Hi,
I am looking to buy a mid-range DSLR
I was looking at some Nikon D series on gumtree, d7000 in particular and found them interesting.
Came across this one - Canon 1300D
Do you have any suggestion as to which one is better? Canon or Nikon.
And are 2nd hand cameras good enough? Or should I go for a brand new with two years local warranty
Any advice is highly appreciated.
Thanks
which one do u recommend?
I think all brands now has mirrorless. So if you are fans of nikon then get nikon.
Olympus seems to be popular.
Seriously, be nice to your (only) neck.
Thanks,will have a look now
Actually Nikon is not taking mirrorless seriously. They only have Nikon 1 series, not updated for a long time and with a small 1in sensor.
@derek324: I am slightly leaning towards A6000 mirrorless, but just checking how much lenses costs etc.
@ozzyoi: Olympus is better. More range of lenses available, and cheaper too. Plus you get 5 axis IBIS. Sony is very nice when you get up in price (A7R II) and are a serious photographer, but i'd rather Olympus EM10-MKII than the A6000.
@nubzy:
Beware of full frame mirrorless cameras.. you might have a slightly smaller body but the lenses will still be massive due to the sensor circle it has to cover.
@ozzyoi: the A6000 is an incredible camera. Lenses aren't the cheapest, but you get a fantastic and compact unit. And the sensor is bigger than M4/3 giving you better low light performance.
Saying that I have a nikon v1 and really enjoy using it. But A6000 is what I'd go.
Avoid Nikon mirrorless. Sony is really at the top of the field in mirrorless. Fuji and Olympus are also really good. Canon and Nikon are pretty poor contenders at the moment, moreso Nikon.
@ozzyoi: that is a great deal and you will be very happy with it. Those lenses will serve you well for pretty much any use, and when you want to take your photography further you can sell them and buy the pro versions.
The Good:
Olympus/Panasonic is the way to go
Olympus maybe takes better stills (if you like the punchy colours it produces)
Panasonic has much better video
Sony has crisp 4K
But bad autofocus and more expensive lenses
The bad:
Nikon mirrorless has a paltry selection
Canon eosM is expensive and super limited
The surprisingly awesome niche: BMPCC
Don't need to switch lenses?: Sony rx100
Trust me I have
Olympus em10
Panasonic GM1
BMPCC
Sony rx100 m1
I had (and gifted) the canon 1100d I first learnt on
The best thing a beginner can look for in a new camera is autofocus. Get the camera with the fastest autofocus and the most AF points within your budget
Those were mostly mirrorless BTW
I jumped off the dslr bandwagon a while ago but I can recommend the 70d for stills or it's upgrade the 80d for video (canon). Never used Nikon dslr
Good luck
What's wrong with Sony's autofocus (serious)? I have an A6000 and the AF is pretty good, as long as you have a good lens. The AF is blazing fast. But in low light is pretty average.
I still prefer DSLRs for AF but I've heard the A7/A7ii are both really great in terms of AF.
It is by no means terrible, but could be better. I think all cameras have little trade offs and you have to pick the best for you and your budget. Or do what i did… and just buy all the things
As an example, if you jump on youtube and look at Casey Neistat's videos - compare one from 6 months ago to one from 1-2 weeks ago. He moved from a canon (80d i think) to a sony. The detail i feel is better on the sony, but it has less warm colours and worse AF. He is often just slightly out of focus. But then, if you touch to focus, or manual focus, then you have no troubles
Thanks, will the Olympus OM-D E-M10 II good for night shooting, like milky way/moon? etc. or it all depends on the lens?
I don't usually shoot those kind of images.
Should be fine though. EM10 isn't so great at night time hand held, but what you're really doing is long exposure on a tripod - so yeah, i think it would be ok.
Lot's of good tutorials on youtube.
I would imagine it is more in the lens - something with long/infinity focus
You'd also need a tripod
And probably an area free of light pollution (a bit out of the city)
@sagiballs: But Olympus has got inbuilt Wifi, Tiltable screen, and touch screen but less weight. Yeah its only 16 mb rather than 24mbs.
