First DSLR

[james12315]

Hi All,

 

I want to start taking photography more seriously and am looking to buy a DSLR camera.

 

What would you guys recommend getting as a entry level DSLR? I am looking to spend around £500 (U.K.) and will use it mainly for landscape and other general photography. I have heard that the Nikon D3400 is decent, but want to get the opinion of people who know what they are talking about.

 

Thanks in advance!!

[Dujith]

While i have no idea what i am talking about  A nikon D3400 is a fine starter body. For landscapes and such the standard VR 18-55mm set is a good starting point.

They tend to keep their value for a long time so you later resell it for getting a fullframe camera (nikon/canon) if you are getting more serious

[cc143]

The d3400 should do fine. Basically just go to a store, look at Canon's xx0d series (NOT 1x00d!) and Nikon's d3300, d3400, d5500, d5600 and go with the one that you like the handling of best that is within your budget. If video is or would ever possibly become a concern, I would personally steer you towards Canon due to in general better in video AF, but, that isn't that huge a concern/ 

 

The 18-55mm kit lens is a great lens to start out with, its not much in terms of quality, but it allows you to learn about photography and serves as a good reference point, to figure out what sort of lenses you want to use and what you need. Don't fall into the trap of getting accessory packs etc. they rarely are worth the money. A couple of good quality sd cards and a 2nd battery though could prove nice to have. 

 

Also, because this is an issue with landscape photography, which is something I like very much, my advise is, if you feel you need a tripod: 

a) you probably do.

b) Prefer to save up and get a good quality one rather than a cheapo one. If one comes with your camera, its probably crap, don't get it. 

 

But that is well into the future, for the time being, the first 1.5 lines of this post should suffice. 

[lazyfortress]

Definitely go with Nikon.  The Nikon D3000 series is compatible with any Nikon F-mount lens made from 1959, excluding invasive fisheyes, such as the Nikkor 6mm F/2.8 AI.  The D3400 may not autofocus on certain lenses, but will definitely autofocus with the AF-P series lenses.

 

I use a Nikon D300, and it works perfectly.  I never used a tripod ever since I got my D300.  If you're doing landscape, I'd recommend you get the following as you get more money:

 

• A tripod with a ballhead mount:
• Since the D3400 uses a DX sensor (1.5x crop), get a Nikkor 10-20 AF-P Wide-Angle lens
• A Tiffen 72CP circular-polarizing filter (about $30, roughly 20-ish euros; a necessity for landscape shots)

Total price of the above mentioned items is about 430 euros.  Combined with your camera, that's almost 1,000 euros.  But it will be worth it in the long run.  As you progress, you should consider investing in a full-frame (FX for Nikon) DSLR, like a D800, a D3X or even a D4/D4s.  Then you can get the better glass (lenses), such as the Nikkor 14-24mm lens:

 

Since the OP did say that he wanted to do landscape photography, I suggested proper landscape photography equipment.  The Nikon D3X (24.5 MP) is more of a studio camera (also landscape when using proper lenses) due to higher megapixels than the D3S (12.1 MP). 

 

FX is more suited towards landscape photography due to a larger sensor.  For action, a higher frame rate (continuous shooting) is more valuable than more megapixels. The D3S shoots at 9 FPS in FX, and 11 FPS in DX mode.  The D3X shoots at 5 FPS in FX, and 7 FPS in DX.  My D300 can do 8 FPS using a battery grip.  Your D3400 will do 5 FPS.  You don't need fast FPS for landscape.  The D3400 is a great starter camera.

[Radium_Angel]

As I said to another guy, who asked the same question:

 

Buy the camera that fits best in your hand. Whether that's Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, etc, go to a camera store, test them all out, see where the control fall in your hands/fingers. Buy the one that feels the best, it's the one you will use most.

There is no camera (dSLR) made today that can't do more than you can ask of it, they are all Lamborghinis. Buy with ergonomics in mind, the rest will take care of itself.

