What'd be a good entry level DSLR camera?

[SirDarknight]

I'm a starter. My budget is about $600 or so. I've never even used a DSLR before, so I've no idea which one would be good in this budget. Also, what lens would be appropriate for me?

 

Your opinion is much appreciated. Tnx

[19_blackie_73]

As far as i heard, the canon 700D should be a good option, you get it with lens for relatively cheap. But that's only what I've heard from a friend who is really into photography, didn't have my hands on one yet.

[ALwin]

1 hour ago, SirDarknight said:

I'm a starter. My budget is about $600 or so. I've never even used a DSLR before, so I've no idea which one would be good in this budget. Also, what lens would be appropriate for me?

Well in the brand new market, you don't have that many choices for a lens at $600.  You'll get an entry level body along with a kit lens, which is suitable for beginners.

In the second hand market, you might be able to get a used body with a bit more options for used lenses.

 

Most of the entry level cameras on the market are good for beginners.

 

By the way, there's no such thing as a generic appropriate lens for anyone.  You choose the lens based on the kind of photography you want to do.  For you as a beginner, the kit lens that comes with most entry level cameras is quite suitable for a wide range of activities.  Only once you've become better as a photographer you can decide on your own which kind of lenses you need.

[xQubeZx]

37 minutes ago, ALwin said:

Well in the brand new market, you don't have that many choices for a lens at $600.  You'll get an entry level body along with a kit lens, which is suitable for beginners.

In the second hand market, you might be able to get a used body with a bit more options for used lenses.

 

Most of the entry level cameras on the market are good for beginners.

 

By the way, there's no such thing as a generic appropriate lens for anyone.  You choose the lens based on the kind of photography you want to do.  For you as a beginner, the kit lens that comes with most entry level cameras is quite suitable for a wide range of activities.  Only once you've become better as a photographer you can decide on your own which kind of lenses you need.

I think alwins point on the kit lens is good. Its very suitable for a lot of activites most of the time. Use that when learning and then you will have a better idea of what lens you would benefit the most from. Like you want more reach then a tele lens would be nice but if you really like the wideangle side maybe a wide angle lens is the best. Or if you find yourself being a bokeh lover you might go for a lens with a low aparture like a f/1.8 or f/1.4 and a focal length of 50-100mm

[ALwin]

Here's another recommendation: don't buy the latest model entry level camera.  Buy an older model or even a good condition second hand.  Nikon D3#00 or Canon 1#00D (they're also called T# something).  You can probably find something decent for around $300-400, save the rest of the money to invest in some photography books or courses.

[cc143]

Come back for lens recommendations once you have spent a little time with your camera and have narrowed down what kind of photography you really like. 

 

A common mistake I hear often is people who don't really know that much recommending you get a long tele lens, it's the mistake I made with my 90-300mm and I have used it so rarely in the more than a decade I've been into cameras. 

 

Get something like the canon 700d recommended above, Getting it used, even if you can afford it new will save you some money and I don't think its worth getting that sort of camera new. I wouldn't bother with the 750D, since differences seem insignificant, I like the 760d because I have grown so used to the top lcd I can't do without it anymore, but that far from justifies the extra cost, and anyway, at that point, a used 70d is a much better alternative. 

 

You can find one (700d) on amazon for close to $500 new, I guess if you try ebay, you could get a used one at less than $400. Save the extra for when you decide what you like and get a good lens at that point.  

 

As far as learning photography, I believe once you have learnt the importance of aperture, shutter speed and Iso and how they work together, along with some shot composition (start with the rule of thirds), you can expand your knowledge on your own, although the point ALwin makes could be useful, how one learns is different from someone else, I have seen people benefit from courses, others not so much, I think before you spend money on learning, look at some youtube videos, they should guide you in vaguely the right direction, if you feel like taking course etc. afterwards, do so. 

[ALwin]

17 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I have seen people benefit from courses, others not so much, I think before you spend money on learning, look at some youtube videos, they should guide you in vaguely the right direction, if you feel like taking course etc. afterwards, do so. 

There is a benefit to taking a course, access to gear and accessories you don't own yet.  Of course it is also important to find a good instructor.

 

But yes, before spending money figure out if you really want to get deeper into photography.

