Looking for some camera buying advice for a beginner

[Turbojuice]

I'm looking at getting started in photography and looking to pick up a used bargain from the old ebay. Looking at <£400 or so. I'll be mainly taking landscape scenic pictures and a few pictures of cars (thinking at car shows/meets). Done a little bit of research and something along the lines of a Nikon D3300 or D5200 seems like a good bet for myself but is there any other options out there that i've missed that would be a good used buy for a beginner and worth a look?

Secondly, is it a better idea to buy just the camera body and then hand pick a lens that would best fit my needs, or just go for a bundle with camera, standard kit lens, bags, caps, changers etc... all thrown in? And if I were to go for the former, what would be a good versatile lens for my expected use stated above? I hear primes have better quality but is the improvement noticeable and worth sacrificing some versatility for?

Thanks all.

[brman]

If you really are just starting out then you could do a lot worse than starting with something like a 2nd hand D300 and a kit lens.

When (and only when) you really know what sort of pictures you want to take and have exhausted the possibilities of the kit lens (which will be better than you are....) you can decide what glass to spend all your money on.

On paper the much more modern D3300 or D5x00 might appear a lot better but you cannot (imho) beat the handling of the D300. Plus it takes better pictures than I do

[eltawater]

First and foremost, what do you friends / acquaintances / colleagues own?

If they own Nikons, great! If they own Canon etc, consider buying into those systems in order to maximise your ability to swap knowledge / kit.

If you're going down the Nikon route, see this thread:

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

Buy a body, a lens and several memory cards as a priority. The kit lens is ok to get you started, the zoom range will help you to learn where your limits are in terms of composure etc. Forget about spending lots of money on batteries / bags at this moment in time.

I've heard bad things about the D3200 / D5200 due to the antialiasing filter which Nikon added which reportedly adds undesirable and compulsory image softening. The fact that they removed it from the 3300/5300 onwards tells you something.....

[Porsche911R]

Buy a small mirrorless unit.

I see zero point in slr now unless you are a pro making money from it.

I have £6k gear, I never use any of it, it’s big, heavy, and you look a tit with one imo these days.

I bought a Canon m6 with the 22mm lens it’s amazing.. also has mic and flip screen for vids.
SLR are dead in the consumer market imo.

[Lynchie999]

Porsche911R said:

Buy a small mirrorless unit.

This.

SONY A6000 should do it!

[brman]

I tried mirrorless for a while but it just doesn't have a handling and image quality of my DSLR kit. Depends on what you want from it I think which is a very personal decision.
Saying DSLR is dead makes me chuckle to be honest although I do agree that a lot of consumers that never take their cameras off auto are wasting their time with a DSLR.

eltawater said:

I've heard bad things about the D3200 / D5200 due to the antialiasing filter which Nikon added which reportedly adds undesirable and compulsory image softening. The fact that they removed it from the 3300/5300 onwards tells you something.....

Please, please do not take any notice of what you read on the internet from geeks who obsess about anti-aliasing filters etc. It is all bks in the real world (99% of the time anyway).
I have D300, D700 and D7100. The first two have anti-aliasing filters, the D7100 does not. I use them with both consumer and pro lenses. In test shots with idea conditions, the camera on a tripod and the lens in its sweet spot, the D7100 can make some incredibly sharp images so you might find it odd that I use the D700 almost exclusively now with the D300 as my backup/DX body.

Why? Well the D700 and D300 are much nicer to handle than the D7100 and nearly all the time it is the lens and/or the me that is limiting the IQ, not the camera body.

Seriously, if you can't get good result on any camera from the D50 onwards then it is not the camera's fault. And I know that from bitter experience!

[Turbojuice]

Some varying advice here. I very much appreciate all of it and it definitely gives me some things to think about.

The idea of getting a cheap and old unit to learn with. I like this a lot... mainly because it costs me the least money! But it does make a lot of sense, and when i get the hand of it all and want an upgrade, i can just buy a new body and keep the lenses. I'm assuming if I were to get a D300, the lenses are the same as the ones used on the D3x00, D5x00 and D7x00?

The mirrorless idea is quite appealing though. I presume that's the way cameras of the future will go? So more and more lens choice in the future. Might not be a bad idea to go that route, also they're smaller which is always handy but costs more (looked at the a6000 and the Olympus e10 thingy).

I like to mess around with things. I won't be leaving the camera on auto, i'll be changing settings left right and centre and experimenting. DSLR the better option in this regard maybe?

I know very little about all this, so just looking to take in as much advice as possible before I part with my cash. At the moment i'm liking both options, but the first option which brman suggests makes the most sense to my mind.

