Hi guys I am in the market for a DSLR camera for the first time. Budget is around $500. Looking for something that will take better procures in low light than my current compact camera. Not travelling overseas any time soon. So it doesn't has to be from an Australian vendor but I want good warranty service. Please advise.
First DSLR camera
apprentice on 24/11/2014 - 14:21
Comments
- 1
- 2
For the money conscious and those with the desire to learn photography (discount 'I want better iPhone photos') DSLR is still the cheapest option, they've been around for a LONG time. Crop factor usually 1.3x, manual lenses can be had from overseas for cheap, usually very durable, lots of them around, with the weight comes comfort, etc.
Yet the thing is, Mirrorless are cheaper at every equivalent level to DSLR. There is nothing to 'learn' from a DLSR that you can't do on a mirrorless, because all the fundamental manual adjustments still apply; this is photography not rocket-science. Mirrorless, due to the removal of the mirror flange distance, allow you to use every lens there is with adapters, so you now have cheaper options for lenses from both DLSR and the mirrorless camp.
Not really, mirrorless cameras are still more expensive than DSLRs.
Entry Nikon D3200 Body only - cheapest ~$330 (grey import)
Entry Sony a3500 with 18-50 lens - cheapest $254 (in-store TGG)
"Mirrorless are cheaper at every equivalent level to DSLR", and?
The lens with adapter factor is a great benefit of mirrorless, however I did mention 1.3x CF, most commonly the mirrorless is 2x CF so you lose and gain accordingly, for the former it's very difficult to get affordable DSLR wide angles (discounting those CCTV lens). There is a matter of comfort as well, but that's relevant to frequency and intent of use.
this is photography not rocket-science
I hope you're speaking in context of the OP, else there's a vast difference between instagram and photography.
That Sony a3500 was a one-off deal - if we're into talking about one-off deals then that's not really fair. The regular price of the a3500 is around $370 anyway, so not quite right.
Secondly, whilst the a3500 is mirrorless in that it doesn't have a mirror, it doesn't have the main benefit other mirrorless systems have over DSLRs - that is - size.
So really, I would either go DSLR or I would go for a real mirrorless such as the Sony a5000, which of course, is more expensive. Apart from the a3500 you've listed, no other mirrorless systems - from Sony, M4/3 (Olympus/Panasonic), Fujifilm or Samsung are as cheap as the Nikon D3200 or Canon EOS 1200D.
"That Sony a3500 was a one-off deal - if we're into talking about one-off deals then that's not really fair. The regular price of the a3500 is around $370 anyway, so not quite right."
You're right, should've instead listed Videopro for $262 or Digidirect for $288 or Teds for $299…Oh wait my point still stands.
"it doesn't have the main benefit other mirrorless systems have over DSLRs - that is - size."
Was size the only thing people buy mirrorless for? Because even something like a3500 is 100g lighter, you know weight is pretty important.
"Apart from the a3500 you've listed, no other mirrorless systems - from Sony, M4/3 (Olympus/Panasonic), Fujifilm or Samsung are as cheap as the Nikon D3200 or Canon EOS 1200D."
If we're going to just ignore entry level models like Olympus PL3 or a3500 because it's not a 'real' mirrorless, sure I agree. Conversely every other mirrorless camera outclasses the D3200 or EOS1200D, so I don't see what you're trying to get at, better camera is more expensive?
@paulsterio:
I would agree with you if you can find any full frame SLR system that cheaper than the sony alpha a7. I bought it for $1048 (body only with $300 cash back)
But that doesnt mean one system is cheaper or expensive than the other. It just depends on demands and supplies at a particular point of time.@minty:
Actually, the crop factor for most consumer dslrs is 1.5x (1.6X for Canon). Most mirrorless use the same sensor size (1.5x). Only Panasonic and Olympus use 2X.Actually the only DSLR's with 1.3x CF was the EOS 1D series. Everything else is 1.5x (Nikon/Pentax/Sony/Fuji/Samsung), 1.6x (Canon) and 2x (Olympus/Panasonic).
As for mirrorless, most are 1.5x (Sony/Fuji/Samsung) or 2x (Olympus/Panasonic) and then you have the 1.6x (Canon) and 2.7x (Nikon) systems.
All of these mirrorless systems actually have reasonable wide angle options and the 1.5x systems lend themselves well to adapting DSLR lenses.
when talking about interchangeable lens with adapter, better forget it if you're not a pro or semi-pro because getting focus on this type of mix race marriage is very difficult and in some cases you can't even have infinitive focus which is next to useless. Mirrorless is all about portability and that's it. Once you considered yourself a professional, the collection of lenses decide everything. Looking at Sony, Olympus and the like, their lens collection is way behind their DSLR counterparts and even if there's a standout one, it will be much more expensive.
just read articles saying dslr sales drop 24% this year
i think that's because everyone uses their phones. you're already carrying around your phone. why do you also want to also have to carry around a camera for casual photograpy?
sorry didnt quoted completely, same report also stating in the same period, "more compact camera" selling are increases.
for better photos?
You need to know what you're shooting.
If you're shooting family pictures and you're going to use your new DSLR like a point and shoot, then get a Nikon D3100 or a Canon EOS 1100D. You might feel like stepping up to the Nikon D3200 or Canon EOS 1200D for not that much more, but you don't get much more.
