Beginner DSLR?

[Squirt]

Hi

I'm interested at getting a DSLR camera but I am a little new on the whole DSLR camera thing. The main camera that I have looked at is the Nikon D3200. To me it sounds like a good entry level camera. But I am curious to see what other people might recommend :thup: . Also what lenses people might recommend? I like the look of macro images, but also enjoy taking shots of nature/landscapes I guess

Also with regards to aperture, shutter speed and ISO, is the following correct?

Aperture is the size of the hole that light can travel through. The larger the hole, the more light that can enter making the image seem more bright

Shutter speed, I guess is the speed of the shutter and how long it allows light to enter. The higher the shutter number the less time its open ie 100 is 1/100 and 20 is 1/20

ISO I am a little confused on. Lower ISO the brighter it is but what actually is ISO? :oops:

Also I was looking at the Nikon D3200 and it has a 24mp sensor. A few of the reviews I have watched suggest that this may not be a good thing? As you get an increased background noise? It is hard for me to comprehend why but if anyone can shed some light on this that would be great

Suggestions are welcomed

Thanks in advance

Matt

[#!CrunchBang]

Buying wise http://pricespy.co.nz/category.php?k=101 will help.

[ally07]

First of all - let's stop all this Nikon talk; it's Canon or go home. :thup:

OK, to be fair, they are both top brands and the pros use both. Personally, I have played around with a couple of entry-level Nikons and found the interface a bit annoying. Canon makes it easier to make adjustments to the shutter speed, ISO and aperture (i.e. with fewer clicks and steps), which is handy because you're gonna be changing those A LOT.

The Canon 1100D is a good place to start for an absolute beginner (I started with the 1000D), with the next model being more intermediate-level. What I did was start off entry-level and skipped a step. When I got confident with my 1000D, I saved up and got a 50D (awesome camera, the replacement 60D doesn't match up, IMO). However, if you're not keen on spending large on a semi-pro, the intermediate-ranged cameras will suit you just fine.

The 1100D usually comes with a two lens package - 125-200(?)mm and a 300-750(?)mm lens (these are all just based on my fuzzy memory). For a beginner, this is more than enough to play with - but I would also recommend getting a PRIME lens. This allows you to take really sharp photos which look very artistic (sharp subject, fuzzy background). The 50mm prime lens is a good starter because it's good value and is affordable. The only 'downside' of the prime is that you can't zoom - you have to move and adjust to get the right shot.

You are right about your aperture and shutter speeds. Photography is all about finding a balance of the two. You can theoretically get similar results from a wide aperture/ fast shutter vs a narrow aperture/ slow shutter since it's all based on the amount of light you're letting in. However, by using different 'configurations', you can achieve different photo effects and take shots based on the environment/ circumstances.

As for the ISO, the simplest way to describe it is the camera's sensitivity to light. As a rule, try to keep your ISO as low as possible (100) to achieve sharper photos without fuzz or 'noise'. But, since this is not an ideal world, there will be times when you need to raise your ISO (night photography, indoor shots, etc) - but even then, try to increase the lighting and adjust your aperture/ shutter speed before raising the ISO. Nothing ruins a nice clean shot like 'noise' - it's very avoidable.

At the end of the day, have fun with it and don't overthink your shots - it can sometimes take the fun out of it. Oh and you might want to sell a kidney and re-mortgage your house because DSLR photography can be an expensive hobby lol.

[ally07]

(Sorry, re-posted by accident)

[#!CrunchBang]

I wouldn't be saying canon. One of my friends bought the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 based on the advice of people who had the previous model and the advice of his gf's dad, who happens to be one of the best aerial cameramen in the world (Redbull and Yann Arthus-Bertrand used him for filming and tourisum NZ steals his NZ stuff).

[jackp]

the reality is there is no right answer to this. if you asked the best photographers in the world what the best cameras are they wouldn't all give the same answer. for an entry level camera any of the main brands (canon, nikon, sony etc) will give good photos.when i got my dslr i went through the same thing. several different "experts" all with opposing opinions. in the end i figured that i'm not a professional photographer so it probably doesn't matter if I don't get the best camera in the world. i based my decision on price and availability of lenses (went for the canon 400d). i used to do a bit of ski photography and this produced good enough pics to go in a few mags. i'd say your best bet would be to look at the options you can afford (and if possible try them out) and go with the best value model that works for you. whatever you get will be fine to learn on, and if you take it further you're going to have to upgrade anyway (both camera and lenses).

[blueether]

My 2p worth:

Either Canon or Nikon. I have only ever played with the canon in shop but have two nikon DSLR (and 3 SLRs as well). Owning a Nikon SLR was probably the biggest factor in choosing the Nikon DSLR.

