First DSLR Buying Help Please

benjo09

benjo09

Suspended / Banned
Messages
82
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone,

I'm looking to buy my first DSLR in the very near future but don't know what to get and which will be best for me. Would like to go Nikon as a friend and my Dad have them so I can borrow lenses etc. Looking to spend £450 now but can add over the coming months. I will be just generally taking pictures as well as sport (mainly golf),and maybe some macro stuff later on.

The Options:

Used D90 (£390) + used AF-S 35mm 1.8 lens (£140) or used AF-S 18-55 kit lens (£70). I'd then look at buying a 55-200 lens later. Its a bit over budget but I like the idea of the built in lens motor and the D90 seems a good camera from what I have read.

New D3100 with 18-55 and 55-200 lens kit (£440) then get a prime later. Its cheaper than the D90 but doesn't look as if it has as many advanced features and no inbuilt lens motor. But do I need all that?

New 5100 with 18-55 kit lens (£410) then get a prime and zoom later. Its the newest but I get the least for my money it seems in terms of lenses.

As you can see I'm quite confused about what I want and need but whatever I buy I know I'll be happy. What's peoples opinions on what would be the best option? Feel free to ask questions or recommend other combos.

Cheers


Ben
 
Hi Ben and welcome to TP (if you haven't been welcomed before :D

I'm somewhat biased being a D90 owner but given your alternatives I think you would get more use and a better photography experience from buying a used D90 rather than one of the newer, entry level bodies.
 
I had a D80 and have just upgraded to a D90 and am very happy with it, so I would say go for the d90.
 
i totally agree with Steve and a used d90 is roughly the same price as a new D3100 with kit lens, i think so much better to spend the same money on something better even if it is used and if you buy a good one you probably wont notice its second hand. i highly recommend the 35mm 1.8G lens also. the d90 has a top lcd screen which is probably the biggest advantage over the D5100 or D3100 apart from the focus motor and unless you want to become a serious photographer you wont need to upgrade from the d90 but if you buy a d5100 or d3100 you might eventually feel that it is holding you back which is never a good thing :)
 
Thanks for the advice!

From everything I've read and seen the D90 does seem to be the better camera. Is it easy to get to grips with for a novice? I work in a technical field and very close to video cameras so I'm not too worried about a steep learning curve but is there anything I need to watch out for?

Also will a 35mm prime or 18-55 kit lens be the best to start with?
 
I have a D3000 and my dad has the D90, for me it would be a no brainer to get the D90, the top LCD is worth it alone. Plus the extra buttons on the D90 make it much easier to change settings than it is using the menus on the other models.

As for lens choice, you would probably learn more with a 35mm prime provided you can live without the wide end of the kit lens. Plus it will give you better quality photos.
 
emm the 35mm is a much better lens and it produces great photos but it is a prime so it can be limiting but the kit lens is a zoom so it would probably be better to get both tbh if it is possible. The d90 is easy to get to grips with (my dad owns one) but you might just need to do a lot of experimenting with it but it really isnt that complicated to start off with.
 
Just one thing to think about, buying used you don't get the warrantee like you do with new. I wouldn't worry too much about lenses, even kit lenses produce good results. Also remember that most of the pictures you see on photographic sites have been edited and not as originally taken. I had with my first DSLR a superb 18-70mm kit lens and always regret letting it go.

If deciding to take the second hand route DO CHECK the number of shutter actuations, more important than camera condition, a well used camera with a high shutter count is worth a lot less than one with a low shutter count as its getting toward the end of its "normal " life. I personally wouldn't touch anything over 10,000 clicks even though Nikon rate at around 150,000 as the average.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
Tunbridge said:
As for lens choice, you would probably learn more with a 35mm prime provided
Click to expand...