If you're shooting sports, you really need to step up to the Nikon D5200 or D7000 which have the 39 point tracking autofocus system (AF). You can't use the D3200 or 1200D for sports because they are simply too slow. Between the D5200 and D7000, go for the D5200 for higher megapixels, go with the D7000 for better handling and build quality. The D7000 is basically fully weathersealed and its button layout are superior, but you get less resolution than the D5200. Both are exceptional cameras, though.
My advice is to just get a basic twin lens kit, which comes with a standard zoom and a telephoto zoom. That's always a great place to start. Here are a few options. I'm a Nikon shooter, so I'll recommend Nikon, but someone who shoots Canon could probably recommend Canon cameras. Both Nikon and Canon are the same, neither is better than the other.
Some people will suggest mirrorless, they're not a bad alternative, they're smaller, lighter and easier to use, but they're nowhere near as well built as DSLRs are and I personally wouldn't take a mirrorless out in the rain - DSLRs are fine. Also, mirrorless tends to be more expensive than an equivalently featured DSLR. The Sony A5000 is great.
Remember to save aside $10 to get Tony Northrup's Stunning Digital Photography book on Amazon - it'll help you make better pictures than any camera will. I'm serious, these days I can take better pictures with a point and shoot than I could with a DSLR when I was first starting to take photography seriously.
"I personally wouldn't take a mirrorless out in the rain - DSLRs are fine"
I find this an odd comment. The Olympus E-M1 has much better weather sealing than any consumer DSLR (other than Pentax maybe?)
You've really should know what your body and your lens is capable of before deciding to expose them to the elements.
It doesn't help that every manufacturer seems to have a different definition of weather sealed.
The Olympus E-M1 has much better weather sealing than any consumer DSLR
Yes, but other mirrorless won't be as good. I wouldn't take, say, a Sony A5000 out in the rain at all.
its probably no worse than an equivlent priced DSLR though (ie no sealing in either)
If you have one of the cheaper mirrorless cameras, I'll challenge you to spill a glass of water on it. I'll do the same on my D3100. We'll see which one fares better - perhaps you might be right, but I stand by my DSLRs and their weathersealing.
@aim54x:
Really? You obviously need to see a Pentax in action. I would trust my pentax any terrain, any weather, anywhere. Except maybe submerged.K-5 and K-30 can be easily found second hand sub$400
K-50 can be bought brand new around $500Bit of a premium to pay over the jack-standard CSC, but lets see you put a CSC in the shower. Or anywhere where it's not under cover.
Offically neither (D3100 or A5000) have any sealing. But I will tell you that the D3100 will do alright I took a Nikon D60 for a swim (unintentional) a few years ago. Whilst I have not dunked a mirrorless I have taken plenty of photos in the rain (as much rain as I would subject any of my unsealed Nikons - D60/D80) with my EP3 and my Nikon j1 and neither are any worse for wear.
My D300/D700 are actually sealed and I have shot in very heavy rain with both of them. If you are that keen on the capabilities of your "sealed" (although officially unsealed) D3100 then maybe you should go take it for a dunk in a river. Anedoctal evidence from my D60 (which is still going) suggests it will survive, but your milage may vary.
The Pentax is an exception, one that is worth noting but if you look at the Olympus EM5 (also weather sealed) it will be pretty close to the sealed Pentax in a shower (although I generally dont photograph in the shower). Even with a Pentax I would avoid washing it in a river though.
There is tough and there is being stupid.
@aim54x: I've used both a D3100 and an A5000 as well as my current D600. I haven't had the luxury of ever owning a D3 or D4.
To be honest, even with the D3100, the materials feel tight, e.g. where the LCD joins onto the body…etc. With the A5000, it feels more like a consumer point and shoot.
Whilst the D3100 is also consumer grade, I think with DSLRs, they tend to be be the higher level cameras with things removed, whereas with mirrorless, e.g. A5000, they tend to be cheaper point and shoots with features added.
I guess I must be lucky, I have used a lot of cameras (working in camera retail and shooting loaned/rented cameras) and own a fair few cameras as well.
I can tell you that an entry level DSLR is not built by stripping parts out of higher end camera, nor is a mirrrorless created by shoe horning a bigger sensor into an existing compact camera. Both are designed around a specification and engineered to create a good package that meets the specification and the price point.
I am unsure why you would point out the LCD join on a D3100 vs an A5000 as one has a integral (fixed) LCD whilst the other has a tilt LCD. If you have a chance to play with a D750 have a close look at the tilt mechanism (hint, the hinges on the screen don't inspire robustness, even compared to a lowly A5000). I have used both (D3100 and A5000) and both feel creaky and somewhat flimsy in the hand, but it is all relative as I am comparing build to that of a D4/D3/D810/D700. The lighter weight of mirrorless cameras (a design specification) make it a lot harder to produce a camera with that reassuring heft and solid feel of a dslr.
Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLR (I have a quite a few Nikons) but you cant dismiss the fact that mirrorless has a market and it is fast encroaching on the entry level DSLR. You seem a like a reasonable guy that wants to help and we seem to have healthy exchanges.
I can tell you that an entry level DSLR is not built by stripping parts out of higher end camera, nor is a mirrrorless created by shoe horning a bigger sensor into an existing compact camera. Both are designed around a specification and engineered to create a good package that meets the specification and the price point.
Of course not, I know they aren't, but sometimes that's what it feels like. Little things such as the SD card door, grips and even buttons feel much better made on a DSLR. It's hard to describe it in words, but the buttons on a DSLR feel like the buttons you would find on an old VCR from the 80s which would still work after hundreds of clicks. On the other hand, a lot of mirrorless cameras have these new buttons that feel like they're a part of bargain basement DVD players.
