Entry level cameras

Senojbor

Senojbor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
56
Edit My Images
No
First of all I've always gone down the Canon route but this is about all makes really.
Having bought many cameras over the years, some expensive ones and others not so.
Too be honest, most lower end of the market stuff are excellent and justifying paying many hundreds of pounds for not a lot more benefits is not just worth the extra.
That's just a personal view and appreciate other peoples views.
 
Senojbor said:
First of all I've always gone down the Canon route but this is about all makes really.
Having bought many cameras over the years, some expensive ones and others not so.
Too be honest, most lower end of the market stuff are excellent and justifying paying many hundreds of pounds for not a lot more benefits is not just worth the extra.
That's just a personal view and appreciate other peoples views.
Click to expand...
Depends what you want from a camera. Not a lot of benefit is just plain wrong, you get a lot of benefit with a feature that is critical to the way you shoot. Ie I shoot my young children running around and having a camera with state of the art AF means I basically don't miss a shot at all and 99.9% have the eyes/face in focus, just not achievable on a budget camera.
 
Shooting action needs faster frame rates, it's a question of buying a camera that suits your needs. If all you do is pop to the shops you don't need a Bugatti Veyron.
 
Senojbor said:
First of all I've always gone down the Canon route but this is about all makes really.
Having bought many cameras over the years, some expensive ones and others not so.
Too be honest, most lower end of the market stuff are excellent and justifying paying many hundreds of pounds for not a lot more benefits is not just worth the extra.
That's just a personal view and appreciate other peoples views.
Click to expand...

If the camera isn't used professionally then for the most part I'd agree. Camera bodies are purchased by pros to cover specific needs. For the average Joe taking shots of the kids, pets and the odd landscape then any DSLR from the last 20 years will be quite sufficient.
 
When I had my SLR I never had wide aperture lenses but when I had DSLR's one thing which put me off the more entry level models was that some lacked the ability to shoot at 1/8000 and instead had a max shutter speed of 1/4000 which means that you can't shoot at wide aperture in good light without using ND's. Frame rates and the like never bothered me and that shutter speed issue was the only thing that put me off entry level cameras at the time.
 
For many people it is a 'want' rather than a need. I posted in the 'regret or not' thread in this section about my experience with bikes. I can't do links yet. There are a lot of people I know paying much more than me for a bike, with some of them hitting 5 figures. I can't get where they are coming from at all. I have two £2000 bikes and some people think that is mad. People don't tend to start there though - they start at entry-level and then increase their reach / desire.

I have drifted in and out of photography. Had a minolta slr in the 80s. Started with cheap digital cameras to take photos of my children. Then used a Canon powershot, had several of them. I decided to upgrade and bought a Samsung camera with changeable lenses, which was all I needed. It had some surprisingly good low light performance, I like taking photos of flood-lit buildings and under street lighting and intended building on that. Then Samsung pulled out leaving me stranded. The cost of lenses went up, but I felt that was likely to be short-lived and didn't want to continue to invest in an obsolete system.

I then moved to a DSLR, an entry-level Nikon d3300. The sensor is the same as some of the higher spec DSLRs with fewer camera functions. I've had it for over 4 years. I have built up a desire to get something better and was looking at full-frame. I did my research and came to the conclusion that mirrorless was at a tipping point, and after my experience with Samsung I didn't want to be stranded again. I've just taken early retirement and my colleagues generously contributed towards a new camera, so I've bought a z5.

Do I need it? Not at all. I'm probably not a good enough photographer to justify the d3300. I wanted it however, can afford it and went for it.

I once read an article by a guy who gives financial advice to lottery winners. He said people's ambition is limited by their experience and what they know. If they live in a 3 bedroom semi and win big, they will buy a 4 bedroom detached because is where their ambitions are. They then move again. He said they all end up in the manor house, with a couple of acres and a duck pond, but some of them take 2 or even 3 moves to get there, because they cannot possibly imagine that for themselves.

I don't know if that is applicable to cameras or not, but it was interesting to me, how people were self-limiting, even when they had more money than they would ever need.
 
Nebulous said:
For many people it is a 'want' rather than a need. I posted in the 'regret or not' thread in this section about my experience with bikes. I can't do links yet. There are a lot of people I know paying much more than me for a bike, with some of them hitting 5 figures. I can't get where they are coming from at all. I have two £2000 bikes and some people think that is mad. People don't tend to start there though - they start at entry-level and then increase their reach / desire.