[rich888]

Turbojuice said:

I'm looking at getting started in photography and looking to pick up a used bargain from the old ebay. Looking at <£400 or so. I'll be mainly taking landscape scenic pictures and a few pictures of cars (thinking at car shows/meets). Done a little bit of research and something along the lines of a Nikon D3300 or D5200 seems like a good bet for myself but is there any other options out there that i've missed that would be a good used buy for a beginner and worth a look?

Secondly, is it a better idea to buy just the camera body and then hand pick a lens that would best fit my needs, or just go for a bundle with camera, standard kit lens, bags, caps, changers etc... all thrown in? And if I were to go for the former, what would be a good versatile lens for my expected use stated above? I hear primes have better quality but is the improvement noticeable and worth sacrificing some versatility for?

Thanks all.

Might also be worthwhile taking a look at the secondhand cameras and lenses sold by mpb.com or perhaps buy new from the likes of panamoz.com

I can't comment on the suitability of Nikon cameras because I went down the Canon route but my understanding is that the cameras are mighty similar in performance with pros and cons for both. I also have a Sony RX100 MK3 compact camera which tends to stay with me most of the time and is a damn good compromise between an iPhone and a DSLR.

I take quite a few photos at car shows and started out with a Canon 700D which was a lovely camera for a beginner, I was sorely tempted by the Canon 100D which was pretty much the same camera except it was smaller, but eventually went for the 700D because of a few improvements and a longer battery life. After buying the camera I bought a twin battery pack off Amazon so always had one battery in the camera and a fully charged spare in the bag.

At car events you tend to find the cars are crammed together so there isn't a lot of room to move backwards for the whole shot, so a 24-70mm zoom lens is useful, if you can get a f/2.8 lens then even better but the faster f/2.8 lenses cost quite a bit of money, Canon sell a lovely fixed 24mm f/2.8 EFS lens which is great for these particular photos and they also sell an inexpensive EF 50mm f/1.8 lens, both of these are easy to acquire on the used market but they don't cost a vast amount new.

The thing to note about lenses is the f number, the lower the number the more light the lens can let in, so a f/1.8 lens will have a faster shutter speed than a f/4.5 lens under comparable conditions, so if it's a gloomy wintery day or early evening or indoors, the shutter speed on the f/1.8 lens will be higher, so less risk of a blurry photo, you can also achieve some lovely bokeh photos on the faster lenses which is when you blur out the background by selecting f/1.8 instead of f/4.5, note that most photographers tend to avoid taking photos at f/1.8 on a f/1.8 camera because the depth of field is so small, focus on the wrong part and the rest will be blurry.

Most modern day DSLRs will allow you to experiment with all the modes, or you can be lazy and go for full auto which is handy when you give the camera to the wife and tell her to point and shoot

Hope this helps a little...

Edited to add: Take a look at some of the photos posted on Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/explore for some inspiration or ideas, you can also search for users, cameras and lenses used.

Edited by rich888 on Monday 22 January 00:30

[Gad-Westy]

Lots of opinions on here. I can see why it's confusing buying a camera these days. But the good news is that they're almost all brilliant so you aren't going to buy a bad one. And truth be told this will either go one of three ways.

1. You'll buy camera x, get utterly hooked on photography and upgrade to something different within 6 months. But by this stage, you'll have some idea of what is important to you.

2. You'll buy camera x. Enjoy using it occasionally but be perfectly happy.

3. You'll buy camera x. Take 500 photos of your cat and then it will never see light of day again.

So, basically, buy anything that takes your fancy but my only advice is that if I knew what I knew now when I was starting, I'd have spent 1/3 of my budget at the most on the camera itself. £150 buys something like a D90 which is still a hugely capable camera and offers enough to be an easy introduction to newbies without frustrating the more experienced. The rest on a lens or two, a bag and some memory cards. Buy used where you can because you may well end up chopping and changing your kit and you can find you lose almost nothing doing so if you've bought it used and looked after it.

[xeny]

Porsche911R said:

Buy a small mirrorless unit.

I see zero point in slr now unless you are a pro making money from it.

Depends on what you're photographing - I do a lot of birds in flight and air shows - I find EVFs disappointing compared to an optical viewfinder.

[brman]

Gad-Westy said:

Lots of opinions on here. I can see why it's confusing buying a camera these days. But the good news is that they're almost all brilliant so you aren't going to buy a bad one. And truth be told this will either go one of three ways.

1. You'll buy camera x, get utterly hooked on photography and upgrade to something different within 6 months. But by this stage, you'll have some idea of what is important to you.

