DSLR for a newbie
- Thread starter harshit143
- Start date
harshit143
Forerunner
Actually i am looking for a proper dslr, i dont think, (i assume), it wont be able to do that much a slr can do, as well as it wont be good to learn photography
You have assumed wrong my friend
Mirrorless cameras can do as much as any DSLR in a much more compact form factor. What exactly do you think they cant do? <minus making you look pro as a result of the ginormous amounts of gear that you wouldn't be lugging around>
+1, you should for sure be looking at mirror-less camera; not sure if it comes in your budget though. You can do anything like a DSLR, minus weight(which is a plus). Actually many super-zoom or some PNS also does majority of things like a DSLR (manual controls, raw, advanced software options, etc) but comes with a tiny sensor ( == loq IQ), but mirror-less is above all this.
Brendon
Forerunner
Do note that most of the budget mirrorless cameras don't have a viewfinder which can make composing in the sun very difficult. You need to exclusively compose with the LCD which is absolutely fine indoors and in early morning light but becomes increasingly difficult as the sun goes up.
If you are talking about Sony, yes
Panny & Oly come with external EVFs that can be added on, and these are pretty cheap too. $50-$100.
mirrorless cameras offer very good image quality but they are still not as good as conventional DSLRs when it comes to tracking moving subjects.Also their lenses cost more compared to traditional DSLRs.But they are extremely light weight and small which means you actually will carry them ard rather than leave them at home after a few months because of their weight.So it's upto you.I use a sony nex 5R mirrorless and the dynamic range it offers is simply better than any canon APSC dlsr.
To be honest you can l;ive without an evf most of the time. the only time you miss them is the middle of the day which also happens to be the worst time to shoot.Also many lcds these days come with features that help you compose in bright daylight.But one advantage of evf is it enables you to hold the camera steady because you hold the camera with both hands pressed to your face.this tree point support for the camera helps reduce camera shake.
Coming to lenses i strongly suggest you stick with the 18-55mm kit lens for the first few months atleast. that will give you a better idea of what focal length you actually prefer.Most people usually shoot at the 18 mm wide end or at the max 55mm .If you think you need more zoom than 55 mm then get a zoom lens.
But if you do like taking family shots then you can go ahead and get the 50mm f1.8 lens along with the kit lens. They are very cheap , offer good subject isolation and great image quality.Only issue is 50mm is too tight for indoor shots.
Coming to macros i suggest you stick with your point and shoot cameras. Macros lenses are very expensive and not that easy to use.
To be honest you can l;ive without an evf most of the time. the only time you miss them is the middle of the day which also happens to be the worst time to shoot.Also many lcds these days come with features that help you compose in bright daylight.But one advantage of evf is it enables you to hold the camera steady because you hold the camera with both hands pressed to your face.this tree point support for the camera helps reduce camera shake.
Coming to lenses i strongly suggest you stick with the 18-55mm kit lens for the first few months atleast. that will give you a better idea of what focal length you actually prefer.Most people usually shoot at the 18 mm wide end or at the max 55mm .If you think you need more zoom than 55 mm then get a zoom lens.
But if you do like taking family shots then you can go ahead and get the 50mm f1.8 lens along with the kit lens. They are very cheap , offer good subject isolation and great image quality.Only issue is 50mm is too tight for indoor shots.
Coming to macros i suggest you stick with your point and shoot cameras. Macros lenses are very expensive and not that easy to use.
vpraveenis
Discoverer
Once mirrorless cameras start going mainstream in a few years, the lens costs should come down. They first have to beat the myth surrounding them and then they have to improve on some shortcomings. Many say that the AF performance has improved drastically in recent times and is almost at par with DSLRs?
sabby
Guide
I think the lens cost is a strategy by the manufacturers. Either they are trying to catch a niche market (Fuji) or they are trying to save their DSLR/DSLT products. To be honest, the AF of the entry level DSLR/DSLTs are not that great either. But when compared to a decent DSLR/DSLT like D7100 or A77, the mirror-less cameras have a lot to catch up to.
sabby
Guide
I was talking about the big guys as in Canikon/Sony. Oly and pana do not have that much market share yet. And besides, they don't really have much competition heat from NEX / Fuji X prices regarding lenses.
Canikon mirrorless products are a sham. They don't even exist in the mirrorless market (which does have a ways to grow).
Sony/Oly/Pana on the other hand are innovating and currently wayy ahead.
Mirrorless isn't all that expensive. m4rds cameras for example, don't seem to hold value super well. You can buy previous generation bodies for atleast 50% off with more savings to be had with older generations. Stock zooms+1-2 basic primes aren't going to be super expensive either. Macros and super zooms tend to get a lot more expensive, but I'm sure that must be true for other eco-systems too.
Sony/Oly/Pana on the other hand are innovating and currently wayy ahead.
Mirrorless isn't all that expensive. m4rds cameras for example, don't seem to hold value super well. You can buy previous generation bodies for atleast 50% off with more savings to be had with older generations. Stock zooms+1-2 basic primes aren't going to be super expensive either. Macros and super zooms tend to get a lot more expensive, but I'm sure that must be true for other eco-systems too.
sabby
Guide
Nikon actually has one of the fastest AF system among the mirror-less but I guess they stopped giving attention to that lineup. Bodies are not usually that much expensive as the lenses. Other than the kit zooms, most of the primes/zooms are pretty expensive for what they are. I am not even talking about the macros or fixed aperture zooms. Even the wide to short tele primes are more expensive than their DSLR/DSLT counterparts.
T42
Contributor
Hi Guys.