I have drifted in and out of photography. Had a minolta slr in the 80s. Started with cheap digital cameras to take photos of my children. Then used a Canon powershot, had several of them. I decided to upgrade and bought a Samsung camera with changeable lenses, which was all I needed. It had some surprisingly good low light performance, I like taking photos of flood-lit buildings and under street lighting and intended building on that. Then Samsung pulled out leaving me stranded. The cost of lenses went up, but I felt that was likely to be short-lived and didn't want to continue to invest in an obsolete system.

I then moved to a DSLR, an entry-level Nikon d3300. The sensor is the same as some of the higher spec DSLRs with fewer camera functions. I've had it for over 4 years. I have built up a desire to get something better and was looking at full-frame. I did my research and came to the conclusion that mirrorless was at a tipping point, and after my experience with Samsung I didn't want to be stranded again. I've just taken early retirement and my colleagues generously contributed towards a new camera, so I've bought a z5.

Do I need it? Not at all. I'm probably not a good enough photographer to justify the d3300. I wanted it however, can afford it and went for it.

I once read an article by a guy who gives financial advice to lottery winners. He said people's ambition is limited by their experience and what they know. If they live in a 3 bedroom semi and win big, they will buy a 4 bedroom detached because is where their ambitions are. They then move again. He said they all end up in the manor house, with a couple of acres and a duck pond, but some of them take 2 or even 3 moves to get there, because they cannot possibly imagine that for themselves.

I don't know if that is applicable to cameras or not, but it was interesting to me, how people were self-limiting, even when they had more money than they would ever need.
Click to expand...

I suspect there's a lot of truth in that.
 
Nebulous said:
For many people it is a 'want' rather than a need. I posted in the 'regret or not' thread in this section about my experience with bikes. I can't do links yet. There are a lot of people I know paying much more than me for a bike, with some of them hitting 5 figures. I can't get where they are coming from at all. I have two £2000 bikes and some people think that is mad. People don't tend to start there though - they start at entry-level and then increase their reach / desire.

I have drifted in and out of photography. Had a minolta slr in the 80s. Started with cheap digital cameras to take photos of my children. Then used a Canon powershot, had several of them. I decided to upgrade and bought a Samsung camera with changeable lenses, which was all I needed. It had some surprisingly good low light performance, I like taking photos of flood-lit buildings and under street lighting and intended building on that. Then Samsung pulled out leaving me stranded. The cost of lenses went up, but I felt that was likely to be short-lived and didn't want to continue to invest in an obsolete system.

I then moved to a DSLR, an entry-level Nikon d3300. The sensor is the same as some of the higher spec DSLRs with fewer camera functions. I've had it for over 4 years. I have built up a desire to get something better and was looking at full-frame. I did my research and came to the conclusion that mirrorless was at a tipping point, and after my experience with Samsung I didn't want to be stranded again. I've just taken early retirement and my colleagues generously contributed towards a new camera, so I've bought a z5.

Do I need it? Not at all. I'm probably not a good enough photographer to justify the d3300. I wanted it however, can afford it and went for it.

I once read an article by a guy who gives financial advice to lottery winners. He said people's ambition is limited by their experience and what they know. If they live in a 3 bedroom semi and win big, they will buy a 4 bedroom detached because is where their ambitions are. They then move again. He said they all end up in the manor house, with a couple of acres and a duck pond, but some of them take 2 or even 3 moves to get there, because they cannot possibly imagine that for themselves.

I don't know if that is applicable to cameras or not, but it was interesting to me, how people were self-limiting, even when they had more money than they would ever need.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.
I spend my money on the thinks I am most interested in, for me that's Mountain Biking, Hiking and Photography in that order.
I think nothing of spending £6k+ on mountain biking, but I try to stay under £2k for a camera body because I won't make use of anything more, where the bike I see a huge difference between a £2k bike and a £6k bike.
Most of my friends are into cars, I'm just happy if it gets me about.
 
Worth remembering not everyone is the same. The limit for me is either what can I afford (in 2000 my mountain bike cost £400 while my friends had £2000 Santa Cruz xc bikes because I had no spare cash) or what can be justified rationally (when I bought my A7 that was the level of kit that fitted my needs).