I cant comment on the current models though. My brother has just got (ok a while ago) a D3500, nice bit of camera bit is in the mid range rather that entry

[Phantom]

It's all personal opinion. I'm new to "DSLR" photography as well, got a new next generation DSLR equiv camera a few weeks back. I'd always wanted to get a Canon, something like a 50D / 60D. However, I got a really really really good price (buy the lens, get the camera free) on a Sony mirrorless one so decided to buy it. I got a Sony NEX-5N, which dpreview rates as being about on par with a Canon 60D, but it's so small and light at 269g.

I'd personally just have a look at what is out there for your price range, pick them up in store and make sure you like how it feels and where the controls are. Make sure they either come with or you buy lenses with image stabilisation on any zoom lens. From what I read, having a lens or range of lenses to cover something like 18mm - 200mm should pretty much do all you need as an intro, except you'd probably want to factor in purchasing a fast (low f number) prime macro lens if you're into that sort of thing. You'll also want to factor in buying UV filters for each lens, if for nothing else, to protect them. They're about $30 - $60 each.

Once you've decided what is in your price range, take a look at the reviews on http://www.dpreview.com/ and even compare the different cameras you're looking at. They're pretty good at covering all the details you would ever need to know.

As for the whole Canon vs Nikon vs other cameras, this article shows what the pros were using for the top photos of 2012. http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/12/03/reuters-announces-its-list-of-best-photos-for-2012-redditor-breaks-down-all-the-gear-used/ Image below comes from the article.

[Caryl]

Picking them up and seeing how they feel in your hand is most important. I find the Canon very uncomfortable as it does not fit my hand comfortably but the Sony does. My husband loves his Canon and finds the hand fit good.

[ally07]

Picking them up and seeing how they feel in your hand is most important. I find the Canon very uncomfortable as it does not fit my hand comfortably but the Sony does. My husband loves his Canon and finds the hand fit good.

Caryl, I take it the Canon is not an entry level model?

In our household, my wife uses the 1000D and I use the 50D - if we swapped, we would both complain about the handgrips haha. I think the mid-top level Canons need to fit in more electronics, etc so the overall camera (and thus the grip) are larger. Not that I'm complaining! :thup:

[Squirt]

thanks for all of the input.

Based on availability at Harvey Norman today, I was leaning towards the D3200. Manly because of its guide mode which seems to be very helpful in learning photography. I had a look at a Canon 650D I think it was, but it had less megapixels, less auto focus points (9 vs 11) and didn't have a guide mode from what I heard. She tried to convince me to get a canon, and one of the plus sides is that it was lighter, but I feel for an entry level camera the D3200 would be good. But there is no articulating screen but I guess it's not a major.

I was playing around tonight with my dads old film SLR, it's pretty cool still had auto focus and just getting a general feel for it as well. Quite interesting to see that the film has different ISO levels. It was a Nikon camera as well and he has two lenses for it, which could be helpful.

In regards to lenses, when at Harvey Norman today I saw the nikon's I think it was ~50mm f1.8 lens. Would that be good for macro photography? I think the minimum shooting distance was like 0.45m or something similar.

Again, thank you to all that have contributed their opinion

[SamH]

Do you not have a specialist camera shop nearby?

[Caryl]

Ours is a Canon 450D bought from Harvey Norman's in their after Christmas sale about 4 years ago. Came with a 2 lens kit. Grant uses the 18 - 55mm most of the time as it's good for all round general photography. Also have 55 - 250mm lens which also does a good job for what are basically cheap lenses. Both have image stabilisation.

He has a 60mm macro lens which he doesn't use much but if you do want to do any macro photography, it's a must.

The 450 (I think the current model is now a 600) he finds to be a good one step above entry level DSLR. If you want a faster camera which would be most beneficial when trying to photograph fish, choose one with a full sized sensor as they are more sensitive and produce less noise. Sensitivity and noise level is more important than number of pixels. Often as they increase the number of pixels, but don't increase the size of the sensor, the background noise and sensitivity suffers.

The higher the sensitivity (ISO number) the more sensitive the camera will be in low light. Also, a lens with a higher speed will be much more suitable in low light. Fish in a tank always suffer from low light levels. The image stabilisation allows you to run a longer shutter speed in low light so allowing better pics of the fish. It is all a compromise between shutter speed, aperture and ISO settings depending on depth of field required and how fast the object is moving.

Grant bought a Canon because he likes their products, the price was right, and reviews generally were favourable. He would be more than happy with a Canon or Panasonic (or several others), it all depends on personal choice. Once you start with one brand of camera, you will probably stick with it because the lenses you buy will probably fit whatever you upgrade to.

I love my old Sony (it was bought in 2004) but it is starting to have problems. It was really fast when I bought it but now seems so slow compared to the cameras of today! :roll:

[Bishop]

What ever you choose most of the lenses are interchangeable within the brand, so most cannon lenses fit most cannons, so if you buy a cannon and get two lenses you can upgrade the camera and keep your lenses. If you upgrade to a Nikkon you will need new lenses ect.

[Hamstar99]

the 50mm lens' are more portrait lenses i would say. The lens will say if it is a macro lens or not. 45cm is a standard lens focus length. Macro go in to around 30cm.