[cc143]

17 hours ago, lazyfortress said:

Definitely go with Nikon.  The Nikon D3000 series is compatible with any Nikon F-mount lens made from 1959, excluding invasive fisheyes, such as the Nikkor 6mm F/2.8 AI.  The D3400 may not autofocus on certain lenses, but will definitely autofocus with the AF-P series lenses.

 

I use a Nikon D300, and it works perfectly.  I never used a tripod ever since I got my D300.  If you're doing landscape, I'd recommend you get the following as you get more money:

 

• A tripod with a ballhead mount:
• Since the D3400 uses a DX sensor (1.5x crop), get a Nikkor 10-20 AF-P Wide-Angle lens
• A Tiffen 72CP circular-polarizing filter (about $30, roughly 20-ish euros; a necessity for landscape shots)

Total price of the above mentioned items is about 430 euros.  Combined with your camera, that's almost 1,000 euros.  But it will be worth it in the long run.  As you progress, you should consider investing in a full-frame (FX for Nikon) DSLR, like a D800, a D3X or even a D4/D4s.  Then you can get the better glass (lenses), such as the Nikkor 14-24mm lens:

 

Since the OP did say that he wanted to do landscape photography, I suggested proper landscape photography equipment.  The Nikon D3X (24.5 MP) is more of a studio camera (also landscape when using proper lenses) due to higher megapixels than the D3S (12.1 MP). 

 

FX is more suited towards landscape photography due to a larger sensor.  For action, a higher frame rate (continuous shooting) is more valuable than more megapixels. The D3S shoots at 9 FPS in FX, and 11 FPS in DX mode.  The D3X shoots at 5 FPS in FX, and 7 FPS in DX.  My D300 can do 8 FPS using a battery grip.  Your D3400 will do 5 FPS.  You don't need fast FPS for landscape.  The D3400 is a great starter camera.

Your arguments are actually against going for the Nikon system rather than for. There is no definitive answer. You could say that if the guy was between the d850 and 5d4, in which case, the d850 is definitively the best sepced camera, but that doesn't apply in the cheaper tiers. 

 

So to reiterate my previous post, get the one which feels better in the hand. Both are systems you can grow into. 

[D13H4RD]

Also, take note.

 

Once you start buying lenses and other stuff for your camera, you’re effectively locked into that platform unless you buy lens adapters, which can be flaky depending on camera and lens mount type.

 

Choose your brand carefully. Sony makes great sensors and their cameras generally perform very well in low light but their lenses are heaps expensive for instance. 

 

Some Nikons use Sony sensors too btw

[lazyfortress]

6 hours ago, cc143 said:

Your arguments are actually against going for the Nikon system rather than for. There is no definitive answer. You could say that if the guy was between the d850 and 5d4, in which case, the d850 is definitively the best sepced camera, but that doesn't apply in the cheaper tiers. 

 

So to reiterate my previous post, get the one which feels better in the hand. Both are systems you can grow into. 

No need to be triggered my friend :-).  I was just giving facts, and my recommended equipment.  I get most of my information from kenrockwell.com.  It's a great site in my opinion.  And I'm an avid Nikon lover. 

 

And also, how are my arguments against Nikon?  Why are you arguing with me?  You supported the D3400.  Canon cameras are very picky with lenses.  The majority of Nikon cameras besides Micro 3/4ths use Nikon F-mount, which is compatible with over 120 lenses made from 1959.  I believe Nikon has 2 total mounts, with F-mount being the most common.  Canon however, has EF, EF-S, and EF-M, which are all common.  