We've been looking at houses in Europe, and while we could afford a 6 bed house or a place with 20,000 SQM of land, we would prefer something with 2-3 bedrooms and a garden for the sake of practicality.
 
robj20 said:
I think nothing of spending £6k+ on mountain biking, but I try to stay under £2k for a camera body because I won't make use of anything more, where the bike I see a huge difference between a £2k bike and a £6k bike.
Click to expand...

Don’t tempt me!

I’m a roadie. I have a decent carbon race bike which spends most of its life on a turbo.

I’ve drifted to long distance Audax events, and I have a decent steel bike for endurance stuff.

However ...... I’m pretty sure I could get a really good titanium bike, with electronic gears, which would fit my requirements for under £5k.......
 
Senojbor said:
First of all I've always gone down the Canon route but this is about all makes really.
Having bought many cameras over the years, some expensive ones and others not so.
Too be honest, most lower end of the market stuff are excellent and justifying paying many hundreds of pounds for not a lot more benefits is not just worth the extra.
That's just a personal view and appreciate other peoples views.
Click to expand...

well this is complex and very simple too.
Firstly; there’s no such thing as ‘entry level cameras’, it’s marketing bullsh it, and this is how it works.

A ‘camera’ is a picture taking device, it’s ‘good’ if it’s easy to use, this means it needs to have buttons and dials for all the important functions.

Some cheaper cameras, cut down on the controls to keep the price down, but rather than sell them as ‘cutdown’ because they’re actually ‘worse’ to use, the industry calls them ‘entry level’. A fantastic con, because that makes it sound like they’re more suitable for beginners than other cameras. But the truth is they’re more difficult

So there’s 3 types of ‘camera’
Standard
Cut down
Professional

Standard cameras are great, easy to use, relatively well built

Professional cameras are built to a higher standard, usually lots faster in use, and would have twin card slots, lots of flexibility in set up.

Cut down cameras are built down to a price - doesn’t mean they’re crap, but depending on the mfr they might even be missing features that save no money but ensure there’s a big enough gap between these and the mid range (standard) camera. ergo, designed to create an upgrade path - entry level only in marketing terms.
 
So a case study from my house. About 3 years ago my wife decided she wanted a decent camera. We looked around, I guided her and she settled on Fuji as she didn’t want a big bulky DSLR. So I tried to guide her down the road of spending a tad more than she wanted to and buying a Fuji X-T20 with the 18-55mm f2.8 -f4 lens. This was a couple of hundred quid over what she wanted to spend but I told her it was a good camera with a cracking kit lens that she could learn on. She decided she didn’t want to spend that much and bought an X-T100 body with a truly awful, motorised plastic 15-45mm lens. The camera body is too cut down, with a slow processor, older sensor and unlabelled dials. The lens is honestly the most poor quality piece of photography equipment I’ve ever used. As such her phone takes better photos, and the poor camera hasn’t been out of its bag for well over a year. I don’t want to use it as a second body as the experience is so poor.

Every manufacturer makes a crappy entry level camera, paired with a cheap, poor quality kit lens in the hope you’ll upgrade soon, Now smartphone cameras are so good I don’t think this works anymore, hence the entry level mirrorless and DSLR will gradually disappear. Any decent DSLR or mirrorless sensor made in the past 10 years will take great images, lenses, body build quality and controls are what matter more now
 
Last edited:
I'd have a variation on Phil's take, in that entry-level cameras are entry level because they are made to be cheap and therefore the bar to acquisition is lower rather than them being more suitable for beginners. But otherwise, yes, I agree with all that..
 
It’s not image quality that differentiates entry level from top of the range cameras, but other feature that may matter as much to you. Battery life, focus speed, frame rate , build quality, ergonomics etc all improve higher in the range
 
Senojbor said:
First of all I've always gone down the Canon route but this is about all makes really.
Having bought many cameras over the years, some expensive ones and others not so.
Too be honest, most lower end of the market stuff are excellent and justifying paying many hundreds of pounds for not a lot more benefits is not just worth the extra.
That's just a personal view and appreciate other peoples views.
Click to expand...

If you’re selling pictures and you need the extra features they pay for themselves relatively quickly. You’ll know if you need the extra features. If you don’t then yes, save your money and buy a less expensive model.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top