Beginner First camera advice, add your 2 cents worth.

[richard uk]

Lots of people ask what first camera to get, well, here is my advice for what it is worth.

1. Don't buy new. You will get fat more bang for the buck if you go second hand. However that comes with a few caviats

2. Buy from a good dealer, I have used MPB but other dealers exist. They take away lots of the risks but won't be as cheep as eBay and the like

3. You will get better value from an old 'pro' camera than a new starter model if you are only interested in stills photography

4. DSLR cameras are still great for stills but have never been all that good at video, if you have video as a priority then get a mirrorless camera

5. Lenses are just as important than the camera, spend as much as the body, if not more on the lens or lenses

6. Avoid cameras with super high amounts of zoom and avoid cameras with non-removeable lenses. They can be ok for 'family snaps' but they are limiting

7. Be aware of sensor size, ideally an older full frame camera will give better results than a crop sensor. But they will be a bit more expensive and heavier as will the lenses

8. Crop sensor cameras are fine but be aware that a lens designed to fit a crop sensor camera body only ( DX on Nikon or AF- on Canon ) won't work on a full frame body if you change. However the larger lenses will work on the crop sensor bodies.

9. WiFi or Bluetooth on a camera can be more problem than they are worth. Almost all cameras can connect to a smart phone or computer by a cable. It's also faster

10. You do not need a separate flash, tripod, fancy camera bag, UV lens filter or super expensive kit to start learning. You can always sell on as you go and take advantage of people who overspend and pick up their stuff.

All that said, I would recommend a Nikon D200 and a 35mm DX lens to start, should come in under £ $ 200 for the lot. Maybe a newer version if you like but I really like me old D200


If you want to go full frame then the D610 and a 24-120mm G lens is a useful upgrade and would be around $ £ 600+ for a decent set up


I would also recommend the Canon 5D mk2 and the 24-105mm L lens

Anyone have anything to add?

 

[Phil V]

I agree; most of what you’ve posted aligns with my warnings re ‘beginner cameras’ that aren’t designed to be easy for learners - they’re designed to create an upgrade path.
One thing to add. And it’s my usual first response in ‘first camera’ threads.

It’s only your first camera; that means in 12 months time it’ll either be:

• Back in the box cos you found photography wasn’t for you.
• Back in the box cos you’ve already upgraded but you think having a second camera might come in handy.
• Traded in for something better.

So that said - definitely s/h is the better option, and a mid range camera could maybe hold off that first upgrade.

But don’t dismiss either M4/3 cameras or think APSC crop are somehow deficient. Full frame is great if it’s what you need, but not everyone needs it.

And all those words might be wasted cos some people just ‘need’ to buy new.

 

[Garry Edwards]

5. Lenses are just as important than the camera, spend as much as the body, if not more on the lens or lenses

I'm not sure I agree with that, for a first camera. More expensive lenses tend to have a larger aperture, which can be a very real benefit, but in terms of image quality most lenses are fine because most people don't make large prints, and a lot don't make any prints, and an expensive lens can be a waste of money if it's only used for viewing on a computer.
Which leaves us with the other major benefit of expensive lenses, less lens aberration. This was very relevant before we could dial in the lens used into Photoshop and leave it to correct the faults, but Photoshop (and other software programmes) do a very good job.

Nothing very useful to actually add.
I don't know much about "entry level" cameras, I've always gone for high-end full-frame "pro" cameras, but I used to run training courses in studio photography and there would always be at least one person there with an entry-level camera. I'd always start off by telling people to set their camera to manual, for use with studio flash. Pro cameras? No problem, with separate controls for both shutter speed and lens aperture. Entry-level? Very complicated, usually involved holding down button A whilst pressing button B a few times to bring up a menu, then selecting something obscure in the menu to bring up a sub-menu that allowed the aperture to be changed . . . These cameras were supposedly designed for beginners but couldn't really be used off of auto mode without having the 485 page user manual to hand And, although less important, small cameras are more fiddly to use than larger ones.

And, in terms of cost, my £5000 D3 can now be bought second-hand for around £300, it's just as capable now as when it was brand new and far better in terms of image quality (and everything else) than a new entry-level camera.

And all those words might be wasted cos some people just ‘need’ to buy new.

Let's just be grateful that they do!

 

[d00d]

You reach the age when you've done a full circle, you're old & frail, and go back to so-called "entry level": little and lightweight.