 

I'm not trying to argue or start a fight, but here's what I'd like to share:

 

I was suggesting the expensive cameras if the OP decides to follow through with photography.  If you would've read my post in its entirety, you would've understood my point. :-)

 

And to entertain the D850 vs 5D Mk. IV argument (unrelated to the main idea; off-topic):

 

D850 has 45.7 MP, the 5D has 30.4 MP.  The D850 has 7 FPS shooting, and 9 FPS with the battery pack.  The 5D just does 7 FPS.  The D850 has a higher flash-sync speed (1/250) than the 5D (1/200).  The D850 shutter is rated to 200,000 cycles, and the 5D's shutter is rated to 150,000 cycles.  The D850 has a tilting 3.2 inch touch screen, the 5D has a fixed screen.  The battery life of the D850 can last to about 1,840 shots.  The 5D Mk. IV lasts to about 900 shots.  My D300 can last to about 1,000 shots, and it's a 10 year old camera.

 

And here's the kicker:

The D850 costs $3,300, and the 5D Mk. IV costs $3,500.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Canon cameras are more suited towards video.  Canon cameras are excellent at recording videos.  Nikon camera's are pretty mediocre with video.  Nikon cameras are more suited towards still shots.  The main competitor to OP's Nikon D3400 (24MP, $300 - $400) is the Canon Rebel T6 (18MP, $400 - $500) and T6i (24MP, $450 - $700). 

 

The D3400 is definitely the better option, as it's cheaper, has great MP, and can fit a whole variety of lenses.  If the OP wants to do video, he may want to choose Canon.  Personally, I don't dig Canon.

 

[cc143]

41 minutes ago, lazyfortress said:

No need to be triggered my friend :-).  I was just giving facts, and my recommended equipment.  I get most of my information from kenrockwell.com.  It's a great site.  And I'm an avid Nikon lover. 

 

And also, how are my arguments against Nikon?  Why are you arguing with me?  You supported the D3400.  Canon cameras are very picky with lenses.  The majority of Nikon cameras besides Micro 3/4ths use Nikon F-mount, which is compatible with over 120 lenses made from 1959.  I believe Nikon has 2 total mounts, with F-mount being the most common.  Canon however, has EF, EF-S, and EF-M, which are all common.  

 

I'm not trying to argue or start a fight, but here's what I'd like to share:

 

I was suggesting the expensive cameras if the OP decides to follow through with photography.  If you would've read my post in its entirety, you would've understood my point. :-)

 

And to entertain the D850 vs 5D Mk. IV argument (unrelated to the main idea; off-topic):

 

D850 has 45.7 MP, the 5D has 30.4 MP.  The D850 has 7 FPS shooting, and 9 FPS with the battery pack.  The 5D just does 7 FPS.  The D850 has a higher flash-sync speed (1/250) than the 5D (1/200).  The D850 shutter is rated to 200,000 cycles, and the 5D's shutter is rated to 150,000 cycles.  The D850 has a tilting 3.2 inch touch screen, the 5D has a fixed screen.  The battery life of the D850 can last to about 1,840 shots.  The 5D Mk. IV lasts to about 900 shots.  My D300 can last to about 1,000 shots, and it's a 10 year old camera.

 

And here's the kicker:

The D850 costs $3,300, and the 5D Mk. IV costs $3,500.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Canon cameras are more suited towards video.  Canon cameras are excellent at recording videos.  Nikon camera's are pretty mediocre with video.  Nikon cameras are more suited towards still shots.  The main competitor to OP's Nikon D3400 (24MP, $300 - $400) is the Canon Rebel T6 (18MP, $400 - $500) and T6i (24MP, $450 - $700). 

 

The D3400 is definitely the better option, as it's cheaper, has great MP, and can fit a whole variety of lenses.  If the OP wants to do video, he may want to choose Canon.  Personally, I don't dig Canon.

 

I am not triggered whatsoever. 

 

Nikon has been using the same mount since 1959, that is correct, the EF mount is by compariosn fairly young...at 30? Nikon's older mount however has its drawbacks, chief amongst which the fact that you cant really use all 120 or whatever lenses to their full capability since many require an in body AF motor, which most low priced nikon dslrs lack.

 

EF-S and EF both work on all Canon APSC dslrs, the problem is moving to full frame. 