Tiltable screen is great if you want to film yourself. Wifi is nice but not super useful - kinda nice to use your phone to control things. Can definitely live without though
I love my em10 for photos. Very nice colours
Video work is not a strong suit though
I didn't neg you BTW
I don't have a lot of experience with that system since I put my money elsewhere
YouTube YouTube YouTube! I'm sure you'll find lots of useful reviews
Fuji X series cameras.
I will look into it. Cheers.
Sony A6000 is a popular choice
Yeah looks like - http://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-mirrorless-cameras,review-2…
Thanks
For some reason, I like the way the DSLR's look :) I will check those mirrorlesses as well. But personally feel DSLR's look professional.
Own a nikon d3300, tried a relatives A6000. I would go for the cheap nikon D3___ as an entry dslr. The image quality of the A6000 looked highly grainy even at low ISO when i tried it. Make sure you know which lenses you'd like for the type of photography you're interested in.
Also second hand cameras are good too, check to see if Perth has a facebook camera group as you may pick one up cheap (melbourne has one for trades/sales/advice etc).
Nikon vs Canon - Nikon lenses are generally more expensive i believe, different UI for both models but generally everything remains the same. Got my nikon on sale, so that's the reason i went with nikon.
thanks, will check the fb page now.
Yeah I definitely noticed the grain in a friend's a6000 shots, to me it just looked like a mobile phone shot on steroids. Something about it just seemed flat and messy. I normally shoot with eos 6d though so I'm pretty spoiled as far as having a decent sensor.
As far as nikon vs canon another point to consider is that Nikon definitely seem to give more bang for buck feature wise in their bodies. I think of Nikon as Android and Canon as Iphone. Canon works great and is easy but if you're prepared to do a bit of tweaking and learn how to use it more Nikon can be pushed a lot further for a cheaper price.
Don't forget that Nikon has an unbeatable 35mm f1.8 for less than $200. Canon's cheapest 35mm is significantly more expensive. The standard nifty fifty gives you a equiv FL of over 75mm, not as versatile as a 50mm equiv.
I had D3300, wonderful camera. Unbeatable for $290 after cashback deal. The kit lens on D3300 is miles ahead of the SELP1650 that comes with the A6000. However if you put on half descent lens on the A6000 like the SEL35F18, SEL50F18, and the new Sigma 30 F1.4 DC DN the pictures are excellent. In fact the pictures are better than D3300 with kit lens. When using the Sigma, the image quality is on par with my D800. The let down is the AF. It can't match the AF speed of even the D3300 with kit lens. The other thing you notice when comparing the Sony with Nikon and Canon is the colour. It is subjective but in my view, the Nikon and Canon have more flattering colours. Sony needs a little touch up in lightroom.
Which camera do I carry around 90% of the time? The smaller one, the Sony. Because it fits in my pocket with the crappy but compact SELP1650. It is also more fun to play around with. You can get adapters for every lens out there. You can pickup some nice antique lenses for next to nothing and use it on the Sony. Focus peaking and MF assist works great out of the box. Don't need to load Magic Lantern to use it.
On another note, Nikon has released couple of stepping motor lenses that lets you take video without the jerky AF and AF noise. Video was the main reason I bought the A6000. Let's see how quickly Nikon catches up to Sony and Canon with the video side.
Go with Nikon or Canon for moving subjects. Go with Sony for casual shooting, not recommended for kiddy and sports photography.
But personally feel DSLR's look professional.
If you want to go for professional look then make sure you go with non-kit lens. DSLR with kit lens makes you look like wannabee.
An entry level DSLR will never look "professional". Can still take amazing pictures within its limitations. A camera is a very expensive fashion statement.
love my a6000, only thing i would say that is it has less range of lens to pick from (sony or non-sony branded) than some of the other mirrorless cameras from other brands (i could be wrong though)
I would recommend looking at a second hand Canon 5d mark 1.
3 years ago I bought one for $400, you could probably pick one up cheaper now. Amazing camera. professional quality and full frame too.
Some of my friends bought the lower end but new cameras, mine still blows them away.