[AlisterM]

I agree, 700D is indeed a good entry level DSLR

[SirDarknight]

On 9/18/2016 at 3:53 PM, 19_blackie_73 said:

As far as i heard, the canon 700D should be a good option, you get it with lens for relatively cheap. But that's only what I've heard from a friend who is really into photography, didn't have my hands on one yet.

 

On 9/18/2016 at 4:52 PM, ALwin said:

Well in the brand new market, you don't have that many choices for a lens at $600.  You'll get an entry level body along with a kit lens, which is suitable for beginners.

In the second hand market, you might be able to get a used body with a bit more options for used lenses.

 

Most of the entry level cameras on the market are good for beginners.

 

By the way, there's no such thing as a generic appropriate lens for anyone.  You choose the lens based on the kind of photography you want to do.  For you as a beginner, the kit lens that comes with most entry level cameras is quite suitable for a wide range of activities.  Only once you've become better as a photographer you can decide on your own which kind of lenses you need.

 

On 9/18/2016 at 5:32 PM, xQubeZx said:

I think alwins point on the kit lens is good. Its very suitable for a lot of activites most of the time. Use that when learning and then you will have a better idea of what lens you would benefit the most from. Like you want more reach then a tele lens would be nice but if you really like the wideangle side maybe a wide angle lens is the best. Or if you find yourself being a bokeh lover you might go for a lens with a low aparture like a f/1.8 or f/1.4 and a focal length of 50-100mm

 

On 9/19/2016 at 5:20 AM, cc143 said:

Come back for lens recommendations once you have spent a little time with your camera and have narrowed down what kind of photography you really like. 

 

A common mistake I hear often is people who don't really know that much recommending you get a long tele lens, it's the mistake I made with my 90-300mm and I have used it so rarely in the more than a decade I've been into cameras. 

 

Get something like the canon 700d recommended above, Getting it used, even if you can afford it new will save you some money and I don't think its worth getting that sort of camera new. I wouldn't bother with the 750D, since differences seem insignificant, I like the 760d because I have grown so used to the top lcd I can't do without it anymore, but that far from justifies the extra cost, and anyway, at that point, a used 70d is a much better alternative. 

 

You can find one (700d) on amazon for close to $500 new, I guess if you try ebay, you could get a used one at less than $400. Save the extra for when you decide what you like and get a good lens at that point.  

 

As far as learning photography, I believe once you have learnt the importance of aperture, shutter speed and Iso and how they work together, along with some shot composition (start with the rule of thirds), you can expand your knowledge on your own, although the point ALwin makes could be useful, how one learns is different from someone else, I have seen people benefit from courses, others not so much, I think before you spend money on learning, look at some youtube videos, they should guide you in vaguely the right direction, if you feel like taking course etc. afterwards, do so. 

 

Excuse my ignorance but if I were to compare an entry level DSLR (for instance, Cannon 700D) with the Samsung Galaxy S7 or Huawei P9 (both of which have amazingly great camera) in picture quality, which one of them would win?

[cc143]

12 minutes ago, SirDarknight said:

Excuse my ignorance but if I were to compare an entry level DSLR (for instance, Cannon 700D) with the Samsung Galaxy S7 or Huawei P9 (both of which have amazingly great camera) in picture quality, which one of them would win?

Smartphones have great cameras on them today, to the point where carrying a point and shoot is redundant, however, 

 

A smartphone has much worse optics which play a very important role in both picture quality as well as sometimes limited control on the image. Also, you just can't compare the handling of a DSLR or even mirrorless camera to that of a phone, yes some of these provide shutter and iso control, but still, handling a DSLR is much more natural.

 

You should be able to get singnificantly better images from an older DSLR, even with a lower resolution sensor than from a smartphone. 

 

Keep in mind however, the person behind the camera is more important than equipment, someone who knows photography well with a phone camera may indeed take much better pictures than someone else who uses a DSLR, and that's true of any model of DSLR you get.  

[SirDarknight]

5 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Smartphones have great cameras on them today, to the point where carrying a point and shoot is redundant, however, 

 

A smartphone has much worse optics which play a very important role in both picture quality as well as sometimes limited control on the image. Also, you just can't compare the handling of a DSLR or even mirrorless camera to that of a phone, yes some of these provide shutter and iso control, but still, handling a DSLR is much more natural.

