Hi guys, I'm new to the sport. need some answers please :}

Hello!

I looked into photography for quite some time, learned some of its elements.

My wife wants to have a baby, and also, we really enjoy hiking in nature so we decided it is a great time to buy a camera.

Being me, I wanted to use the opportunity to buy a real camera, and not only use it for the family stuff but also to jump into a new hobby as professionally as I can.

 

I looked at some Nikons, I really liked d5300, but a guy I know told me it's not a very good body, and as a beginner, I should pick something else (and he didn't add anything to that, that's all he said).

Now.. IDK. of course, I would always want to get the best I can, but I'm limited to around 1000$.

I want to buy something that I would not regret buying, that or I will not want to replace it in something better like a year after.

I'm looking for a recommendations on the matter.

Please please PLEASE help me with that ^_^

Thanks a lot!

A.

A: You likely don't know it, but you've just kicked over a hornets' nest. You will receive a vast array of divergent opinions and recommendations. I have my own of course, which I will share in due course. For any of our diverse advice to be useful, it will help if you can share your hopes and goals for the new hobby. Besides baby and family pictures, what else interests you? Do you want to shoot sports? Landscapes? Architecture? Events? Etc. ad nauseam. Is this initial purpose a first toe in the water, to be followed by further expenditures if you love it, or is this the first and last time you want to spend significant money? All of these, and more, will color your decisions and choices. Help us to know you and your expectations so we can best help you. I'll be back with my one cents' worth...

I'd add, how serious are you about learning about your camera, its capabilities and nuances, and photography in general....your answer, combined with the above, will be a good guide to what features are most important to you at your initial purchase.

Might as well call down the lightening. I had Nikons & lenses, a real Pro kit, when my kids were small. Yes they were film, but film was still viable then. When you have children, especially the first, they fill a great deal of bandwidth and require transport of a lot of support material. Even a camera bag becomes just another burden. What I found to be successful, handy and capable were a series of Canon Elph cameras - first film, then digital. They took excellent photos, took up little space and were inexpensive enough that their loss through some sort of child activity would not have been a big deal. I would recommend a quality pocketable with a good zoom -then it is easy to always have a camera immediately at hand There are enough challenges to being a parent and keeping track of a kid that I would suggest you wait on your serious camera until they are old enough to be require a bit less of your attention.

hey guys i did a thread of my own be cool if someone can help me with mine sorry to hi jack the post.

hey guys i did a thread of my own be cool if someone can help me with mine sorry to hi jack the post.

Are you wanting the same advice as the OP, or just wanting us to pay attention to the other thread? If the first, then the same questions apply. If the second, then pushing the issue here is inappropriate.

To counter what you were time, there's nothing much wrong with a D5300, for the money. It lacks a few features and niceties found in more expensive cameras, but get what you can afford, and having money to spend on lenses will make more of a difference than going up in the body range, at least for now. (If you're after the next step up, a used D7100 or, for more, D7200 is what I'd suggest as the next option.)

 

Being an SLR it's a little larger than some mirrorless options (Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji), which might affect you if you plan to hike with it - but it's not exactly big, and more flexible than something pocket like an RX100. The autofocus of an SLR is probably preferable for wildlife and maybe for chasing a child compared with mirrorless systems, but the gap is reducing. Nikon tend to have slightly better image quality, Canon can do things like autofocus efficiently in video. Both have roughly equal systems, and it's partly down to preference when you handle the camera. For less active targets there's little to show between any of the options - pick the one that works for you.

 

Good luck!

Are you wanting the same advice as the OP, or just wanting us to pay attention to the other thread? If the first, then the same questions apply. If the second, then pushing the issue here is inappropriate.

sorry i apologise.

I really liked d5300, but a guy I know told me it's not a very good body, and as a beginner, I should pick something else

 

As asked above your question can be answered much better if you'd give us more information. I just picked out this quote to add something that's worth less than the usual $0,02..... one thing you will find as you dig deeper, is that also photography suffers from its fair share of fanboys. Those who base their opinion on nothing but their preference for a certain brand. Which in turn means: there is a lot of bad advice out there. Don't trust people who just say "it's not good" without some solid reasons why, and a bit of an explanation behind their reasoning. Else, you will only go slightly insane probably with loads of conflicting advice :-)

Happy to say, all the regulars on this site score a whole lot better, so you came to a good spot. It also means we cannot and will not give you some straight answer "this is the best camera". There is no best camera, as we all have different priorities.