I am unsure why you would point out the LCD join on a D3100 vs an A5000 as one has a integral (fixed) LCD whilst the other has a tilt LCD.
I was meaning to compare the D5100, which I owned for a period of time (sold now). That has a very solid join compared to the A5000. Again, it's very subjective, but I would be confident in picking up a D5100 by the LCD, the A5000, less so. Again, it's probably just a psychological thing.
Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLR (I have a quite a few Nikons) but you cant dismiss the fact that mirrorless has a market and it is fast encroaching on the entry level DSLR.
I don't, in fact, I understand that mirrorless has many benefits over the traditional DSLR including being able to see your shot before you press the shutter, less weight and smaller size, often more user friendly…etc.
What I am concerned about, however, is the lack of upgrade potential with mirrorless cameras. I can't help but feel as if, from the ground up, mirrorless cameras have been designed for consumers, as an upgrade to point and shoots. Even the best mirrorless cameras around don't have the features I simply can't live without.
For example, the Sony A7 is a great camera. Same sensor as the D610, but beyond what others might say about slow autofocus, it just lacks professional features. An example of one is dual-card shooting. Whilst I don't really care about backups if I'm just walking around shooting for fun, if I'm paying lots of money to go overseas for the specific purpose of taking photos, I want to have everything shot on two cards, in case one gets corrupted, lost or stolen. If I'm shooting a professional job, again, shooting with one card is just simply unprofessional, as you're putting your customer's memories at risk.
Of course, I can sit here and talk about other issues with mirrorless as well, including a lack of lenses and upgrade potential. I know over time this will improve, but if you look at the mirrorless options available right now, there is Sony E-mount, M4/3, Fuji X-mount, Samsung and Leica.
Sony E-mount is probably the best, their lens selection is okay - they have the "professional trinity" (17-35, 24-70, 70-200 or some variant of the three) and their full-frame A7 is absolutely excellent. However, they don't have a body which has real professional features (e.g. dual SD card slots) as of yet.
M4/3 - I love the Panasonic GH4, amazing video capabilities, but I don't think M4/3 will ever be a real professional standard. I have a feeling that over time, Sony's superior sensors will be putting lots of pressure on the M4/3 system.
Fuji X-mount - Amazing, but very expensive, that's all I can say. I love the look, love the size, love everything except the cost.
I'm loving the A7 and seriously looking at the A7II, the lenses look like they are coming, you can adapt the A-mount system with no handicap (I am) it's tough (sealed) but best of all it weighs less than half of my D700. It could do with a built in flash and a faster frame rate though.
Realistically dual cards won't save you from losing pictures in the event of a robbery and most will use it as overflow. Buy some good quality cards and corruption becomes a small issue. Most people use the second card for overflow.
I do agree that M43 is not going to become a professional standard but it us in many ways a mature system and between Olympus and Panasonic you have fast zooms, good primes and camera bodies that can challenge top end DSLR for build and features (including speed and focus). Sony, Samsung and Fuji will do well to learn from M43.
E-mount and FE-mount will be the way forward units Samsung can pull a full frame sensor but sadly I don't think Fuji can do it (they have not even broken even on the X system).
I do assure you that the button and flap thing is purely psychological.
you can adapt the A-mount system with no handicap
The only issue is most A-mount lenses don't have IS because IS is built into the body, but with the adaptor, the A7 still doesn't have IS with A-mount lenses. Either way, moot point, the A7II has inbuilt IS like the A-mount cameras do.
That said, I'm concerned that some mirrorless systems, especially when buying in early, can end up like A-mount, with little future. (Greatest concern is with Samsung at the moment). I have a feeling that Sony is really focusing all their energy on E-mount with the A7 series and A-mount is really going to die without future body releases. That's actually (for me) a major point in favour of Canon and Nikon, their mounts and lenses are here to stay. You can still get Nikon lenses from the 70s to work on your D700.
Realistically dual cards won't save you from losing pictures in the event of a robbery and most will use it as overflow. Buy some good quality cards and corruption becomes a small issue. Most people use the second card for overflow.
I actually use backup. Never needed it to save my skin, but someone I know filled up a set of cards, so he took one out and put it in his bag, another in his jacket pocket. Somehow, he lost his jacket that day, safe to say, his photos were still on the card in his bag. Things like that happen. A 32GB SD card costs like $25 and you can probably shoot for a whole day with 32GB, would you really risk your photos to save $25?
E-mount and FE-mount will be the way forward units Samsung can pull a full frame sensor but sadly I don't think Fuji can do it (they have not even broken even on the X system).
That's because Sony has the resources and power to push their E-mount platform. Same with Samsung and even Panasonic. That's what Fuji lacks. That said, I want Fuji to succeed, they have a unique and interesting lineup, but a part of me feels like they need to move away from trying to be the poor-man's Leica for them to really be competitive.
That said, Fuji has some appeal. I would take a Fuji X-Pro1 or X100s on a date, but I have a feeling taking a DSLR will be a little strange.
Actually Samsung has a better lens selection than Sony (in 1.5x crop) and have made a commitment to the NX system (which is older than the E-mount) they just dont get any love in Australia. The NX1 really demonstrates what mirrorless can do. It easily trounces the EOS 7D2, A77 II and the D7100 and the image/video quality looks like it is comparable. It also does 4k video. I'm not wrote about the NX system failing, I'm more worried that we won't get the goodies in Australia.