I think either Canon and Nikon are both good. Canon might be slightly more popular which is good if buying second hand lenses etc.
thanks, checked on gumtree, cannot find Mark 1. only mark 2 and 3's which are little above my budget.
the dudes asking for DSLR but people are giving mirrorless options
nikon d3400 is a good entry level DSLR
highly regarded and well priced
thanks Sinishta and Freitag.
And the reason someone looking for a camera to take photos should automatically exclude all mirrorless options, and consider DSLRs only is…?
BTW, currently one the best cameras (which one is "the best" is disputable, of course, thus: one of the best) happens to be… a mirrorless (extremely expensive, thus of no interest here).
And what is wrong with that? People who are new to photography may never have heard of mirrorless cameras before. They provide the same high quality images whilst saving a huge amount of weight, and having some very nice and affordable lenses.
yes and no. if you go sony mirrorless then their lenses are extremely limited unless you go top of the line which are sensational but overpriced.
if you go micro 4/3 then there are huge amount of options from the different vendors.
The panasonic G7 may be cheaper these days with the G8 release with IBIS- a lot may be upgrading.
Canon 1300D is a great entry level camera.
I own a 750D, which is a higher range camera, and it's fantastic.
Photography is a deeeepppppp rabbit hole. I upgraded my 18-55mm lens to a 18-135mm lens. Now my girlfriend is hassling me for a macro lens.
Be careful what you wish for!
Thanks, I checked the reviews of Cannon 1300D, found it to be quite mediocre, even compared to second hand D7000 and D60's? But yeah I get 2 yrs warranty on 1300d.
The canon 1x00 are bargain basement DSLRs. They also use lenses specific to the range, so upgrading means upgrading all your lenses too.
The Nikon 3xxx are significantly better at a comparable price.
Of the options you are looking at I would by a few year old Nikon d7000, or for even cheaper a used d3200 or d3300. Most will be very lightly used, and should be easy to find.
Pretty happy with my 700D.
Good weight, good for video and well priced for what it is. Not too much of a step up in price from the 1x00 Canon's either.
I don't have any experience with pentax/sony etc but you can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon.
If you don't like spending time processing/shooting in raw, I'd tilt towards Canon because I personally find that Canon DSLRs render skin tones better than Nikon DSLRs.
But one thing that I dislike about Canon is their lack of easily affordable "normal" prime lenses. They have the nifty fifty which ends up being a ~80mm, which I find is too tight for every day shooting, while Nikon has the fantastic 35mm f1.8, a cheap, sharp prime lens that all DX photographers should have in their bag.
If I were you, I'd buy a Nikon D3200/D3300/D5100/D5200 (you can't go wrong with any of these) and the default 18-55 kit lens from a retailer such as E-infinity; they have an Australian online store now, I highly recommend them; cheap and haven't found fault with them.
This will set you back ~$500. If you buy a used one, you'll be able to get more for less than $400.
Spend some time shooting and you can decide what field of photography you like. Macro? Wide angle? Telephoto? Low light? With the spare $200, you're $200 closer to your next lens!
Buying used is not an issue. Just be careful where you buy it from; I don't recommend gumtree because there is no "buyer protection". eBay is a better place to buy second hand but ensure that you read descriptions properly and you can always raise a case with eBay on your side if there's a problem.
Also, the Canon 1300D and the Nikon D7000 are in completely different leagues. The Canon 1300D is the most entry level DSLR you can get while the D7000 is more in the enthusiast range.
Mirrorless may seem like a good idea, but as shown in this article here, mirrorless does NOT equal less weight;https://petapixel.com/2016/04/04/sonys-full-frame-pro-mirrorless-fatal-mistake/
The battery life is also terrible, one of my batteries for my D7100 will last nearly 3 times as long as one for a mirrorless camera such as a Sony A7 because of the electronic view finder which is present in all mirrorless cameras.
Feel free to ask me more questions
thanks for the detailed review, sure will do.
Allow me make some corrections:
You can't go wrong with Pentax (Ricoh), Sony, Lumix, Fujifilm (and Canon, Nikon as well).
There is a huge range of Canon prime lenses (also from other manufacturers, like Sigma). It depends on definition of "affordable". Just one example: Canon EF 35mm f/2 USM IS is a classic, and reviewed very highly.