 

Aside from knowing a bit more what you expect to do with the camera, another thing to do is to go to a well-stocked shop, and try for yourself what kind of camera you find most comfortable in your hands, and where you feel your hands can easily reach the buttons on that camera. A camera has to feel comfortable in your hands, and for some that means a large camera, for some it means a smaller one. A camera you do not enjoy using is a camera you will leave at home, which is a pity.

At your budget there is plenty good options out there, so no worries for that. But it helps if you can narrow down the list a bit if you exclude cameras that feel plain wrong in your hands.

OK, I'm back in the conversation. I don't have any useful knowledge about mirrorless, so I won't go there, except to acknowledge that, depending on the OP's preferences, a mirrorless body or compact Point-and-Shoot might be just the ticket (for the reasons noted by Sandy). If he wants an entry level DSLR, my recommendations in the Nikon line closely parallel Wouter's. As of late last week I own and have shot the D5100, D7100, and D810. I've tinkered with the D3400. For a true beginner, it's hard to do better (in a DSLR) than a D3XXX or a D5XXX. They are both sufficiently simple to learn on, and can fall back into presets or auto modes when knowledge and skills are still developing. Yet, they have very good sensors, autofocus, and image processing. Even as an experienced film photographer it took me three years to outgrow my D5100. The differences between the D5XXX and D3XXX are primarily in features, not image quality, so the choice for the OP would be in cost and comfort versus features. I suggest staying in the 24 MP sensor models, since these all benefit from 3rd generation technology. Even so, my 16 MP D5100 did yeoman duty on a Mexico cruise last spring, and I have no regrets in taking it and its less expensive lenses in lieu of the big guns.

 

The most important piece of advice, and one I've given here multiple times, is to buy what one is comfortable using, and then practice, practice, practice! The real beauty of digital is the opportunity to take a vast number of experimental images and immediately see the results, at a very low per image cost. I counsel against the siren's song of a super zoom (18-300mm anyone?). Nikon's 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses will serve a beginner very well until he/she figures out what is most important to him/her.

The value (used price) of DSLRs drops fast. If you want value, but one slightly used, which will still be plenty good enough.

 

But also, don't worry if you don't buy the right one in the first place.

(That is, prices drop fast enough that buying a new body in a year isn't

such a bad thing.)

 

No matter how much jumping in you want, the D5300 should be just fine for at least a year.

 

(Unless you want to start up as a professional wedding photographer with no experience,

which I don't recommend.)

 

It does help to choose the manufacturer, such that you can reuse lenses on a body you buy later.

 

The D5300 is plenty good enough for baby pictures and family vacations to nature areas for at least a year.

 

There are plenty of other choices, non-interchangable lens DSLRs, point-and-shoot, of higher or not so high

quality. A smaller, lighter, camera you are more likely to have nearby when you need it.

Have a look at this thread:

 

Best Camera for Beginner?

 

Feel free to ask any questions, in particular to my comments there. :-)

A couple of years ago, I purchased a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 because of its versatility. Was tired of carrying around multiple lenses to do different things, especially large, heavy telephoto ones, though I still liked using a telephoto range for nature shots in particular. I've found the FZ1000 to be the perfect camera for me. Does everything I need it to do as a hobbyist who takes pictures primarily for my own enjoyment. The FZ1000 (and newer FZ2500) both have 1 inch sensors, which is a bit larger and less noisy than the smaller sensors that typically accompany the 'bridge' camera segment. I imagine Canon and perhaps Nikon have similar offerings, but I am not familiar with them. If you want to look at sample shots I've taken with the FZ1000, you can find some here:Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 Shots

 

Keep in mind that some post-processing work was done on most of these. All of the shots in my 'Ireland' folder where also taken with the FZ1000.

Tip to think about.

You want TWO maybe even THREE cameras.

1. An easy to grab and use camera for the quick grab shots. This could be a phone camera or an easy to use P&S. My point here is there will be times when the DSLR is too much of a hassle to take out or carry, and you will MISS those pix of the family and kids. Been there, done that, regretted it.
   Think of it like this baby + diapers + food + toys + other stuff = not much room left for camera.
   
2. This is your medium camera. The medium being smaller and lighter for taking on a hike or to casual family parties. You probably would not want to haul a heavy D850 around hiking.
   
3. This is your big camera, where weight and bulk is not an issue.
   

#2 and 3 could be the same camera or different cameras. If different cameras, ideally the same system.