The beauty of the E-mount is that it will take virtually any lens you want, the DSLR can't dream of the lens flexibility or the ease of manual focus. The A7II adding IS in body is going to make this even better.
@aim54x: I'm not too sure about Samsung actually, I'll have to research the NX1 more.
The beauty of the E-mount is that it will take virtually any lens you want, the DSLR can't dream of the lens flexibility or the ease of manual focus. The A7II adding IS in body is going to make this even better.
You're right, but most of it is pretty much half broken. Nikon lenses on the A7 don't autofocus, which might not be a big deal to some, but is a big deal to others. Canon lenses autofocus, but it's so slow, inaccurate and painful that it practically doesn't autofocus. Then you have Leica lenses, but most people don't have the pockets to own Leica lenses.
So realistically, the only lenses left on E-mount that actually work properly are native E-mount lenses and A-mount lenses, which isn't bad, but it's really a moot point either way because DSLRs don't need lens flexibility, Canon and Nikon really have any lens you could want, anything they don't have Tamron and Sigma will fill the void.
So whilst yeah, it might "work" and you can put other lenses on your A7, I don't think that's actually a long term strategy.
"Half broken" is subjective, many people enjoy using manual focus and there are certainly lenses that are not available to Nikon/Canon….eg 50mm f/0.95 (and there is no need to get the Leica), compact distortion free ultra wide angle lenses (Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6, Zeiss 15mm f/2.8) or compact/pancake primes (SEL20F28, Voigtlander 35/2.5, Voigtlander 21/4). Once again, with focus peaking manual focus is relatively easy to master, even with super fast apertures and the access to rangefinder lenses (Leica, Zeiss, Voigtlander, Nikon, Canon etc) allows you to build a very compact and lightweight kit.
You (like myself) are a Nikon user, we certainly have lenses that the Canon camp would love (14-24) but we also dont have a TSE-17 or a MPE-65 (Sigma and Tamron have nothing like that either), but with a mirrorless you could have the best of both worlds (or with a Canon you can adapt the 14-24). The Nikon/Canon system is extensive but gaps exist. For the general consumer it won't matter but for others it is nice to have the option. I myself enjoy manual focus lenses, older lenses and oddball lenses. It is not just about sharpness, but also about character, something that most modern lenses lack.
NOTE: this is getting really OFF TOPIC, apologies to the OP
"Half broken" is subjective, many people enjoy using manual focus and there are certainly lenses that are not available to Nikon/Canon
Of course, but I'd still like to have the option of autofocus because there are a lot of situations where you'd simply need autofocus, e.g. try manual focusing when taking pictures out of a moving car. Continuous AF can keep up easily. That's why I wouldn't buy a system which is manual focus only. I understand there's a nostalgia behind it, but again, not for me.
compact distortion free ultra wide angle lenses (Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6, Zeiss 15mm f/2.8)
The Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 is available in Canon and Nikon mount! They have a version for DSLRs.
You (like myself) are a Nikon user, we certainly have lenses that the Canon camp would love (14-24) but we also dont have a TSE-17 or a MPE-65
Canon has a longer flange distance than Nikon, so all the Canon folk adapt the 14-24 f/2.8 to their cameras anyway. On a side note, I actually prefer the 16-35mm f/4 VR to the 14-24mm f/2.8. I had the option of purchasing either and I went with the 16-35mm and haven't regretted it since, I shoot mostly portraits, so I'm using it to get different views and angles and to pull more of the setting in, I think the 14-24mm is a very specialist lens.
That said, if you really need a TSE-17 or MPE-65 and you're a Nikon shooter, you're probably better off just buying a Canon camera to use them. That's what I think it really all comes back down to again, like this whole business of adapting lenses, if you can afford exquisite lenses such as the TSE-17 and MPE-65 or the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikon, AND you can afford adaptors (which are pretty damn expensive), you can probably afford to buy another body as well.
But you're right though, there is merit to adapting lenses and the A7 system in that regard. I'm just looking at different alternatives.
It is not just about sharpness, but also about character, something that most modern lenses lack.
Do you have the 105mm or 135mm f/2 DC? I really want one of them, but can't bring myself to drop the cash! I know they're cult-classic in the Nikon lineup.
NOTE: this is getting really OFF TOPIC, apologies to the OP
Yeah, it is, but I think OP's question has been answered now
@paulsterio:
Have you tried using a SEL70200F4G on an A6000 or an A7? AF works and tracks well with either camera, if you needed tracking it is available within the mirrorless world. BTW I often pan cars (or birds in flight) using manual focus on my Nikon's its easier and with practise you can get a better keeper rate. What I am trying to get as is the fact that the E-mount system (and any other mirrorless, except the EOS-M and Leica) have very capable AF and actually have reasonably good solutions for high performance AF situations, they are not MF only platforms.The Zeiss 15/2.8 for Nikon/Canon is not the same as the ZM 15/2.8, hugely different colour/contrast rendering as well as distortion. The short flange back distance of a rangefinder (or mirrorless) allows you to create distortion free optics that are very small, something the ZE or ZF 15/2.8 isnt.
Re 14-24 vs 16-35….I went with option 3…AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8, tonnes less distortion and a hell of a lot more character and when stopped down it is as well behaved as the others (there is a reason why this lens is still fetching more money than the 14-24).