Personally I would be very reluctant to buy any second hand precision instrument from anyone. But that is just me.
Mirrorless ARE considerably smaller, when you compare similar cameras and similar year they were designed. Try this: http://camerasize.com/ and compare a few, you will see.
Some cameras have poor battery life, but this is not related to is a camera DSLR or mirrorless — just design priorities.
It is COMPLETELY incorrect to say that all mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinder. Some do, some do not (actually, many do not), many have optional, attachable viewfinders. But: all DSLRs have a mirror flipping up and down when you take a photo - now this is something always consuming fair amount of battery power.
This is NOT to start a long and involved discussion — if someone is curious, every issue I mentioned is pretty well described and tested, Google it, find a photographic Web site you like, there are many resources. To discuss the above issues is well beyond a scope of this list, it could easily take hundreds of pages. Just be aware: there are different views, do your own research, form your own opinion.
DSLRs may have a mirror flipping up and down but almost every DSLR out there has better battery life than something like a Sony A7.
There is no mirrorless camera that does not have an EVF. Even the external attachable ones CONSUME power even while just looking through the viewfinder.
For example, one of the mirrorless cameras with the best battery life (no including MFT sensors) is the Fuji XT-2, rated at 440 shots using the CIPA standards. Remember this has no onboard flash.
An entry level DSLR such as the Nikon D3200 is rated at 500 shots using the same standards. This includes firing a flash with every shot! This shows how much better battery life is for DSLRs than mirrorless cameras. Although this isn't necessarily a deciding point, this should be a factor to be considered when buying a camera sytem.
The Canon EF 35mm f2 USM is a great lens but it is still priced significantly higher than the 35mm f1.8 from Nikon and is also slightly slower. Even if you argue that "it future proofs them for full frame in the future", most DSLR users do not progress further than APS-C.
*EDIT: I said you couldn't go wrong with Nikon or Canon, as those are two systems that I have personally used, but this isn't to say that Sony/Pentax are incapable camera systems either.
With respect, you keep repeating the same incorrect statements. Please check first, stop spreading misinformation. It is easy to check before you post something.
Just one example: "There is no mirrorless camera that does not have an EVF". Not so. Here are some examples of recent mirrorless cameras without EVFs (there are more). Please check: Fujifilm X-A10, Fujifilm X-A3, Panasonic Lumix DC-GX850, Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF8, Canon EOS M10, Olympus PEN E-PL8.
@derek324: Sure, they don't have an EVF. Sorry I should have made my answer more clear. The cameras you have listed do not have an EVF, you're right, but how else are you going to compose a shot without "seeing through the lens". The ones you have listed require a screen of some type (whether it be a 3 inch LCD or an electronic view finder) to compose a shot. These are the main reason why mirrorless cameras have a much shorter battery life.
@chair: Your answer was clear; it was incorrect.
Battery life depends on a design team priorities. Juggling those priorities (battery size vs. weight vs. screen timeouts, etc.) result in compromises. You mentioned 500 shots CIPA rating for D3200. Just one example of a good modern mirrorless design (note 1,000 shots rating):
"the GH5's battery life is CIPA-rated at between 380 and 400 shots with the EVF (…) with the LCD monitor is rated at 400 to 410 shots per charge (…) "Power Save LVF" mode which can increase battery life up to 1,000 shots per charge by automatically putting the camera into sleep mode after detecting the eye has moved away from EVF's eye sensor".
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5/panasoni…
You're talking about a GH5, a MFT sensor. Of course that will have better battery life than a full frame/crop mirrorless. Compare apples to apples, not oranges to apples.
Even if you have a mirrorless system that is lighter, the fact that you have to carry multiple batteries cancels the benefit out. Good luck shooting for a whole day on a single battery.
Really don't understand why you're trying to prove that mirrorless cameras have decent battery life. If you compare better models of DSLRs like the D500, that's rated up to 1240 shots, and from personal experience, I can vouch for the incredible battery life of the D500/D3200/D7100. No mirrorless camera can even come CLOSE to the D500's 1240 shot rating.