2. You'll buy camera x. Enjoy using it occasionally but be perfectly happy.

3. You'll buy camera x. Take 500 photos of your cat and then it will never see light of day again.

So, basically, buy anything that takes your fancy but my only advice is that if I knew what I knew now when I was starting, I'd have spent 1/3 of my budget at the most on the camera itself. £150 buys something like a D90 which is still a hugely capable camera and offers enough to be an easy introduction to newbies without frustrating the more experienced. The rest on a lens or two, a bag and some memory cards. Buy used where you can because you may well end up chopping and changing your kit and you can find you lose almost nothing doing so if you've bought it used and looked after it.

Or, option 4. Buy camera x, get utterly hooked but quickly realise that the camera will be fine for what you need. Buy a couple of more lenses to give you the range you need then enjoy photography for the sake of the photography, not the equipment. Enjoy your hobby without it bankrupting you.....

Sounds by far the best option, even if it is one I have struggled with myself

[Gad-Westy]

brman said:

Sounds by far the best option, even if it is one I have struggled with myself

Haven't we all! I'm sure there are people out there that manage it though.

[TheRainMaker]

xeny said:

Depends on what you're photographing - I do a lot of birds in flight and air shows - I find EVFs disappointing compared to an optical viewfinder.

Not tried an A9 yet then? They really are a leap on from dslr stuff.

[Turbojuice]

I think i'm pretty much sold on the idea of an old DSLR. General conscientious seems to be don't spend too much, and that all comes from your experiences so I'd be stupid not to listen. D300 looks like a nice and inexpensive used purchase with plenty of features to get accustomed to.

I'm going to take a trip down to the camera shop and have a look at a few DSLR's and mirrorless units just to get a gauge of how comfortable they both are. Done a bit more research on mirrorless after a few comments here and it seems apart from the obvious size and weight difference, the only major difference these days is EVF vs optical and shorter battery life.

Thanks for all the advice.

[brman]

TheRainMaker said:

xeny said:

Depends on what you're photographing - I do a lot of birds in flight and air shows - I find EVFs disappointing compared to an optical viewfinder.

Not tried an A9 yet then? They really are a leap on from dslr stuff.

I think you need to compare apples with apples here......

A Sony A9 is 10 times the price the op had in mind. Now come up with a mirrorless camera for £200 that is better than a D300. I've looked (and actually bought a couple) but none have come close yet. I am genuinely curious as to what you would recommend in that price range.
That said, I suspect we might have different views on what is "better".

[brman]

Turbojuice said:

I think i'm pretty much sold on the idea of an old DSLR. General conscientious seems to be don't spend too much, and that all comes from your experiences so I'd be stupid not to listen. D300 looks like a nice and inexpensive used purchase with plenty of features to get accustomed to.

I'm going to take a trip down to the camera shop and have a look at a few DSLR's and mirrorless units just to get a gauge of how comfortable they both are. Done a bit more research on mirrorless after a few comments here and it seems apart from the obvious size and weight difference, the only major difference these days is EVF vs optical and shorter battery life.

Thanks for all the advice.

One thing I don't think has been mentioned yet. Cameras in the D3000 and D5000 series do not have in camera focus motors. So, if you want to autofocus, you must use AFS lenses rather than the older AF-D etc.
This might not be an issue for you but if you want to play with cheap, old lenses it is another reason to get something like a D300 over a more modern (but similarly priced) D3000 series.

The biggest downside of the D300 is it is built like a brick st house! So not exactly small and light.

[Gad-Westy]

D300 is a belting camera (had a couple of them myself) and something of a bargain but a word of caution for a total beginner. The D300 is designated as a professional DSLR which brings with it some heft (a good thing) and a raft of direct controls allowing the user to anything they need to without removing their eye from the camera.

The downside for a total novice is that there is no full auto mode to get you started. There are the usual aperture priority modes, shutter priority and P mode and auto iso etc but they all require a bit of user input. Some might say this is a good thing. Jump in at the deep end forces one to learn quickly. But I know from my angle that when I started out a few years ago that it was the fact that I was able to shoot 'nice' images straight away that got me hooked and prompted me to delve deeper into how I could improve and take more control. I'm not sure I'd have had as much patience if my first set of images were all blurred, dark, overexposed or out of focus. Not sure, just my two penneth. It's really why I mentioned the D90. It's the same sensor and era as the D300 but does have full auto modes and enough other control going on that you won't immediately be diving into the menus between every shot. A decent compromise I think.