Simply put, if I needed a TSE-17 or a MPE65 I would not go with a Canon but actually an A7 as both these lenses are MF (GASP!!) on a Canon body so why shouldn't I use it on a mirrorless camera that provides me with easier and more accurate manual focus options? (Also note that the ZF and ZE 15/2.8 is also MF) I'm not going to go into the IQ advantage the Sony's have over the Canon. The price of an adapter is much less than a decent Canon body, I could get an A7 + adapter for much less than a 5D3 or even a 6D (Sony is giving away adapters with the A7 still).
Sadly no DC lenses for me, I own a 105VR and a 135/2.8 AIS have used the 105/2.5 AIS (as well as both DC lenses). Truth said all of them pale to the SAL135F18Z in the A-mount or the ZF 135/2 (or ZE) with the possible exception of the 105/2.5 AIS. The DC lenses are cult classics, but if you are not going to use the DC function (and most dont) you are better served looking at other options, the 105VR was my choice for functionality.
I think at the end of the day there is no denying that there are plenty of options, and almost as many opinions. We approach things differently, and therefore choose different gear. If I want something killer sharp and with good AF I have my Nikon kit wiht its 17-35/24-70/70-200VR + AF primes, but if I am taking photos for myself I am just as likely to break out my collection of MF primes (F-mount, M42 screw, M-mount) and enjoy the process. Different tools for different jobs, as long as you have the right tools that YOU need for the job at hand (empathsis on YOU as your choice of tool may be different to the next person).
BTW I often pan cars (or birds in flight) using manual focus on my Nikon's its easier and with practise you can get a better keeper rate.
I'll have to try that some time, actually. I wish I had some real manual focus lenses I could use.
Re 14-24 vs 16-35….I went with option 3…AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8, tonnes less distortion and a hell of a lot more character and when stopped down it is as well behaved as the others (there is a reason why this lens is still fetching more money than the 14-24).
The 17-35mm f/2.8 is a really amazing lens. I've heard the construction is equally amazing, but that said, I wouldn't be able to afford it at the moment and my 16-35mm f/4 VR is completely great for what I need it for. For me, distortion isn't a deal breaker, it's simple to correct in Lightroom.
The DC lenses are cult classics, but if you are not going to use the DC function (and most dont) you are better served looking at other options, the 105VR was my choice for functionality.
I own the 105mm Macro as well, it's an amazing lens, it actually just feels like a precision cut and moulded piece of solid metal. It's amazing. You don't get that construction quality from Sony, even their Zeiss lenses feel dinky compared to the solid 105mm macro. I doubt even Canon have anything that's simply just a hulk of metal like that.
Different tools for different jobs, as long as you have the right tools that YOU need for the job at hand (empathsis on YOU as your choice of tool may be different to the next person).
That's completely right and I agree 100%.
You should be able to get a decent cropped sensor DSLR like 650D which I got for about that price with a kit lens. It's a good starting point to learn the features and then figure out what you want to shoot and buy out better lenses from there.
I don't like him much but Kogan seem to have pretty good deals on DSLR kits.
I've got a Canon 1100D and it's great. I leave it on auto mode most of the time and it takes really nice pictures considering what you pay for it.
I'm no photographer but wanted something better than a crappy little pocket camera.
If you leave it in auto most of the time, why did you get a DSLR? I cannot imagine high end P&S like the Canon G1 X would not have made you happy. The latter would give you all the manual options should you wish to use them.
Smaller sensor, no options for tele (which is great fun to try), significantly more expensive… Although any day of the week I would buy a Sony mirror-less instead of ether of those. =))
Similar to me, I got the Canon D600 as a starter and shot at auto for the first year before starting to delve deeper into manual settings. For me personally having P&S all my life, buying the DSLR as a starter was more like a trial to see if I was going to want to carry it around and take it with me to places or if it would spend more time at home, I quickly discovered that I loved shooting with the DSLR a lot more then any point and shoot and had no problems carrying with it me everyday of 6 week holiday around Europe, so much happier with the results of the pics than if I had gone with only the P&S.
Olympus E-M10!
I'm buying one come Sunday
Why are you buying from?
Canon 650D can be had for a killer price, and it you do decide to shoot on auto because you just can't be bothered, you haven't forked out a huge sum.
Go with 2nd hand Canon 1100d with 50mm f1.8 or nikon 3100d with 35mm f1.8. For starters it is a great combo with heaps potential for fraction of money.
That Canon 50mm f1.8 lens is a very cheap road to some great low light shots. Unfortunately the build quality of them is hit and miss, keep your receipt if you get one. Mine crapped itself, kept trying to focus and then eventually the mechanism broke in it so couldn't even manual focus it. Tempted to get another one though as they are fairly cheap.
I have a Canon 60D. When you are talking low light, you are wanting the best f-stop you can afford. It's all about the lenses really.
Get a cheap kit and save for a decent lens to pair with it later once you understand it a little more.
Canon 50mm f1.4 can be had for $200-250 used. Much better physical build quality, and comes with the superior USM motor.
One of the fastest lenses you can get for your money.
In a typical low light environment however, you're better off buying a cheap ETTL-supported flash like a Yongnuo; the AF assist beam along with the fact that it's able to serve as a decent flash is something which is likely to make a world of difference in a low light environment.
Should I buy now from a grey importer or wait for xmas sale from local retailers?
As a general statement - a second hand Canon 600D. Incredible bang for your buck - and still under the $500 price point.
