camera jpegs are usually not that good of quality compared to shooting RAW and then processing and converting yourself.
 
For the OP, since you picked up a Canon:

On the software that comes with the camera, there's one called DPP (Digital Photo Professional). Shoot with your camera set to record RAW + JPEG, if you change nothing else in the settings (and you can still shoot in full Auto), and use DPP as your 'photo editor'. The JPEGs can be used immediately, and the RAW files are essentially the 'digital negatives' that you can edit later.

DPP does most of what Photoshop's 'Adobe Camera RAW' and Lightroom's Develop modules do, and is even a little better when it comes to doing corrections on Canon cameras and lenses. One specific setting to look for is called 'DLO' (Digital Lens Optimizer), and is a new tool from Canon that can extract a lot of detail from shots taken with even their entry-level lenses.

To use DPP, use the navigator to find where you copied your files from the camera/SD card to, click on the RAW (.cr2) file, and then click 'Edit Image' on the top left.

Summary:
1. Set the camera to shoot RAW + JPEG
2. Install Canon DPP and try editing RAWs
3. Play around!
 
cyclone3d said:
And that is one of the reasons I shoot only in RAW mode... you never actually mess up the original. The other reason is that RAW files have a ton more data and you can recover a whole lot from too dark of pictures. Blown out areas can't be recovered.. but that is because there is no actual data there to recover form complete whiteness.

And, in-camera jpegs are usually not that good of quality compared to shooting RAW and then processing and converting yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't want to burden a new photographer with too much. OEM, know that there are advantages to shooting in raw, and if you notice issues with the JPG files, you can probably eliminate them once you start shooting and processing RAW files. Half the battle is just making sure you understand the camera, the autofocus, what the combination of ISO, Aperture, Shutterspeed do. I'll let you figure out those first, and then we can talk about RAW files. If you want set the camera to shoot RAW + JPG for now, and you can play with the RAWs later.
 
I washed our cars this morning, and the fog was awesome, so I took some pictures...because why not? I figured I'd keep all my shitty pictures in here and not gum up the nice picture threads.

For some reason, I think this is a badass picture:

IMG_0327 by OEM +, on Flickr

I like this one, too, because the grass is out of focus or something...

IMG_0334 by OEM +, on Flickr

And then a question...on this picture the LED lights are barely visible, but they're bright as fuck in real life (not the head lights, the day time running lights, they're on believe it or not) anyway to make lights like that show up brighter...or is that just one of those things?

IMG_0335 by OEM +, on Flickr
 
OEM said:
And then a question...on this picture the LED lights are barely visible, but they're bright as fuck in real life (not the head lights, the day time running lights, they're on believe it or not) anyway to make lights like that show up brighter...or is that just one of those things?
Click to expand...

It's kind of 'just one of those things'. As you learn about lighting, you'll find that some things are actually brighter than you thought they were, and others are darker- your mind plays tricks on you (or rather, it's pretty efficient in filling in gaps etc.).

This also introduces some post-processing technique: when you take a picture, and it's not what you saw 'in your mind', you can adjust it. In this case, you may be able to raise the highlights or whites for this image to simulate the effect you were expecting.


(also, if you shot in RAW and edit the shot in DPP, this is very easy- it's just a slider you drag to the right!)
 
Daylight, even overcast like that, is bright. You'll probably get an even cooler picture if you take it at sunset. Let the setting sun light the front of the car, you'll have the nice blue in the background. The running lights and headlights will be clearly visible, I'd think. The lights may trick your autoexposure, so you'll have to dial in a plus exposure compensation, or go to manual mode. Another option is change the autoexposure to only using a single point, and place that one point on the hood of your car (since your car is white, you'll still need a positive exposure adjustment). Note: autoexposure is just trying to get the scene to a neutral gray, that is why you have to plus it in snow scenes or if your white car fills up most of the picture.

On the picture you have, you could selectively brighten the front of the car, and further brighten just the running lights. You'd need to use a brush in the photo app. I doubt it would be as easy as just raising the highlights like IdiotInCharge mentioned - though that would be a good start.

A lot of photos you see displayed by business and professional photographers have a fair amount of editing applied.

Test edit in Lightroom doing what I mentioned above.:
32575773892_b59967eba0_k.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'll do you a favor as well. The Camera body = Good. The 18 - 55 Kit lens = good. The Transcend memory cards = Good. Shutter release, tripod, bag. = Probably useable. The rest = Utter garbage. (Flash, filters, and "zoom" adapters)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top