EOS-M is beside the point, Nikon didn't use the Fmount on their mirrorless cameras for the 5 minutes they used to make them either. 

 

That would put the actual count of the truly compatible nikon lenses much lower than Canon's at this point, ergo, lower tier bodies from both manufacturers being fairly matched on paper, that is a point against going with a Nikon dslr. Everything said after in your post is entirely irrelevant. 

 

My point was precisely that even I, a Canon user for over a decade, would have a hard time recommending a new user, that has no ties to a system go with the 5d mk4 over the d850, precisely because the latter is better on paper. Thus, at the point where that is your consideration, there is indeed a decisive factor i.e. the camera being better. 

 

However, when looking at entry level dslrs, the decision to go with Canon or Nikon is completely arbitrary, they are interchangeable. The issue is that, by suggesting OP goes with Nikon definitively now, not in the future, if they decide to sell a kidney (which I am now considering given the cost of camera gear!), you are steering them towards a possibly wrong direction. To elaborate: 

 

If we assume pricewise d3400<750d<d5600, while the actual difference between the d5600 and 750d is negligible, by suggesting OP definitively go with Nikon, they may go with the d3400 over the 750d, which is superior as a camera, if they can't afford the d5600 and that is my issue with your recommendation. 

 

And your last sentence is precisely what my issue is. You are personally biased in favor of Nikon (which is fine), I myself am towards Canon and am the first to admit it, which leads you to recommend that (also fair, I find myself doing that many times as well). But objectively, that limits the OPs options and may thus lead them to a wrong decision.

 

So to bring this to a close, when buying your first dslr, what brand it says on the box doesn't matter, the sensor point is also moot, if anyone wants to get into this, start another thread. Just go into a store, and get the best camera you can afford and like from a good manufacturer like Nikon and Canon.  

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

5 hours ago, lazyfortress said:

I get most of my information from kenrockwell.com.  It's a great site

No it’s not.

 

And as stated above, just because Nikon has been using f-mount for decades does not mean all modern Nikon bodies can easily use every previous generation of lenses.  There are certain issues to overcome, and only a few higher tier bodies can almost use all generation of lenses.

[lazyfortress]

17 minutes ago, cc143 said:

 

And your last sentence is precisely what my issue is. You are personally biased in favor of Nikon (which is fine), I myself am towards Canon and am the first to admit it, which leads you to recommend that (also fair, I find myself doing that many times as well). But objectively, that limits the OPs options and may thus lead them to a wrong decision.

 

So to bring this to a close, when buying your first dslr, what brand it says on the box doesn't matter, the sensor point is also moot, if anyone wants to get into this, start another thread. Just go into a store, and get the best camera you can afford and like from a good manufacturer like Nikon and Canon.  

 

I kinda agree with you now.  Before buying into the system, you should actually test out the camera.  

 

My personal preference is Nikon, as NASA was using them ever since the early 70s with the last Apollo missions and Skylab.  A lot of combat photographers use Canon and Pentax.

 

Also, I support Nikon because it fits with what I'm doing.  I used to have a Canon A2500 point-and-shoot camera, it was good when I was a beginner. 

 

That brings up my next question for the OP:

 

OP, are you a beginner?  Or have you had previous experience with a DSLR?  If you're a beginner, you may want to start with a slightly smaller camera, such as a mirrorless camera or one of those DSLR-like cameras, such as the Nikon CoolPix series or the higher-end Canon PowerShots.

 

I still own the Nikon CoolPix B500 because it has video capabilities.  Nice zoom and quality, too.  It's small and light enough to be a great travel camera, as well as other bridge cameras (like the higher-end Canon PowerShots).

 

@cc143, would you recommend the OP get one of those digital bridge cameras if he's a beginner?  He wouldn't have to worry about choosing a lens, and it would teach him the aspects of photography.  Bridge cameras are fairly cheap, too.  I got my B500 for around $300.