Just a note on the mirrorless vs DSLR. I'm a big fan of mirrorless and fully subscribed into Fuji now but I think it's only in the last couple of years (and even then only the top of the range models) that there are now mirrorless cameras that are as good all rounders as top end DSLR's. Up until recently, DSLR's have always been the go-to option for fast moving action, long battery life and generally being rugged, dependable tools. There are a few models starting to challenge that but I think we're still at the the point where the graphs are starting to cross over. All that said, at this end of the market, I think DSLR's still make much more sense as all rounders. Less than £100 can buy a very capable DSLR. Mirrorless stuff at this end is much more compromised.

[brman]

Gad-Westy said:

D300 is a belting camera (had a couple of them myself) and something of a bargain but a word of caution for a total beginner. The D300 is designated as a professional DSLR which brings with it some heft (a good thing) and a raft of direct controls allowing the user to anything they need to without removing their eye from the camera.

The downside for a total novice is that there is no full auto mode to get you started. There are the usual aperture priority modes, shutter priority and P mode and auto iso etc but they all require a bit of user input. Some might say this is a good thing. Jump in at the deep end forces one to learn quickly. But I know from my angle that when I started out a few years ago that it was the fact that I was able to shoot 'nice' images straight away that got me hooked and prompted me to delve deeper into how I could improve and take more control. I'm not sure I'd have had as much patience if my first set of images were all blurred, dark, overexposed or out of focus. Not sure, just my two penneth. It's really why I mentioned the D90. It's the same sensor and era as the D300 but does have full auto modes and enough other control going on that you won't immediately be diving into the menus between every shot. A decent compromise I think.

Just a note on the mirrorless vs DSLR. I'm a big fan of mirrorless and fully subscribed into Fuji now but I think it's only in the last couple of years (and even then only the top of the range models) that there are now mirrorless cameras that are as good all rounders as top end DSLR's. Up until recently, DSLR's have always been the go-to option for fast moving action, long battery life and generally being rugged, dependable tools. There are a few models starting to challenge that but I think we're still at the the point where the graphs are starting to cross over. All that said, at this end of the market, I think DSLR's still make much more sense as all rounders. Less than £100 can buy a very capable DSLR. Mirrorless stuff at this end is much more compromised.

All good points although I would not say the lack of full auto or scene modes is in any way a problem for most people. In fact I would argue that full auto modes are the worst thing for learning. You use them and they work so everything is good. But then you don't have a clue how they work so when things go wrong you are stuck. Much better to start with a simple program mode. When things go wrong you can learn about aperture, shutter speeds and ISO. From there everything is easy.....

That said, I agree a D300 could look rather scary to a complete beginner, it will probably help having someone with experience of one to say what is a good starting point for the settings. Then just don't touch those you don't understand yet!
Actually that is a good point. First thing to do with any 2nd hand camera is to reset to the factory default settings. Otherwise things can get very confusing.
On a D300 (iirc) that means holding down the Qual and +/- buttons until the top display blinks off.
The back of the manual will tell you what the defaults are but they include ISO200 and programmable auto exposure mode.
Then, for the switches do the following:
1) Mmetering selector (right of the eyepiece) to 3d colour matrix (the centre option, rectangle with a dot in it)
2) Af area mode (right of the LCD) to dynamic area (again the centre one). If you really must the af mode could be auto area (the top setting, a white box) but personally I think that is a bit too auto to learn from to start with.
3) The release mode dial (on the top, left of the viewfinder) to either S (single shot) or Cl (continuous but slow speed so it is easy to take your finger off in time). Dont forget to press the lock release (little button front left of the dial) to change the dial setting.
4) Focus mode (left of the lens mount below the lens release button) to S.

Then I think you should be good to go

Others might have different views on what the "best" default settings are but the key is to choose something, read the manual to see how it is supposed to work then use it until you really understand it. Then you can start playing with stuff and see what happens.....

[brman]

btw. I also fully agree with Gad-westy about the value of cheap, older DSLRs. I used to have a D80 which I did not use much (as I already had the D300) but here is a picture I took when testing it.
Swan, crop by Toby, on Flickr
Taken on auto with just -1/3 stop exposure compensation and I think it did a pretty good job considering the dappled light. It was also taken with a budget lens so I think the sharpness pretty good too, especially as this cropped from 10MP to about 2.4MP.
Lens (a 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5) could be hand for less than £100 on ebay, the camera less than £75 in good condition.
I sold my D80 with a kit lens for £100 and both were in near mint condition.

Oh, and this ugly beast was taken on the D80 with a lens that cost me a fiver......
Bluebottle 2 by Toby, on Flickr

[Weslake-Monza]

II have £6k gear, I never use any of it, it’s big, heavy, and you look a tit with one imo these days.

- I don't mind looking like a tit but to save you the bother I'll take it off your hands at no cost to yourself!