 

[woof woof]

I think some thinking about what you want and some research or at least asking other people is a very good idea.

Back when I decided to go digital (moving from a 35mm Nikon SLR) there was no internet or if there was I didn't have it. I walked into a shop knowing nothing and spoke to a salesman and came out with a Fuji S602 pro zoom. I was happy with the image quality but the camera was just too slow in use and I became very frustrated with it and it had to go. My next buy was a Canon 300D which was an APS-C DSLR. A big issue with this camera was that 28mm didn't look like 28mm anymore and of course this was down to the crop factor I knew nothing about.

If starting again now I'd definitely think more about the pictures I wanted to take and then buy gear capable of getting me the results I wanted. This'd be my advice, start at the end picture and work back from that to determine the settings and the kit. Read the reviews, understand the terminology and ask if you get stuck.

 

[Faldrax]

In general I agree, but as always, it's a case of beware of generalisations.

One thing that mirrorless cameras have in their favour over DSLR is that the viewfinder is a 'live view' - and so the user can see the effect of adjusting settings on the exposure as they make that adjustment - while you could do the same with older DSLR in live view, this would typically mean using the rear screen rather than the viewfinder, which is not a habit to encourage, in general.
That immediate visual feedback is useful to a complete beginner to get that first 'I understand' moment of how aperture and shutter can be adjusted to change the exposure (it's the instant nature of it that makes it even better than the shoot, adjust, shoot, compare that digital brought).

Also, the FF vs Crop question - while at any given generation FF are generally better than the Crop cameras, the advancement in sensors means that there comes a point where an older FF will no longer have the edge over a newer Crop camera.

 

[Phil V]

there comes a point where an older FF will no longer have the edge over a newer Crop camera.

It depends what you’re measuring.
If you’re talking image noise at high iso, you’re dead right, if you’re talking measured DR, again you have a point.

But if I’m taking low iso portraits, there’s no crop or M43 camera that’ll produce as pleasing an image as a 5d classic.

And I’m no FF purist, I shot weddings for 13 years with crop cameras.

 

[Faldrax]

It depends what you’re measuring.
If you’re talking image noise at high iso, you’re dead right, if you’re talking measured DR, again you have a point.

But if I’m taking low iso portraits, there’s no crop or M43 camera that’ll produce as pleasing an image as a 5d classic.

And I’m no FF purist, I shot weddings for 13 years with crop cameras.

I completely agree, it all depends on the specifics of the individual and what they are aiming to do with the camera.
I see it so often on various photography forums / groups, where someone asks "What's the best camera/lens for a beginner", and people start listing particular brands / models without asking any more info on their aspirations (and budget).

 

[richard uk]

I was shooting at some rules of thumb rather than hard and fast rules

Generally, in my experience, people who 'want to learn photography' have different aims than someone who wants a camera to 'capture family memories', and that then also splits into arty photos, wedding photos, portraits, landscapes ect ect ect

I use an old D200 for fun because it produces good enough results and all of the functions are not deep in a menu and does what I need. That kind of early but not first or second generation camera is a good learning tool too.

Yeah it's iso is not great above 400 but I normally don't care, I never used film above 400 and a bit of grain/noise isn't a problem for me.

 

[woof woof]

I'd take any of my current MFT or APS-C cameras over a 5D, any of them. I did like the output from my 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I did take some pictures that are amongst my all time favourites with that 5D and 50mm and other lenses but other than the shallow DoF the 5D and a f1.4 offers I'd take MFT and a f1.8 prime every time.

Each to their own though.

 

[realspeed]

Which ever camera is the first one there will always be something else the one you bought doesn't have. So set a budget including memory cards and start taking photos. Experience will later on dictate which camera suits your needs best

 

[richard uk]

Which ever camera is the first one there will always be something else the one you bought doesn't have. So set a budget including memory cards and start taking photos. Experience will later on dictate which camera suits your needs best

Totally. But it is good to have a camera that helps you learn the basics, you don't learn to drive in a million pound super car

 

[richard uk]

I'd take any of my current MFT or APS-C cameras over a 5D, any of them. I did like the output from my 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4 and I did take some pictures that are amongst my all time favourites with that 5D and 50mm and other lenses but other than the shallow DoF the 5D and a f1.4 offers I'd take MFT and a f1.8 prime every time.

Each to their own though.

Yep. Each to their own.

MFT can be great for a lot of shots, I like portraits and that's why I use my full frame. For street and travel then MFT ticks a lot of boxes