DSLR Beginner Recomendations

[Dietrick_K]

Here soon with my tax return I plan on buying a good DSLR camera. Being new to the operation of DSLR's I'm not sure what to be looking for or what makes one better than the next. I know I want to be able to change lenses but not much other than that. I know Nikon and Canon are great brands and am leaning towards one of those. I'm looking to spend in the range of $500-$800. Any recommendations?

[vanished]

D5600?

[m0k]

ive only used canon products so my recommendations will reflect that

 

the cheapest SL2 or T6i /T7i  (or whatever "T" model is current now) is a really good place to start

SL2 has good reviews 

 

i started with a T2i 7 years ago and it has been extremely solid - and still works perfectly

 

 

 

[Dietrick_K]

What would classify good DSLR vs. a bad one? I know there is a lot but I guess what is the biggest things that matter.

[vanished]

42 minutes ago, Dietrick_K said:

What would classify good DSLR vs. a bad one? I know there is a lot but I guess what is the biggest things that matter.

Well, the sensor is probably the most important thing.  Look for high resolution and good low-light performance.  Of course to get the most out of either, but particularly the former, you will want a good quality lens as well.  Also make sure it has a wide dynamic range, this will really help capture landscapes where the sky is bright and ad risk of being blown out while the ground is often comparatively dark.

 

Other than that, people tend to look for max shooting speed (how many full normal images it can take per second) which will be somewhere in the range of 3 (low) to 10+ (good for action), as well as buffer size, which will affect low long you can shoot at this rate continuously before dropping to a much slower rate that depends on how fast your SD card is.

 

Another important thing is the auto-focus system.  How many points are there, how much of the frame do they cover, how well does it track moving objects, etc.

[Dietrick_K]

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well, the sensor is probably the most important thing.  Look for high resolution and good low-light performance.  Of course to get the most out of either, but particularly the former, you will want a good quality lens as well.

 

Other than that, people tend to look for max shooting speed (how many full normal images it can take per second) which will be somewhere in the range of 3 (low) to 10+ (good for action), as well as buffer size, which will affect low long you can shoot at this rate continuously before dropping to a much slower rate that depends on how fast your SD card is.

Is there a point where the MegaPix become irrelivent and it would be more on the lens for better performance? For example I am looking at the Canon Rebel T6 with a 18-55mm and 75-300mm lens. This one is an 18 meg but I have seen them go as high as 24+

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, Dietrick_K said:

Is there a point where the MegaPix become irrelivent and it would be more on the lens for better performance? For example I am looking at the Canon Rebel T6 with a 18-55mm and 75-300mm lens.

Absolutely, but that relationship isn't easy to explain, since (Among other things) it depends on the lens you're looking at.  Basically consider the MP of the camera the maximum theoretical MP you can ever get, and any lens you use is going to get you somewhere between maybe ~25% and up to maybe ~99% of that, depending how bad/good it is.  If you can, check DXOMark for your camera and lens combination and they will tell you roughly how sharp it is in "P-MPix".

[Dietrick_K]

4 minutes ago, L.Lawliet said:

The color depth,processor,fps ( this is subjective ) ,low light performance,comfort,and sensor..

Dont go to crazy over ISO performance though..cause it could be some manufacturer tricks like FUJI used to do and still do perhaps  

Because In general ISO performance in DSLR will double every 8 Years and DSLR just been around recently..

 

My recommendation is Canon T3i/T5i for photography..

And Panasonic G7 (Mirrorless) for Videography..yes i know its mirrorless.

I recommend that because it can shoot up to 24fps at 4k.

With DSLR if u want to shot 4k u'll gonna need to spend $1000 camera like 1D mark iii..

Luckily I don't really plan on doing videography with the camera since I already have a camcorder and GoPro to do that. 

[Dietrick_K]

5 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Absolutely, but that relationship isn't easy to explain, since (Among other things) it depends on the lens you're looking at.  Basically consider the MP of the camera the maximum theoretical MP you can ever get, and any lens you use is going to get you somewhere between maybe ~25% and up to maybe ~99% of that, depending how bad/good it is.  If you can, check DXOMark for your camera and lens combination and they will tell you roughly how sharp it is in "P-MPix".

P-MPix I am guessing is a ratio of lens proformance to MP output?

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Dietrick_K said:

P-MPix I am guessing is a ratio of lens proformance to MP output?