 

You should be able to get singnificantly better images from an older DSLR, even with a lower resolution sensor than from a smartphone. 

 

Keep in mind however, the person behind the camera is more important than equipment, someone who knows photography well with a phone camera may indeed take much better pictures than someone else who uses a DSLR, and that's true of any model of DSLR you get.  

 

Got it, tnx a lot.

[xQubeZx]

On 2016-09-20 at 7:40 AM, SirDarknight said:

 

Got it, tnx a lot.

The sensor size plays a large role here. On your smarthone its extremely small which means less area to pick up the light. On a dslr that sensor is a lot larger which means larger area for the light to hit. This will make the image less grainy and also allow it to create a more shallow depth of field for example. Then as said the optics. Just look on the size of a lens and the lens that may be in your phones camera. 

[saras]

I recommend an entry level canon kit as well (I started out with a 600d). However, I also recommend picking up a nifty fifty alongside. It's cheap but it allows for a lot options that are simply not available without it.

[cc143]

20 minutes ago, saras said:

I recommend an entry level canon kit as well (I started out with a 600d). However, I also recommend picking up a nifty fifty alongside. It's cheap but it allows for a lot options that are simply not available without it.

I personally find the canon kit lens not to be worth the plastic its casing is made of, but if you get it for cheap or with your camera and are not yet willing to spend money on a lens then by all means go for it. At a $600 budget, realistically you can't find anything, especially new that's worth it.

 

That said, once you make the decision you are going to spend money on camera equipment and are going to get into photography, Get something like a 24-105 f4.0L or failing that a 28-135 f 3.5-5.6 IS. The 24-105 is worth the extra money though, also don't be afraid to buy used, you can get amazing deals and as long you get some sort of buyers protection like with amazon or ebay, or chance to return a sub par quality item you'll be alright. 

 

To the smartphone point, I recently took 2 pictures, one with my 2008 Canon 50D (at 15.9mp) and one with my Galaxy Note 7 (16mp, arguably one of the best smartphone cameras right now.) I can;t attach them now, but will tomorrow morning, the difference in sharpness is immense. 

[iamMINT]

Okay okay okay, no. Stop with all of this kit lens NONSENSE. The most important part of a camera is the glass you put in front of it! All the camera body is is just a box for light.

Get yourself a secondhand d7000 for about $400. These things are serious cameras, not those little toys everyone else puts out at the pricepoint. That is, unless you want a mirrorless.

 

For lenses, get an older F mount AIS lens. Something like a 105 2.5 or a 125 2.8. I know they're a little tight, though you won't regret it. It might be a little hard at first and you may lose some shots, though you'll eventually learn how to move your feet instead of a wheel on a lens. It makes you think about your shot before you take it, which is something a crappy zoom will never give you. 

 

Also, you'll be getting much, much better image quality. Drastically better than about any zoom money can buy. Just due to the smaller count of lens elements and superior construction to anything Nikon puts out now. 

[ALwin]

5 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

Okay okay okay, no. Stop with all of this kit lens NONSENSE.

 

These things are serious cameras, not those little toys everyone else puts out at the pricepoint.

 

Something like a 105 2.5 or a 125 2.8.

Also, you'll be getting much, much better image quality. Drastically better than about any zoom money can buy. Just due to the smaller count of lens elements and superior construction to anything Nikon puts out now. 

1. A kit lens is quite suitable for a beginner to learn with.  It offers both a reasonably wide angle and a short telephoto focal lengths.  Taking the crop factor into account, an 18-55 lens is a medium zoom lens.

2. Any camera can be treated as a serious camera, depending on the person using it.  There are professional photographers who uses entry level bodies like a Nikon D3#00.

3. Again, probably the dozenth time I repeat myself (feels like I'm talking to baby), while those specific lenses might be very good 105mm or 125mm focal lengths are not for every genre of photography.  I'd pick those focal lengths only for portraiture and probably nothing else.  And modern lenses can be just as good if not better.  Smaller number of lens elements do not always mean better images, modern lenses have improved nano coatings on their glass elements which can negate the effect of having multiple glass elements.

 

The OP is a beginner, a complete novice, when it comes to photography.  An entry level body with a kit lens is more than enough for his/her needs to learn and use the camera for a wide variety of situations.  Is it perfect?  No.  But it's a starting point and a cheaper, safer investment if he/she decides later that photography not a passion and can keep the camera for casual use.  If he/she decides that photography is indeed a serious passion or has the goal of becoming a photographer, he/she can decide later how to kit up appropriately.