 

[cc143]

2 hours ago, lazyfortress said:

I kinda agree with you now.  Before buying into the system, you should actually test out the camera.  

 

My personal preference is Nikon, as NASA was using them ever since the early 70s with the last Apollo missions and Skylab.  A lot of combat photographers use Canon and Pentax.

 

Also, I support Nikon because it fits with what I'm doing.  I used to have a Canon A2500 point-and-shoot camera, it was good when I was a beginner. 

 

@cc143, would you recommend the OP get one of those digital bridge cameras if he's a beginner?  He wouldn't have to worry about choosing a lens, and it would teach him the aspects of photography.  Bridge cameras are fairly cheap, too.  I got my B500 for around $300.

 

I don't care who has been using the Camera since the 70s and so should you. Apart from bragging rights (although anyway who cares), all that matters is that you are comfortable using it and it fulfills your needs well enough given the cost thats it. Everything else is mostly irrelevant. 

 

Don't reduce any brand to just one of its offerings. The A2500 is different from practically every one of Canon's other Cameras. If a brand release a flop, that doesn't mean they don't know what they are doing. Look at Nikon. 

 

As for the bridge Camera, absolutely not. There are so many value option dslrs now and most bridge cameras are crap until you spend as much as would get you a very good mid range dslr. I didn't think those things were worth it when they were first released and a Canon 300d cost £1000. Now, even a 5 year old dslr is worth more than most of those bridge cameras. 

 

The truth is that the best way to learn the aspects of photography and understand how everything works, with the exception of shooting an AE1 or something is still a dslr. 

[Not_Sean]

Shit and here is me with my 1300d happy as can be

 

 

[cc143]

37 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

Shit and here is me with my 1300d happy as can be

 

 

Not saying the 1300d is completely useless, I'm just pointing out that there are better ways to spend your money. The d3400 is similarly priced and objectively a much better camera. 

[Not_Sean]

Just now, cc143 said:

Not saying the 1300d is completely useless, I'm just pointing out that there are better ways to spend your money. The d3400 is similarly priced and objectively a much better camera. 

for me the main one was the Wifi function as I was doing a lot of top down photography with the camera mounted on the roof, Made life easier. Shooting that project for the friend and editing it all and what not paid the camera and a bit off. so now got a free 1300d and yeah I'm happy with it, Also going to be doing a fair bit of video shooting with it and everyone I spoke to rated it over the similar priced Nikon for my uses.

i'm not  in anyway looking to be a pro at all so for me its even a bit of overkill for my uses, but hey why not.

[cc143]

4 minutes ago, Not_Sean said:

for me the main one was the Wifi function as I was doing a lot of top down photography with the camera mounted on the roof, Made life easier. Shooting that project for the friend and editing it all and what not paid the camera and a bit off. so now got a free 1300d and yeah I'm happy with it, Also going to be doing a fair bit of video shooting with it and everyone I spoke to rated it over the similar priced Nikon for my uses.

i'm not  in anyway looking to be a pro at all so for me its even a bit of overkill for my uses, but hey why not.

Again, I don't doubt the 1300d works fine, however, in my mind, the marginal amount spent to buy something like a 750d or even a used 700d is well worth it given the additional features. Its simply a matter of getting the best buck for your buck, in that tier, Nikon's offerings are in many ways superior. 

[Not_Sean]

2 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Again, I don't doubt the 1300d works fine, however, in my mind, the marginal amount spent to buy something like a 750d or even a used 700d is well worth it given the additional features. Its simply a matter of getting the best buck for your buck, in that tier, Nikon's offerings are in many ways superior. 

I wanted a 650d/700d but here in NZ at the time the it was all $800nzd upwards I got the 1300 for $450 brand new.

 

When I've shot before its been the 650  and I loved it. but yeah jsut at the time couldn't find one at the right price/condition. 

Again the entry lvl nikons were ruled out simply because non of them were coming with Wifi at the similar price range