Interested to know why you would learn more? A lot of people say this of primes but never understood what you can learn from limiting yourself to a prime?
I solely use primes because I prefer them but I don't think I learn more using one, I think I actually just compromise some of my opportunities for shots (especially the wide end as you say) as moving back doesn't give you the same picture as using a wider angle in same spot.
 
ernesto said:
Interested to know why you would learn more? A lot of people say this of primes but never understood what you can learn from limiting yourself to a prime?
I solely use primes because I prefer them but I don't think I learn more using one, I think I actually just compromise some of my opportunities for shots (especially the wide end as you say) as moving back doesn't give you the same picture as using a wider angle in same spot.
Click to expand...

i think he was trying to say that when using a prime you need to think a bit more before taking a shot thus meaning you might have to take a few steps back or forward but this also means you are thinking for longer about the shot which might make you learn more by seeing different angles rather than just zooming in or out on a zoom lens.
 
Okay, makes sense although can't say I have noticed it personally and I could certainly do with slowing down and thinking about the shot more. Maybe I should try manual focus as next stage of slowing me down :)
 
Depends on what your taking as a photo, sometimes you don't have time to stop and think about what your taking. This applies when taking wildlife for example, so the surmise that a prime takes better photos doesn't stand up shouldn't even be considered only under these conditions. A 70-200mm f2.8 lens well generally beat hands down a prime if taking a bird in flight for instance.

Realspeed
 
Last edited:
If its your first dslr i'd personally buy a good condition entry level body! They are easy tocome by.

Use the rest of your budget on a prime or two. You save some money now and upgrade the body at a later date when you actually know what you need.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Agree. I have just got an 1100D (Cost £190 as a refurb model and is like new)
I came to realise that a current entry level camera is more than enough for my needs and does everything I need (IQ, focus speed, operating speed etc,.)
And if using primes then a 50 1.8 only adds another £70, so for £260 you have a very good performing camera that will give very good images at very little cost.
 
Hi,

I like you was looking not too long ago for my first dslr and you'll not go wrong with the D90.

If you're looking at paying £390 for the body, for an extra £80-£90 why not buy brand new? I got my body for £479 with a 70-300 VR & an 18-70mm (Second Hand). The 18-70mm I got for £130 which included two filters and i'm very pleased with this lens..... You could probably pick one up for around £100 and thats half way to making up the difference to a new body (if you're looking at spending £140 on a prime) and the 18-70mm will give you more flexibility....

Check this site out, it was my bible when I was looking http://camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat4.html
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
Agree. I have just got an 1100D (Cost £190 as a refurb model and is like new)
I came to realise that a current entry level camera is more than enough for my needs .....
Click to expand...

Chris, the problem with your recommendation is that you've "just got" your camera so are still probably learning the hobby. It's not until you've gotten to understand your camera and it's limitations that you can say that it's "more than enough for my needs" without adding "for now" at the end :)

I began with a Nikon D40 and it took me almost 12 months to fully appreciate that it didn't meet all my needs. Three bodies later I'm very happy with my D300 :clap:

There is also a financial downside to the buy-entry-upgrade-later philosophy in that each time you go to upgrade you will lose money on the body you sell. From my own experience I know that I would be several hundreds of pounds better off if I'd gone for something like the D90 (which I liked enough to keep when I got my D300) straight off rather than going D40 > D80 > D90 > D300.
 
One thing which would influence my decision is max shutter speed. Entry level cameras tend to have a max shutter speed of 1/4000 sec whilst the mid to high end models tend to have a max of 1/8000 sec. This matters if you want to take wide aperture shots in good light as if you do you could be limited to f2.8 or so or have to mess about with ND filters.

This may not be a problem for everyone :D but it's just something to think about.
 
Bristolian said:
Chris, the problem with your recommendation is that you've "just got" your camera so are still probably learning the hobby. It's not until you've gotten to understand your camera and it's limitations that you can say that it's "more than enough for my needs" without adding "for now" at the end :)
Click to expand...