[saras]

8 hours ago, cc143 said:

I personally find the canon kit lens not to be worth the plastic its casing is made of, but if you get it for cheap or with your camera and are not yet willing to spend money on a lens then by all means go for it. At a $600 budget, realistically you can't find anything, especially new that's worth it.

 

That said, once you make the decision you are going to spend money on camera equipment and are going to get into photography, Get something like a 24-105 f4.0L or failing that a 28-135 f 3.5-5.6 IS. The 24-105 is worth the extra money though, also don't be afraid to buy used, you can get amazing deals and as long you get some sort of buyers protection like with amazon or ebay, or chance to return a sub par quality item you'll be alright. 

 

To the smartphone point, I recently took 2 pictures, one with my 2008 Canon 50D (at 15.9mp) and one with my Galaxy Note 7 (16mp, arguably one of the best smartphone cameras right now.) I can;t attach them now, but will tomorrow morning, the difference in sharpness is immense. 

Everyone is telling him to get a second hand body. In which case the kit lens comes basically gratis. I got the 600d+kit+a bunch of batteries for around 250eur some some five years ago.

 

Going the same route leaves a lot of options for his budget in the future. I had about the same starting budget, I went with a nifty fifty and a flash.

[cc143]

1 hour ago, saras said:

Everyone is telling him to get a second hand body. In which case the kit lens comes basically gratis. I got the 600d+kit+a bunch of batteries for around 250eur some some five years ago.

 

Going the same route leaves a lot of options for his budget in the future. I had about the same starting budget, I went with a nifty fifty and a flash.

I'm by no means suggesting a used kit lens is not a good deal, what I am suggesting is that I would personally not go for it and get a used 28-135mm IS instead. If I where to go with the kit lens, it would be because the 28-135mm IS is more expensive, which means that its more expensive overall to upgrade from it, so it would be my plan to upgrade to the 24-105mm f/4L in the not so distant future. 

[iamMINT]

9 hours ago, ALwin said:

1. A kit lens is quite suitable for a beginner to learn with.  It offers both a reasonably wide angle and a short telephoto focal lengths.  Taking the crop factor into account, an 18-55 lens is a medium zoom lens.

2. Any camera can be treated as a serious camera, depending on the person using it.  There are professional photographers who uses entry level bodies like a Nikon D3#00.

3. Again, probably the dozenth time I repeat myself (feels like I'm talking to baby), while those specific lenses might be very good 105mm or 125mm focal lengths are not for every genre of photography.  I'd pick those focal lengths only for portraiture and probably nothing else.  And modern lenses can be just as good if not better.  Smaller number of lens elements do not always mean better images, modern lenses have improved nano coatings on their glass elements which can negate the effect of having multiple glass elements.

 

The OP is a beginner, a complete novice, when it comes to photography.  An entry level body with a kit lens is more than enough for his/her needs to learn and use the camera for a wide variety of situations.  Is it perfect?  No.  But it's a starting point and a cheaper, safer investment if he/she decides later that photography not a passion and can keep the camera for casual use.  If he/she decides that photography is indeed a serious passion or has the goal of becoming a photographer, he/she can decide later how to kit up appropriately.

Of course, I know all of this man. Though, like I said, getting a prime like that will teach you how to move your feet and think about your shots before you take them, which is why I recommend it over the crappy kit lenses that you like so much.

 

105 is just fine for concert, nature, portraiture, and even some kinds of landscape stuff. Though, as we really don't know what OP wants- it's hard to know. Though, if you're looking more towards something general purpose, you could get a 50mm 1.4 AIS for about the same price. 

 

On a second note, I don't really appreciate you treating me as a child on this board. If I'm going to treat you with respect, I only wish you do the same for me. Though, if you want to keep acting like a child then that's fine, only makes me laugh harder when you recommend all this trash gear. 

[cc143]

54 minutes ago, JohnBRoark said:

Of course, I know all of this man. Though, like I said, getting a prime like that will teach you how to move your feet and think about your shots before you take them, which is why I recommend it over the crappy kit lenses that you like so much.