Really? Because it's been my experience that precision instruments are often the best candidates for secondhand purchases just because they may be a higher quality item.
Generally speaking.
You are correct if the instrument was used and handled by someone who appreciates technology. But often they are not treated well, and repairing/restoring may be a frustrating and costly task.
This is VERY individual. There are many factors and individual preferences. It is a bit like asking: "which car would be best for me?". Only you know that, but if you decided on DSLR, start from here: http://www.techradar.com/news/photography-video-capture/came…
There are many, many articles, reviews, and sites dedicated to answering the question you asked. My personal favorite is this site, try it: http://www.cameralabs.com/ This page may be of particular interest to you: http://www.cameralabs.com/buyers_guide/best_digital_cameras.…
Thanks to everyone. Very valuable suggestions, back on Ebay/Gumtree/Fb for my search.
Forget DSLR. Go mirrorless. Olympus EM10-MK2 very good option for less than $800 with a kit lens brand new, or consider the MK1 second hand from gumtree. Huge advantage of Olympus is the 5 axis in body image stabilization which you do not get on alot of cameras unless spending a lot more.
what about the parts? is it difficult to get them?
There are so many cameras out there nowadays it can be daunting for someone new to it all. Luckily you can't go too wrong whether it's a dslr or mirrorless ilc. I shoot with Nikon as well as Olympus and definitely rate them. If you want a dslr any of Nikon's dx line-up is good ranging from the 3000 to 5000 and 7000 series. I personally like the 7000 series but the others are cheaper and smaller with great image quality. Happy to answer any questions.
thanks, what about D60? I agree its almost 7-8 years old.
Nikon D60 was released in Jan 2008, so it is over 9 years old. Back in the day it was a nice entry-level DSLR, but the digital cameras age fast. Like dogs: 1 year for Fido (or a DSLR) equals 7 years for you :)
As to your previous question: repairing modern electronic cameras is very expensive (if you find someone willing to do it at all), unless you have skills and are prepared to do it yourself. I dissasembled many, but never for a fee, it would be unrealistically expensive to charge for work. Spare parts are sometimes easy, sometimes impossible to get, but usually possible to substitute with something similar. Some cameras are almost impossible to disassemble without damaging them.
To give you some idea: here is a factory workshop manual for Nikon D60: http://ss-it.de/data/servicemanuals/D60.pdf and here is a comprehensive disassembly video (in Russian, but the comments are not important here): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoA0owwZMZE
I thought the D60 was more a prosumer model for its time.
The D90 which came later was certainly better than entry level. Maybe op could look at one of those.
@derek324 - thanks for ur comment. Was almost about to buy one. Changed my mind. Thanks again.
If you're going to buy an old camera go the D90. Used it for years. Brilliant. I've moved on to D7100 and D7200 which are noticeably better when you have less light.
do we have a budget?
Yeah around 650-700
I'd recommend that you sit down and make a list of features, benefits and what you plan to do with the camera. What do you want from your photography? Use these to select the camera which most closely meets your needs. (no one camera will have everything you need.) Once you make your original purchase, what do you think you will 'need' next, Lenses, better body?
If you get hooked, the first purchase will be the cheapest you ever make, no matter how much you spend this time. Have a look at what you friends have, so you may have the option of borrowing accessories, before shelling out for them yourself. I'm a Canon fan,(and yes, I also prefer a DSLR over a Mirrorless. But, I also use my iPhone for happy snaps.) If you stick with Pentax, Olympus, Nikon or Canon you will be fine. Going second hand allows you to buy a higher spec model for the same price. It's all a trade off, again see if this fits one of your needs on your list.
My recommendation, go the canon…
I have got 80% ppl recommending the Nikon. But ur right. I will list down what I need and then check it out. Buying DSLR is not as easy as I thought it would be. Thanks for your comment.:)
Extremely happy with my a6000 for the last 3 years now. Got it for $650 from gumtree with the 50mm f1.8 and receipts+box. Barely use it now that I have an rx100iv now though.
The best camera is one your going to actually use, and have ready when there's an opportunity for a shot
As a total amateur myself this made sense to me, and why I went mirrorless with an A6000 and the prime lens I wanted.