It's how many "perceptual MP" the images is.  So, for example, if you take a 1000 x 1000 image and stretch it up to 6000 x 4000, the file is now 24 MP but there's still only 1 MP worth of detail there.  Because you'll never get an infinitely sharp, perfect lens, the true amount of detail in your image will always be somewhat less than the sensor can capture, and how much less depends on the lens quality.

 

For example, a crappy lens on a 24 MP camera might give 9 or 10 P-MPix, but a great lens might get up to over 22

[Dietrick_K]

6 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

It's how many "perceptual MP" the images is.  So, for example, if you take a 1000 x 1000 image and stretch it up to 6000 x 4000, the file is now 24 MP but there's still only 1 MP worth of detail there.  Because you'll never get an infinitely sharp, perfect lens, the true amount of detail in your image will always be somewhat less than the sensor can capture, and how much less depends on the lens quality.

When looking at these cameras I keep seeing shutter speeds that are confusing. For example 1/4000-30 sec. not exactly sure what this means. FYI this is for the canon t6i

[vanished]

Just now, Dietrick_K said:

When looking at these cameras I keep seeing shutter speeds that are confusing. For example 1/4000-30 sec. not exactly sure what this means. FYI this is for the canon t6i

that means it can be as quick as 1/4000 of a second (probably fine but not the best - many will do 1/8000) or as slow as 30 seconds.  If you are interested in long exposure shots, you will want to make sure it also offers "bulb", which means it stays open as long as you hold it, or better yet, a mode whee you click once to open and once more to close so you don't have to stand there although, in the case of the last thing I said, there are often remotes and other external controls you can get to add this

[Dietrick_K]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

that means it can be as quick as 1/4000 of a second (probably fine but not the best - many will do 1/8000) or as slow as 30 seconds.  If you are interested in long exposure shots, you will want to make sure it also offers "bulb", which means it stays open as long as you hold it, or better yet, a mode whee you click once to open and once more to close so you don't have to stand there although, in the case of the last thing I said, there are often remotes and other external controls you can get to add this

I take it this would greatly benefit action shots or anything with quick movements. But if I was to look for color capture, without needing a ton of computer work, what would I be looking for on a camera, as in what spec do I look at?

[vanished]

Just now, Dietrick_K said:

I take it this would greatly benefit action shots or anything with quick movements. But if I was to look for color capture, without needing a ton of computer work, what would I be looking for on a camera, as in what spec do I look at?

Well, colour gamut and/or bit depth I suppose... tbh I'm not sure, it's not something I've ever considered.  Afaik any current DSLR will be good enough in both those aspects to not have any issues in that regard.  It's not like there's a TN panel of cameras if that's what you're worried about

[Dietrick_K]

3 minutes ago, L.Lawliet said:

How about some learning first before buy the camera..who knows u might need it..

Shutter speed in camera are expressed in those number basically the more the number the faster it is..

A fast shutter speed is needed to freeze moving object or even fast moving object..have u ever saw a pic of flying hummingbird that looks like this... they use high shutter speed to freeze the motion..

  Hide contents

Or a water that looks like silk? they use high shutter speed for this

  Hide contents

 

Great examples, deffinetly helps to know what that would matter for, luckily tax return isn't till about February, March time so I have a good long time to see what works for me. But learning now and seeing what I need will help for when the time comes around to purchase the camera.

[Dietrick_K]

1 minute ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Well, colour gamut and/or bit depth I suppose... tbh I'm not sure, it's not something I've ever considered.  Afaik any current DSLR will be good enough in both those aspects to not have any issues in that regard.  It's not like there's a TN panel of cameras if that's what you're worried about

Didn't think so, I've been trying to avoid computer processing for now, enough to get me by before the photos I am taking need to be color adjusted.

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, L.Lawliet said:

Or a water that looks like silk? they use high shutter speed for this

  Reveal hidden contents

 

*Low shutter speed?  Typo?

[Dietrick_K]

1 minute ago, L.Lawliet said:

Correction on the waterfall i meant to say SLOW shutter speed not high..

Good decision my favorite channel on youtube to learn about DSLR is tony northup good luck

Yeah haha 

Thanks will need it haha

[vanished]

11 minutes ago, Dietrick_K said:

Didn't think so, I've been trying to avoid computer processing for now, enough to get me by before the photos I am taking need to be color adjusted.