 

105 is just fine for concert, nature, portraiture, and even some kinds of landscape stuff. Though, as we really don't know what OP wants- it's hard to know. Though, if you're looking more towards something general purpose, you could get a 50mm 1.4 AIS for about the same price. 

Although I completely agree with all the points regarding primes and teaching shot composition, 

 

Don't you think it is not wise to have a single prime lens? Even the nifty fifty can be too tele at times, and surely there are cases where it is too wide. Surely a more general purpose zoom's versatility is more desirable at this point, even when sacrificing the picture quality. 

 

As far as kit lenses are concerned, I agree they are generally crap, however, it allows you to:

 

a) Assess whether you really want to get into photography, and if you decide you don't, you just end up with a $50 paperweight instead of a $500 paperweight.

b) Find out what style of photography you are into, me getting a 70-200mm would be stupid I'd never use it, even though its a great lens, I didn't know that 10 years ago when I started out. 

c)If you do end up picking up the camera once or twice a year, you still have a versatile lens to use. 

 

Its not a permanent solution, rather a very short term solution until you find these things out. 

 

As far as bodies are concerned, yes glass is what matters, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't have to learn how to use it. A d7000 would have a much steeper learning curve for a beginner than an entry level body, and can be used for quite a while given the specs these cameras have these days, which won't leave anyone wanting. A d7000 is also much more cumbersome to take with you, which sometimes may put people off. For someone just starting out, the entry level lineups make much more practical sense. 

[iamMINT]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

Although I completely agree with all the points regarding primes and teaching shot composition, 

 

Don't you think it is not wise to have a single prime lens? Even the nifty fifty can be too tele at times, and surely there are cases where it is too wide. Surely a more general purpose zoom's versatility is more desirable at this point, even when sacrificing the picture quality. 

 

As far as kit lenses are concerned, I agree they are generally crap, however, it allows you to:

 

a) Assess whether you really want to get into photography, and if you decide you don't, you just end up with a $50 paperweight instead of a $500 paperweight.

b) Find out what style of photography you are into, me getting a 70-200mm would be stupid I'd never use it, even though its a great lens, I didn't know that 10 years ago when I started out. 

c)If you do end up picking up the camera once or twice a year, you still have a versatile lens to use. 

 

Its not a permanent solution, rather a very short term solution until you find these things out. 

 

As far as bodies are concerned, yes glass is what matters, that doesn't mean someone wouldn't have to learn how to use it. A d7000 would have a much steeper learning curve for a beginner than an entry level body, and can be used for quite a while given the specs these cameras have these days, which won't leave anyone wanting. A d7000 is also much more cumbersome to take with you, which sometimes may put people off. For someone just starting out, the entry level lineups make much more practical sense. 

Yes, you've got awesome points there. Thanks for the reply.

 

I never really believed that you should buy just total trash to start, then buy better stuff if you believe in it. If you're heart is set on a camera then get something decent, then sell it if it just sits on your counter and you're not interested anymore.

 

While the D7000 can be a little cumbersome, I think it's a good choice for a DSLR. Though, if you don't mind mirrorless, I think the Fuji X lineup is really where you should be spending your money at a beginner level. Super easy to use, awesome quality, and inexpensive. Put one of fuji's x mount 35 1.4 or like, a 18 f2 on there and your set. It's almost pick up and go in full manual just after about thirty seconds of feeling the camera. Manual nobs, aperture ring, proper buttons. Great stuff. Here's one of my favorite shots from one of these.

[cc143]

11 minutes ago, JohnBRoark said:

Yes, you've got awesome points there. Thanks for the reply.

 

I never really believed that you should buy just total trash to start, then buy better stuff if you believe in it. If you're heart is set on a camera then get something decent, then sell it if it just sits on your counter and you're not interested anymore.

 

While the D7000 can be a little cumbersome, I think it's a good choice for a DSLR. Though, if you don't mind mirrorless, I think the Fuji X lineup is really where you should be spending your money at a beginner level. Super easy to use, awesome quality, and inexpensive. Put one of fuji's x mount 35 1.4 or like, a 18 f2 on there and your set. It's almost pick up and go in full manual just after about thirty seconds of feeling the camera. Manual nobs, aperture ring, proper buttons. Great stuff. Here's one of my favorite shots from one of these.