Get what you are saying but I think people get hung up on thinking they need more than they do. I have owned over 10 cameras in the last 6 months and have got to the stage where I know exactly what I need in a camera and an entry level camera meets my needs (I don't even make use of some of that functionality and it is more around useability that functions for me)
Understand this won't be the same for everyone but it is for me. So rather than add "for now" at the end I should add "for me" but that is sort of implied as it is me writing it :)
 
Bristolian said:
Chris, the problem with your recommendation is that you've "just got" your camera so are still probably learning the hobby. It's not until you've gotten to understand your camera and it's limitations that you can say that it's "more than enough for my needs" without adding "for now" at the end :)

I began with a Nikon D40 and it took me almost 12 months to fully appreciate that it didn't meet all my needs. Three bodies later I'm very happy with my D300 :clap:

There is also a financial downside to the buy-entry-upgrade-later philosophy in that each time you go to upgrade you will lose money on the body you sell. From my own experience I know that I would be several hundreds of pounds better off if I'd gone for something like the D90 (which I liked enough to keep when I got my D300) straight off rather than going D40 > D80 > D90 > D300.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Good advice. I have a similar upgrade route to you except I had a d60 and skipped the d80. I lost money selling the d60 and wish I'd kept it to be honest. personally I don't sell gear anymore unless it's not up to scratch.
 
you say your friend and dad have Nikon so you can borrow lenses, easily one of the best reasons to buy the same system... but what do they have? if they have non motored lenses then you are not going to get AF on 3100/5100..

the downside for me on the D90 is the 4000/1 shutter, its just a thing for me that I demand 8000/1, its not that I would generally need it but a strange OCD type niggle... for a 4 year old camera the D90 still has excellent low light capabilities.. personally out of the 3 its the only choice IMO..

you could also consider a D300 although I am not sure it would warrant the extra £80-£100 you would be paying over the D90.
 
I bought a d5100 and am very happy with it! I chose it primarily because the sensor is very good in low light for the money, which is shared with the d7000. I didn't need the extra features of the d7000 and it was significantly cheaper.

It was an upgrade from a d60 (which was stolen, and I got a cool £1k insurance for it and the lenses). I soon grew out of the d60, and I plan in the next few years getting some good FX glass to enable me to upgrade to a full frame in a few years. The d5100 will do me fine for the moment :-)

Check what lenses your dad has. If the are AF lenses then you will need the d90 to autofocus. If AFS, then any of the cameras would do.
 
Exactly, some people can be happy with a lower level camera for good. I can't see why I would ever need more than an entry level for what I do with a camera and don't get this assumption that everyone will outgrow their camera.
Probably just me though :)
 
Hi there.

I bought my first dslr in 2010. Complete novice, crap with a compact but wanted to get better shots of my kids. Looked at nikons as a couple of my friends had them. Looked at the d5000 and the d90. In the end got a d90. It's a great camera. As you get better, it will take a while before you outgrow it......CLS, internal motor, decent low light capabilities.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63852338@N07/ shows most of my progress since buying the d90.

I want to eventually get a full frame Nikon but that will take a lot of saving/time. In the meanwhile the d90 will more than match my needs.

Also agree with getting a 35mm f1.8. It's an awesome lens. I shot with a 50mm f1.8d on the d90 almost exclusively for a year. It makes you think about your composition a lot more!

Hope that helps

Shaheed
 
Well first off thanks for all the advice. Its great to get a range of opinions and tap into everyone's knowledge.

Took a trip out to the shops at the weekend to try a few for myself and found the Canon bodies a lot more comfortable in my hand than the Nikons and in particular I took a real liking to the 600D. Hopefully going to try out the D90 next weekend but I'm thinking of saving a little bit longer and getting the 600D at the moment.

Thanks again for all you help.
 
I am a beginner myself, i decided to go for a Nikon D80 - I think its a great camera. Its an older DSLR but i don't think there was a better way for me to get into the hobby.

I will probably go for a D90 after purely for the added video function :)
 
Jimbob89 said:
I will probably go for a D90 after purely for the added video function :)
Click to expand...

Don't get the D90 solely for its video - it's AWFUL! My wife's £50 compact is better :thumbsdown: The newer entry level bodies are much better for video :thumbs:
 
Bristolian said:
Don't get the D90 solely for its video - it's AWFUL! My wife's £50 compact is better :thumbsdown: The newer entry level bodies are much better for video :thumbs:
Click to expand...

In that case i would probably opt for the D5100 then...Baby steps first though :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top