One thing I will say though, in case you're not aware, is generally the workflow goes something like this:

1. Get home from shooting
2. copy images to computer
3. review images, deleting the vast majority or at least filing into a "nah not this" folder
4. Going through the good ones one by one in lightroom/camera raw and then photoshop

you could just batch process them all with default settings but for the best results you'll want to set sharpening, highlights/shadows, black/white point, straighten, crop, etc. to make sure they're ideal.  Obviously you want to get them as close to perfect "in camera" but there can often be quite a bit of time spend on the PC as well, especially if you're doing portraits or something that typically gets a lot of retouching.

 

PS, this assumes you're shooting in RAW, not jpg, which is definitely how you should do it or you'll be wasting most of the potential of the camera.

[Dietrick_K]

2 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

One thing I will say though, in case you're not aware, is generally the workflow goes something like this:

1. Get home from shooting
2. copy images to computer
3. review images, deleting the vast majority or at least filing into a "nah not this" folder
4. Going through the good ones one by one in lightroom/camera raw and then photoshop

you could just batch process them all with default settings but for the best results you'll want to set sharpening, highlights/shadows, black/white point, straighten, crop, etc. to make sure they're ideal.  Obviously you want to get them as close to perfect "in camera" but there can often be quite a bit of time spend on the PC as well, especially if you're doing portraits or something that typically gets a lot of retouching.

 

PS, this assumes you're shooting in RAW, not jpg, which is definitely how you should do it or you'll be wasting most of the potential of the camera.

Does the file type make that big of a difference?

[DailyProcrastinator]

1 hour ago, Dietrick_K said:

Here soon with my tax return I plan on buying a good DSLR camera. Being new to the operation of DSLR's I'm not sure what to be looking for or what makes one better than the next. I know I want to be able to change lenses but not much other than that. I know Nikon and Canon are great brands and am leaning towards one of those. I'm looking to spend in the range of $500-$800. Any recommendations?

Have you looked into mirrorless? I made the switch from DSLR and highly recommend it. The Sony a5100 would be an excellent choice.

[vanished]

Just now, Dietrick_K said:

Does the file type make that big of a difference?

yes absolutely.  RAW is what it sounds like - the raw sensor data off the camera.  It isn't even technically an image at that point but the software will interpret it into one.  This will make use of the full 12 or 14 bit dynamic range, allowing for recovering of shadows, playing with exposure, colours, etc. in post without having to notice any loss in quality.  If you shoot jpg, not only are you flattening it to 8 bit right then and there but you're also compressing it (adding artifacts and reducing sharpness).

[rennygt3]

10 minutes ago, JM21 said:

Have you looked into mirrorless? I made the switch from DSLR and highly recommend it. The Sony a5100 would be an excellent choice.

Yes. I like the mirrorless cameras better even though my experience was bad at first, but the new sony a series of mirrorless cameras made me drool. i now regret buying a t6i too fast. i find the a6300 or a6500 good for run&gun/ amatuer shooting and the a7rii a beast for stills and a7sii better for video.

[DailyProcrastinator]

Just now, rennygt3 said:

Yes. I like the mirrorless cameras better even though my experience was bad at first, but the new sony a series of mirrorless cameras made me drool. i now regret buying a t6i too fast. i find the a6300 or a6500 good for run&gun/ amatuer shooting and the a7rii a beast for stills and a7sii better for video.

Yeah, I would seriously consider it, I shoot 4k Video on my a6300 for work and my point and shoot camera is the a7R II. I love both and could never go back to a DSLR, also Sony quality seems to have improved and I have had the a6300 for almost 2 years now with no issues and the a7R II has been solid too.

[DailyProcrastinator]

Just now, L.Lawliet said:

For photography people will avoid mirrorless camera simply because of the viewfinder.

Mirrorless is good for videography cause when u record a video u wont be looking at the viewfinder..and they are cheaper..

For example The panasonic G7 which is only about $600-700USD can shot 4k at 24fps..with DSLR u'll need to spend $1000 just for the body only..

But they avoid it out of pure stubbornness haha, I was the same way and tbh even though yes it was a change I at first was not keen on I no longer really miss it, if you are into super high-end photography I get it, but for 75% of people out there I think it would be a welcome change. I personally think it's worth the switch.