All up about $700 with polarised filter and bag.
Relatively cheap to learn on and in a few years I may have an understanding of this hobby to where I want/need to upgrade or not
P.S. Nearly went a Nikon 3xxx,
as long as your having fun
I'm another advocate of going mirrorless. I can't tell you how many friends I have who rarely take their dslr out anymore because of the weight. This particularly is a big factor to think about if you are travelling.
I've just come back from a two month trip in Europe with a x2 Sony a6000's and I couldn't be happier with the photos I've taken.
Also with mirrorless, their evfs/ LCD screen will give you a mostly accurate representation of what your image will look like when you take the photo (very useful as a beginner photographer). A DSLRs viewfinder will only give you an optical image and won't show you for example the brightness following increasing/decreasing exposure compensation.
Have a Panasonic Lumix LX100 mirrorless- previously shot extensively with Nikon and Canon APS-C sensor DSLRs, as well as the Sony Rx100ii compact. Really depends on what you want OP-
I like freedom of choice and ease of use- I get more sophisticated and intuitive controls, much lighter and smaller camera, better and less intimidating looking camera (shallow I know) in exchange for giving up some image quality, battery life, some more sophisticated and niche features.
One thing I also want to mention- with my particular mirrorless my lens is fixed, and therefore not swappable. However this allowed me to get a much higher quality lens instead of having to buy one afterwards. A fixed lens also is better in terms of weight and portability, hassle (storing multiple lenses and swapping them). It also stops me from upgrading unless I buy a new camera- again something I'm happy with as I find the inbuilt lens very good.
DSLRs to mirrorless are a little like what desktop PCs are like to Macs. They may not look as good or sleek, but definitely you get more bang for your buck in terms of raw power and battery life, and sheer options. Macs (mirrorless) are more sleek, streamlined and easier to use and maintain- but more limited and less power for the money. Depends on your priorities, and what you value! Hard to go wrong these days, just have fun and enjoy whatever you end up using!
LX100 is a fantastic choice!
Grey import a d7000 (around $550-600) will last you 10 years HOWEVER..
You will need glass to go with this. Perhaps buy a good point and shoot.
Throw your requirements into this https://www.whirlwire.com/electronics/cameras
edit: $700< https://www.whirlwire.com/electronics/cameras/all/0=lt700
For the budget, don't ignore 2nd hand DSLR + 2nd hand manual lenses, mirrorless is young and DSLR have been around forever and the obvious benefit is the sheer number of lenses that are floating around the market.
Those of which can be had for dirt cheap if you want to try out some of the common focal lengths (24/35/50/85 and/or a macro), find a cheap kit lens that someone has upgraded from, try out some old russian lens that whilst are not scientifically perfect/sharp/amazing, they have great character.
Everything these days are so perfect and automatic and fast, take a step back and slow it down and learn photography, get yourself a variety of lenses to see what you like, don't ever obsess over the equipment.
If its your first DSLR, then go something good-but-cheap. You'll either out-grow it, and want to flip it so you can buy something better, or get bored of the hobby, and want to sell it - without losing lots of monies.
Either a cheap nikon D3xxx or the equivalent canon entry level are fine choices - if you're patient, I've seen them both for < $300 when rebates are involved.
Second hand is an option - lots of those entry level cameras get flipped on ebay … but people want to get back what they paid, so you might not save a heap. Also, you don't really know what you're looking for, so you might not get the deal you think you're getting.
Any of the older gen mirrorless are also a good option (A6000, Oly EM10, etc), if you can find one cheap - they're still decent, and the worries about poor battery life don't really matter a lot - just carry a spare. I have an A6000, two spare batteries, and only very rarely use more than one.
To answer the question properly you really need to think about what type of photography you are into as that can help you look at which feature you will value.
For example if you are into shooting landscapes, autofocus quality hardly matters. On the other hand if you are into shooting action/sports, autofocus speed is all important.
Following on from this, consider what additional lenses (if any) you might like to acquire and compare the costs for the different brands. Since DSLR's have been around longer and are less fashionable that mirrorless, there is a better second hand lens market.