Pretty much blows everything else around the same price-range out of the water in regards to flexibility and performance.
OP, what do you intend to use the camera for?
Two purposes:
1. to take photos of little objects to sell on ebay.
2. to take photos of newborn we are expecting.In that case - you can almost absolutely get away with a mirrorless DSLR. The Olympus Pen EP3 can be had for almost $400 brand new now; and makes quite the killer camera whilst still retaining the lightweight aspect. I'd be looking into one of these, or something along the same lines if I were you. (Sony NEX-5R, etc)
On the contrary, the Canon 600D is still a fantastic DSLR if you're looking to get into photography. Here's one for $475 second hand, but in good condition. Due to it's nature, better autofocus and other perks are to be had with a proper DSLR.
http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/melbourne-cbd/digital-cameras…
Have used both the 600D and the Pen EP3 in the past, both make a fantastic camera for shots on the go.
Lens range on the Canon is much better however; if you plan to upgrade in the future; $500 for a second hand 24-105 f4L will make a world of difference in regards to the camera (IQ, AF, etc)
- to take photos of little objects to sell on ebay.
Get any cheap old DSLR and a macro lens, get a couple of softboxes and backdrops and set up a mini product studio.
It's rare to get a macro lens with wider aperture than F2.8. If OP is going to take indoor shots of newborn/baby, F2.8 would be just borderline if you don't want to push ISO too high.
OP, how "little" are these objects? Unless you want to fill the photo with a 5c coin, you don't need a macro lens. There are more than enough pixels on modern cameras to crop to a smaller object.
Also, think about video capability with the newborn. DSLRs/mirrorless are significantly better at low light video than most handycam type video cameras due to the much larger sensor size. But at least for most Canon DSLRs, their autofocus capability is next to useless for video unless you get the newer cameras like the 70D. Any recent Sony/Panasonic mirrorless camera will be great at video AF. I don't know about Nikon/Olympus video AF performance.
@ozscharfschutze:
I love Olympus for still images.. but never, never consider them for video - definitely their weak point. Panasonic/Sony kills them in this field.Nikon video AF performance is supposed to be quite good, but they're not very good for low-light situations which seems important to OP.
@ozscharfschutze: This regarding video, keep in mind also the Canon 1100d doesn't take FHD video and doesn't autofocus on the fly, which is why I got a Sony a3000, was at least 100 bucks cheaper any day of the week, had more megapixels, FHD video within the fly ficusing, is lighter, came with a 30 buck voucher I actually used to get a bluray player (last year's videopro sale for the camera and Sony direct sale for the bluray both of which were posted on this site), and the kens it comes with is decent and there are some other relatively inexpensive decent lenses fir the end mount out there.
On the flip side the Canon 1100d is a true slr which means the viewfinder will show true colours, while the a3000/3500 has a digital viewfinder and the colours leave a lot to be desired. Having owned thus for a year I couldn't care less, it's more convenient and better to use the lcd anyway since its better, bigger, doesn't require squinting and shows the complete photo whereas the viewfinder doesn't show the entire photo area.save the 100-200 bucks and if you dont like it you can sell it after the sales are over for what you bought it for
Canon 700d with a lens for $500 is great deal
Pretty sure the 700d from camera house with lenses and cash back was the best. I couldnt convince my gf for the expense since I've got my Sony A33 still going strong after 3 years.
Buy a camera with full flip screen. The vari-angle screen is the greatest thing since sliced bread. You'll be able to do shots much easier in many situations - especially the self-portraits with the new baby! Or when the baby starts crawling you can video it from a low angle much easier.
Do you know any camera with full flip screen under my budget?
D5100
Kogan has both the Nikon D5100 and Canon 600D with kit lens for under $500(plus delivery). But you might try Digital Camera Warehouse which has the Canon 600D body for $370 after $100 cash back. Canon Australia is running a cash back offer at the moment so ideally you would try and pick up the 600D with kit lens and then get your cash back.
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/offers/CanonAustral…
Bang for buck, the 600D is probably the best value at the moment, and can be hacked with Magic Lantern if you are adventurous.
BTW, if you were prepared to go 2nd hand, then it is hard to beat the cult classic Panasonic GH2, you might be able to grab an used on Ebay or Gumtree.
The price of the camera looks ok but the lenses are very pricey and I have no idea what lens to buy.
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category1035_1.htm
http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category1_1.htm@mokibria: why you want to buy 600d and 700d(newest model) with a lens cost $500 after the cash back?
I don't understand people who recommended 600d or 650d while the newest model available for not much different.@mokibria: I just didn't understand why people recommended 600d over 700d while they are almost the same price
Have a look here
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/170158
I noticed you are from Melbourne . Try to connect with the rep of camera house, it's here in OzB. ISO you can get it posted to your address.In the end it's your choice what's you are going with but if you ask me I will take the newest model over the old one. Even will help when you want to resell it later.
@msmhw: Be careful, the deal referred to in that post seems dodgy. Digidirects own website says that the 700D with kit lens will be $584 after $150 cash back. Just because the store clerk said that he would produce a dodgy receipt does not guarantee that Canon Australia would honor it and give you a $300 cash back. The price of the 600D with kit lens after $100 cash back is $509.