Well thing is, entry level dslrs today can hardly be considered trash, they are actually quite good value, even considering older models in the same lineup. My eos 350d cost me £800 10 years ago with the kit lens. These days you can get an entry level dslr for half as much.

 

I agree the d7000 is a great camera, so is the original 5d or 1dx, I still wouldnt recommend them to a beginner, even though I myself may consider them given the price they go for.

 

That might be the case for you, not a beginner, also  I find dslrs to be easier to work with than mirrorless cameras, and at this price point, dslr offerings are in my mind more sensible than mirrorless systems.

[xQubeZx]

16 hours ago, JohnBRoark said:

Yes, you've got awesome points there. Thanks for the reply.

 

I never really believed that you should buy just total trash to start, then buy better stuff if you believe in it. If you're heart is set on a camera then get something decent, then sell it if it just sits on your counter and you're not interested anymore.

 

While the D7000 can be a little cumbersome, I think it's a good choice for a DSLR. Though, if you don't mind mirrorless, I think the Fuji X lineup is really where you should be spending your money at a beginner level. Super easy to use, awesome quality, and inexpensive. Put one of fuji's x mount 35 1.4 or like, a 18 f2 on there and your set. It's almost pick up and go in full manual just after about thirty seconds of feeling the camera. Manual nobs, aperture ring, proper buttons. Great stuff. Here's one of my favorite shots from one of these.

I wouldn't consider entry level cameras "trash" right now. The tech is moving fast and you can get great cameras and lenses for very small amounts of money nowadays. Just because something is expensive doesn't mean its good, same goes with if something is cheap doesn't mean its bad. 

 

A pro body and lens won't get OP good images. What makes a good image is the one using the camera and if the composition and all that is good I doubt it will make a difference if the image is a little soft because he didn't use pro grade lenses like Canon L or Zeiss glass. You have some good points but still recommending expensive gear wont get him good images. 

 

I would strongly advice and go to a photo exhibition with images shot on film then you will clearly see that its not the technical aspect that makes the image good. 

 

I would strongly reccomend "Fotografiska" in Stockholm, Sweden. I went there just recently when they had an exhibition of "Anton Corbijn's" images. There is a lot of imperfections on the technical side but the lmages are still amazing. 

[saras]

On 9/24/2016 at 8:00 PM, JohnBRoark said:

Of course, I know all of this man. Though, like I said, getting a prime like that will teach you how to move your feet and think about your shots before you take them, which is why I recommend it over the crappy kit lenses that you like so much.

 

105 is just fine for concert, nature, portraiture, and even some kinds of landscape stuff. Though, as we really don't know what OP wants- it's hard to know. Though, if you're looking more towards something general purpose, you could get a 50mm 1.4 AIS for about the same price. 

 

On a second note, I don't really appreciate you treating me as a child on this board. If I'm going to treat you with respect, I only wish you do the same for me. Though, if you want to keep acting like a child then that's fine, only makes me laugh harder when you recommend all this trash gear. 

You do not lose literally anything by getting a second hand camera with a kit lens compared to one without it. Simple kit lenses go for next to nothing on the second hand market and effectively only increase the cost of the purchase by the cost of a few cups of coffee. And for that low cost, they give you a lot of flexibility.

 

A 50 isn't "general purpose" on APS-C bodies. You might know what you need, I might know what I need, however the problem is that he definitely doesn't: F stops, focal lengths are basically just meaningless numbers to someone who is just starting out. He doesn't know enough about the subject to where he could even explain to you what he needs.

 

And yes, they're great for what they do, but they aren't great for everything. I pretty much only shoot with primes now, but the catch is - I've got more than one of them. If you have something wide and something narrow, given two functional feet, you can do whatever and you no longer really need a basic walkaround. But that's with multiple lenses, if you try shooting an indoor party between friends and all you have is a 105, well then, you're kinda fucked. Boy I sure hope all anyone wants to see are heads, because that's all they're getting. Likewise with the opposite, see that perched bird? Imma go shoot it... with my 18mm... boy I sure hope that the wild bird doesn't mind having a camera at arms length from it.

 

So yes, he can go buy a few primes and do great... for more money than is his entire budget. for a hoby he doesn't know if he's going to stick with. Or he can get something for effectively nothing and learn about what it is that he needs in the first place.

[Tanner69046]

The canon rebel t5i is a great entry level camera.