DSLR's are designed for shooting through the viewfinder and mirrorless via the screen. That's a significant ergonomic factor that you need to decide on. (Many DSLR's can also use the screen when shooting, but it tends to be clunkier than mirrorless. Some expensive mirrorless cameras like Sony a7 have an electronic viewfinder).
These two wikipedia articles can help you make sense of the Nikon and Canon product ranges:
Comparison of Nikon DSLR cameras
Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras
If you look at the Maximum ISO of the cameras, you will notice that newer cameras have higher figures, indicating the improvement in sensor technology. They have better performance in term of low light or high speed photography.
The old cannon mirrorless like m10 or m3 lacked evf standard but you could put one on the hotshoe, sony a6000 has a evf plus the screen
I think DSLR is the good way to learn to take photos as it will give you more control over mirrorless camera (as suggested by some ops) hence better learning. Once you have a good grap of DSLR use, then you can go for mirrorless (weight convenience ) cameras in the future. Meanwhile, stick to DSLR for the purpose of learning to take snapshots.
don't see how learning on a mirrorless is any different to learning on a DSLR.
mirrorless cameras are also interchangeable lens cameras and give you full manual controls to aid in learning photography.
both have P.A.S.M modes and as a learner.. I would be more inclined to a mirrorless for weight, size and price.
I would suggest to go with DSLR. I have tried Nikon Mirrorless and then entry level Canon and ended up with Nikon DSLR entry level. Really love it and will be selling my D3200 kit with Camera body, kit lens, hoya filter, camera bag and high speed memory card very soon; planning to go for a D500 or a full-frame Nikon. I have got also lots of magazines to learn photography.
Not sure this is appropriate in this forum, but give me a buzz as I will be taking photos of my kit which is yet to be sold via fb or gumtree.
hey, thanks will do.
Same move as you, except I went for a D7100 between the D3200 and D500. It is a HUGE upgrade and I'm sure you'll really enjoy the D500.
canon 750d
Good little camera with decent resale value when you outgrow it.
If you give us a usage case, it will better inform as to whether you require a DSLR or would be better suited to mirrorless.
For instance:-
If I were taking:
- lots and lots of action shots, I'd stick with a DSLR.
- a long trek with no chargers/electricity nearby - stick with dslr
- using the camera on a daily basis as a 'street tog' - use a smaller mirrorless like the omd em10mk2, fuji xt10
- taking the camera to family gatherings as the family tog - mirrorless again
- want a small traveller and am going to other cities - get mirrorless again
Even if I buy 5 batteries, they are far smaller and the overall setup is going to be smaller than a mid range DSLR.
This is true especially with the olympus and panasonic m43 line. I firmly believe that the best camera is the one that you have with you, so that's your phone, and a very small but high powered camera like a panasonic gx85 or an omd em10 mk2.
With my Sony a6000, and I think with my cousin's fuji xt10, these can be charged with any usb battery charger. Very simple and elegant for someone who takes less than 300 shots in any one outing, and your camera is basically like your phone in terms of usage & charge cycles (ie - daily).
If you are relying ONLY on the kit lens, stay away from the sony a6000, which has a kit lens that hampers an otherwise technologically impressive sensor. Take that kit lens away, and then you don't get that same noise at low ISO that other people have mentioned.
The other thing to consider is the cost of upgrading with other lenses in the ecosystem that you are about to buy into. For example;
Canon - EF35mm f/2 // 50mm f/1.2 // 24105 f/4 // any of the sigma lenses
Nikon - 35mm f/1.8G // any of the sigma lenses
Olympus - 1240mm f/2.8 pro // 25mm f/1.8 // 45mm f/1.8
Fuji - 1855 f/2.8-4 // 24mm f/2 // 35mm f/2 // 50mm f/2 // 56mm f/1.2
Sony - 18105G // 1018mm // samyamg 12mm // 35mm f/1.8 OSS // 50mm f/1.8 OSS / sigma 30mm f/1.4
//end rant from camera nerd.
Get mirrorless. Soon you'll be lazy lugging big heavy dslr.