I will share my very prejudiced view in this.
Education is expensive, but ignorance costs even more.
I'm convinced that one would benefit greatly by stretching a bit towards a mid-range body which has more features of interest to an advancing imagemaker. Many newcomers buy entry level cameras and soon learn why they should have bought something a bit up-line. That may be why so many entry level cameras are for sale used. While this may be good for the manufacturers and dealers, it is not so good for putting the best value and performance into the hands of the new aspiring photographic student.
A sensor is important, but it does not alone make a camera. How the camera fits the hand, how large, clearly, and brightly the viewfinder looks, how easily and intuitively the controls are accessed, and the availability of accessories, photographer-centric features, lenses, and service all matter too. The length of the "trick list" does not matter.
Something like the Nikon D7000, or equivalent Canon, or better, would be in line with my thinking. Canon or Nikon because the availability of affordable accessories, lenses, and service are not in question. There are lots of lenses and aftermarket products for those brands.
One might favor Canon EOS for its short flange to film plane (sensor) distance. This makes it possible (via adapters) for Canon to mount more other-brand glass than anybody else. If one wants to (manually) experiment with lots of optics, cheap and costly, this is a great choice. Pentax comes close with their M42/K mounts, but with lesser availability of modern bodies, accessories, and service in some places.
Nikon bodies will, with minor tuning in a few cases (AI-mod), mount F mount NIkkors and other F mount lenses from the sixties and since. And there are hundreds of them. But Nikon will mount almost nothing else (allowing infinity focus) without adapters involving image-degrading corrective optics. Canon has the edge in this.
The EVF is getting better by the day, and will replace the OVF someday. Nikon and Canon will adjust to this reality, or they will soon wish they had. In the meanwhile, the mirror box with a bright glass pentaprism finder is hard to beat. The entry level dSLRs have dimmer pentamirror finders, and those entry-level cameras with EVFs have been marginal so far. A high quality finder is one of those features that a newbie does not understand and appreciate at first. But he will later.
There is no economy in swapping about on the way up to whatever we needed in the first place.
I will share my very prejudiced view in this.
Education is expensive, but ignorance costs even more.
I'm convinced that one would benefit greatly by stretching a bit towards a mid-range body which has more features of interest to an advancing imagemaker. Many newcomers buy entry level cameras and soon learn why they should have bought something a bit up-line. That may be why so many entry level cameras are for sale used. While this may be good for the manufacturers and dealers, it is not so good for putting the best value and performance into the hands of the new aspiring photographic student.
A sensor is important, but it does not alone make a camera. How the camera fits the hand, how large, clearly, and brightly the viewfinder looks, how easily and intuitively the controls are accessed, and the availability of accessories, photographer-centric features, lenses, and service all matter too. The length of the "trick list" does not matter.
Something like the Nikon D7000, or equivalent Canon, or better, would be in line with my thinking. Canon or Nikon because the availability of affordable accessories, lenses, and service are not in question. There are lots of lenses and aftermarket products for those brands.
One might favor Canon EOS for its short flange to film plane (sensor) distance. This makes it possible (via adapters) for Canon to mount more other-brand glass than anybody else. If one wants to (manually) experiment with lots of optics, cheap and costly, this is a great choice. Pentax comes close with their M42/K mounts, but with lesser availability of modern bodies, accessories, and service in some places.
Nikon bodies will, with minor tuning in a few cases (AI-mod), mount F mount NIkkors and other F mount lenses from the sixties and since. And there are hundreds of them. But Nikon will mount almost nothing else (allowing infinity focus) without adapters involving image-degrading corrective optics. Canon has the edge in this.
The EVF is getting better by the day, and will replace the OVF someday. Nikon and Canon will adjust to this reality, or they will soon wish they had. In the meanwhile, the mirror box with a bright glass pentaprism finder is hard to beat. The entry level dSLRs have dimmer pentamirror finders, and those entry-level cameras with EVFs have been marginal so far. A high quality finder is one of those features that a newbie does not understand and appreciate at first. But he will later.
There is no economy in swapping about on the way up to whatever we needed in the first place.
Last edited:
T42
Contributor
Hello DexBG.
Very pleased to meet you. I wasn't aware that I was being subliminal, but the D7000 is certainly a match.
A friend of mine here with more than forty years in the hobby bought a D7000 a couple of years ago. He was very, very happy with the choice.
One other thought I've had since posting above is that one might find good value in a used mid-range camera which has fallen out of favor by reason of new models appearing. Personally, I would much rather have a D90 than an entry level Nikon, regardless of the megapixel count of the new one. The mid-range models are simply better equipped to address the needs of advanced amateur photographers. I also think that we get caught up in the megapixel race, as if that is the defining measure of camera goodness. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sensors and supporting software are indeed getting better. It matters, of course, but the best film alone never made the best film camera. Likewise, neither does the best sensor make the best digital camera.
Very pleased to meet you. I wasn't aware that I was being subliminal, but the D7000 is certainly a match.
A friend of mine here with more than forty years in the hobby bought a D7000 a couple of years ago. He was very, very happy with the choice. One other thought I've had since posting above is that one might find good value in a used mid-range camera which has fallen out of favor by reason of new models appearing. Personally, I would much rather have a D90 than an entry level Nikon, regardless of the megapixel count of the new one. The mid-range models are simply better equipped to address the needs of advanced amateur photographers. I also think that we get caught up in the megapixel race, as if that is the defining measure of camera goodness. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sensors and supporting software are indeed getting better. It matters, of course, but the best film alone never made the best film camera. Likewise, neither does the best sensor make the best digital camera.