Since the OP said that their budget was $500, I thought that the 600D was closest to that mark. There is no doubt that the 700D is a better newer camera, but it is well over the $500 price point. And remember, it is only a cash back, you have to front up with the full price at the time of purchase.
http://www.digidirect.com.au/slr_cameras/canon@mokibria: I emailed DCW and they don't do the 600D in a kit. However, the 18-55mm kit lens is very cheap even new, you could easily get it for $130.(that's why I find it hard to believe that Canon Australia would accept the deal where you separate the 700D body and the 18-55mm kit lens to get the extra cash back - the kit lens isn't even worth $200 dollars, so the Camera store would have to dodgy the invoice to say that they sold the lens separately for more then $200 - but that's another story).
If you were prepared to grab a 2nd hand lens, you could get the 18-55mm, or a 50mm f1.8 under a $100 on ebay.
So, do a bit of work and save a few bucks, or go quick and easy and grab the ready to go package from DigiDirect - and ask them if they can drop the price, you might get lucky.
@RustyStainless: Here you go, a 18-55mm from Cash Convertors for $78 delivered.
https://webshop.cashconverters.com.au/item/2051125/canon-efs…
couldn't agree more with this. the fully articulated screen is so userful! i was using a friend's canon 700D while on holiday.. now i bought one for myself (during the recent JB hifi sale + canon cashback) cos of the articulated and touch screen too
The Canon D600 is quite reasonably priced now. I paid $1500 for it when it first came out and I saw it recently down around the $500 mark (single lens).
I have a 2 year old 550d which is not doing much these days..
Why 2nd hand as you mentioned "I want good warranty service"…
the canon 600D seems to be a good option for your budget, maybe just little bit more
as mentioned above by RustyStainless, you can get the body only for "$370",… plus get a canon lens of your choice…to double the cash back
get a G16 or G17
those are not going to take significantly better pictures in low light than a standard compact camera.
If you have kids etc, you will find DSLR to be bulky and annoying to take around. Mirrorless as many have mentioned is great alternative.
Whichever you buy, remember that the lens is what will determine the picture quality and also greatly affect the low light capability.
If you have to use fixed lens (which is generally better in low light), I'd suggest at least 22-35mm focal length. Using 50mm for travelling will only limit your shot to portrait which is not ideal for selfies or panorama.
If I were you, I'd go Olympus EM10, Canon EOS-M or Fujifilm X100 (second hands obviously).
Where can one get a X100 for less than $500? Would be frontpaged in a matter of seconds.
EOS-M AF is too slow for kids!
The X100 AF would be too slow for kids too!
As for EOS-M, Canon don't seem too dedicated to the format either.
I do agree that the EM10, or an EM5 (occasional cheap deals on it now that it about to be replaced) are good options.
As for EOS-M, Canon don't seem too dedicated to the format either.
The EOS-M is and was really always designed to be for Canon EOS shooters, that's why it comes with an adaptor so you can mount your EF lenses on it.
It's the sort of camera Canon shooters would take, along with their EF lenses on the weekend trip so they don't have to take the 5D3 or 1DX that they shoot with daily.
If I were you, I'd go Olympus EM10, Canon EOS-M or Fujifilm X100 (second hands obviously).
You're recommending an X100 for someone new to photography??? OP better learn quick how to get off auto mode.
My advice would be understand you are buying into a system. That is to say the lenses will outlast your camera, so you will likely buy the same brand camera so your old lenses work. So buy a camera with the lenses that you would be interested in, Canon and Nikon have the best range.
This..this is good advice. A good way of putting it.
I'll second the advice for an Olympus OM-D E-M10 - A brilliant little Camera.
DigiDirect have them for $586 which is a bargain.
If you don't need Wifi, the EM5 is just as capable, is weather sealed and has just been discontinued, so there are some very good deals floating around.That is the body only price. I am tight on my budget.
If I buy a canon body, does the lens has to be canon as well?
I am not comfortable buying second hand cameras since I don't know much about cameras.Third party lenses like Tamron/Sigma etc make lenses for each brand of camera body. So no, you don't have to buy a Canon lense for a Canon body, but you can't put a Nikon lense on a Canon.
I have an adapter like this for my Canon 600D with an old manual Nikon 50mm 1.4. I don't they are suitable for new lenses that are coded.
Nope. Just make sure it's the same mount.
Serriusly if you are on a budget and the JB hifi sales are still on get the a3500 or an old a3000 if you can find one which I hear is the same but was packaged with a slightly better lens. Its got the same gear in it as some more exoensive and compact Sony mirorless cameras and you will not be disappointed, and you can spend the extra money on other bargains
Don't get a base model DSLR. The viewfinders are dull, blurry and frustrating. A midrange DSLR with a pentaprism or a mirrorless with an electronic viewfinder is a massive improvement.
+1 for mirrorless. it will give you almost comparable image quality to crop sensor DSLRs and it will be much more compact (Read: you will actually take the camera with you rather than leaving it at home).
As a starter I recommend an Olympus EPM2 it offers top of the range image quality and can be had for about $250-300 with kit zoom. Then add the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 fast prime for great low-light performance. I bought one of these second hand for about $300 a year ago.
All this advice from people is for what worked for their needs. They don't want to carry a DSLR or they want to shoot sports. etc.
Your first question why you buy a camera should be: What do I want to shoot? Without answering that all of this is just meaningless. You have decided you want a DSLR? Why? What will it do for you that your current camera or phone won't? You have to decide what you want to do and look at what equipment people are using to do it. Your question is as broad as "I want to buy a car…which one should I get?" with no context.
So I see you finally answered that.
1) Stuff to sell on ebay - use your phone. Seriously. Don't waste money on a DSLR. It's not going to get you much better shots for those purposes. No one cares if it's a little blurry or grainy.2) To take photos of newborn we are expecting. That newborn is going to turn into a toddler in no time. Those things can move fast! In all seriousness I would skip mirrorless and get a decent DSLR that can capture fast movement. D3200 or 1100D would be the minimum but a slightly higher model that can track would be better. Canon 650D, Nikon D5200 or better D7000 would do well. You want something that works well in low light. newer cameras do better in low light than old so I wouldn't bother with 2nd hand unless it's a recent model.
Canon, Nikon, Sony all good known manufacturers. Warranty and service isn't what it use to be though as costs keep getting cut. So if you can get a bargain on grey market, are happy to take the gamble that it won't break down in the first year and treat the camera body as semi-disposable you can probably save quite a bit on grey market. Realise that once you start buying accessories you end up locked into a system very quickly and switching can be very expensive.
If it were me with your budget I'd be buying a Canon 650D or a Nikon D5200
Why wouldn't a mirrorless be able to capture fast movement? Shutter speed is not an issue, and the AF speed of the latest mirrorless cameras are pretty much on par with DSLRs.
If you are talking about tracking movement, then yes the mirrorless bodies probably won't do as well as the likes of Nikon D5200.
and the AF speed of the latest mirrorless cameras are pretty much on par with DSLRs.
Are they? Don't Mirrorless still use contrast detection AF? This is always going to be slower than phase detection AF
Maybe if your shooting relatively still subjects you won't notice much difference in speed of AF. But when you start trying to track moving subjects, like a toddler in the above example (pretty sure he was talking about tracking movement), then the tracking will be faster/more accurate with phase detection….probably why you dont see sports photographers using mirrorless.
If you have used the lastest cameras from Olympus you will realise that contrast AF can be as fast as phase focus. The Sony A5100 and A6000 as well as the Nikon 1 systems all use a hybrid AF (phase + contrast) and these cameras can focus as fast and track as well as a DSLR. A lot of these cameras actually have better AF coverage than the DSLR as well.
If you are talking about tracking movement, then yes the mirrorless bodies probably won't do as well as the likes of Nikon D5200.
Photographing a playing infant that's just learnt how to move quickly is an exercise in tracking motion. Fast moving jets at an airshow against a crisp blue sky are much less challenging for a camera's AF than your typical 2 year old running around at the park.
Sony NEX 3
It has a system that takes two photos and puts them together for the best one. Makes it most excellent for low light shooting.
Can get interchangeable lens' or adapters to fit lens' from other cameras. I have and have had a few of these NEX cameras. I think the 3 was the best because of this low light thing.
If you're like 90% of dSLR "newbies", you'll pick up your fat dSLR with a big zoom lens, play with it for about 6 months then dump it in the corner… that's exactly with I did. Too fat, heavy, and obtrusive for most activities where you're honestly there to enjoy yourself.
After a few years I've finally got a setup that allows great photos but that's useable at the same time - and that's m4/3.
Got myself a Panasonic GX7 with compact lenses (25mm F1.7, 45mm F1.7, and compact zoom) and I NOW take it virtually everywhere thanks to the small size and sheer un-pretentiousness of a borderline compact.
Go onto eBay, get yourself a second hand mirrorless (Olympus/Panasonic) and a 25mm F1.7 in addition to the kit zoom. Shouldn't cost you more than $500 and you'll actually use it.
[I'd recommend the m4/3 over Sony simply because there's more lenses - but if you don't think you're going to collect many than it's more than adequate]
If you're going to buy anything that uses interchangable lenses, you need to consider the availability of lenses for that system. If mirrorless I'd recommend an olympus body because of in body image stabilisation and lots of great lenses to choose from panasonic or olympus. Sony have great cameras (esp the A7 series) but not many good lenses.
If mirrored, then nikon or canon. Both these brands don't use in camera image stabilisation; they're lens based, and only a few lenses are stabilised.
After you have short listed a few models I'd recommend researching some reviews on photography websites like Dpreview
Since you are shooting in low light, ISO is very important. To find out more about each cameras performance in low light conditions, most online reviews will write a section about a cameras "ISO" and provide sample pictures taken in low light to test different ISO settings. Generally, the higher the ISO the more options you have for getting a decent photo in low light.
Another excellent way to work out the image quality for a camera is go to Flickr's camera finder:
https://www.flickr.com/camerasFlickr has hundreds of user uploaded photos which can be searched on camera model. I'd suggest filtering on "night photos" as it will give you an idea of how the camera handle low light.
One last tip. If you've never owned a DSLR before and not sure if you are going to like it then best not to spend too much. My brother as a good example, he paid $700 for a new Canon 650D with twin lens @ Kogan near beginning of this year to take to Japan and snapped off two dozen photos. Told me he got bored and hasn't used the camera since. Doing the maths: $700/25photos = $28/photo. If you are thinking to spend $500 you probably want to find a camera you will love that makes you want to take +1000 photos. All Digital SLR's are built to take into the thousands of photos. Its such a huge waste if you are only taking a few dozen photos, whilst the camera depreciates to worthless after about 5 years.
- 1
- 2
i suggest mirrorless unless you are doing photography for money ie jobs etc.
just read articles saying dslr sales drop 24% this year
people (me) just too tired carrying heavy camera.