• A Nikon D5600 could fill both roles, just with different lenses; 18-55 or 18-105 for #2 and a 16-80/2.8-4 or 18-140 for #3
   
  
• A Nikon D5600 with an 18-55 lens could fill #2, and a Nikon D7500 with a 16-80/2.8-4 could fill #3.
  
• An Olympus E-M10 with a compact lens could fill #2, and an E-M1 with a 14-40/2.8 or 12-100/4 could fill #1.
  

You should also think long term.

As much as you think, the camera you start with now, may not be the camera that you want in 5 years.

As your skills improve and technology advances, the target keeps moving.

But whatever system you buy into now, will in all likelihood be the system you will be with in 5 years.

• Example: You buy a Nikon camera and lens, and each year you buy another lens, and soon it becomes difficult to switch to another system like Canon or Sony, as you have to start all over again buying new gear for the new system.
  

• Example: I am going through that right now in setting up a #2 camera. My #3 is a Nikon D7200 + 18-140 kit. My #2 is an Olympus E-M1 + Panasonic 12-60. The Olympus is significantly (43%) lighter and smaller than my Nikon kit, but I have to buy an entire new kit of lenses, as all my current Nikon lenses are not practically usable on the Olympus.
  

Note: Nikon and Canon mirrorless systems are around the corner. So that is something to keep in mind.

 

I am a still photographer, not a video guy.

But if video is of interest to you, then that becomes a factor to consider. As not all cameras do video well.

So what would I recommend, given what you said. for #2 and #3, one camera with two lenses.

While the 2 lenses duplicate in focal length, in weight and function they don't. You grab one or the other, depending on size/weight you want to carry.

• Nikon D5600 + 18-55P (small and light) + 18-140 (bigger and heavier)
  
  • I think you can get the D5600 + both lenses for less than $1k
    
  • A D7200 + 18-55P + 18-140 is another option but will be over $1k.
    
  • Canon has a similar kit, but I do not know the Canon line enough to tell you which camera to go with, T5 or T6. I would go with the T7i, but that will push you over the $1k mark. Canon has the same lenses 18-55 and 18-135.
    

  [*]Olympus E-M10-mk2 or mk3 + 14-42 + 40-150R (small and light) + 14-40/2.8 (or 12-100/4) (bigger and heavier)

  • Because of the cost of the pro lenses, I would hold off on those lenses till later.
    

Still churning here? Ok, ill done back in.

 

Jordan2240 is right to point out that a good "bridge" camera can produce good results in a small package, and for less money than adding the same flexibility to an interchangeable lens system. The downsides are that "good results" don't quite match what you could achieve with enough money in another system (although the same is true if you put cheap lenses on an expensive camera), and you're effectively paying for the flexibility up front - and flexibility always compromises image quality as well as cost (you can get an 18-200mm zoom for a dSLR, but often you shouldn't, because the image quality is worse than using two less flexible lenses). Nikon actually don't currently have a flexible 1" compact camera; Canon have slightly different trade-offs. Sony's RX10 line (or the RX100 VI) are closer equivalents.

 

It's absolutely the case that picking the camera which feels right is more important than image quality differences. We can talk about Canon sensors having slightly less dynamic range at low ISO than Nikon or Sony, but that affects your photography much less than whether you prefer having a dial under your index finger or your thumb.

 

I'd say that the size difference between a D5x00 series (or Canon's equivalent) and a D7x00 camera is small enough that I'd not separate them on portability. There's a weight difference, mostly due to the glass prism in the finder of the D7x00 series, but a D5600 is 415g vs 640g - the difference is just over half a soda can. Carrying a bigger lens around makes much more difference.

 

I'll restate that buying the latest model isn't always good economy (do what I say, not what I do). If you can find one for less money, the older D5500 missed out on very few features compared with the D5600. There's not much difference from the D5300 either - the main one being that the D5300 hasn't got a touchscreen, which makes it a little slower to use. I suspect the same is true of Canon's equivalents of the mirrorless bodies though I know them less well - dpreview is quite good at listing the important changes from the previous generation in their reviews. Camera makers keep refreshing their systems to keep them competitive, but cameras have now been very good for several years, so the recent improvements are relatively minor.

 

In general, despite my nitpicking, very good advice above from everyone. The main thing to remember is that any camera will take a decent photo under ideal conditions (static subject, good light, reasonable contrast in the scene, moderate distance away, in your house so the camera is with you). More expensive cameras are about still taking a good photo when conditions get harder (the subject moves erratically, it's dark, there's a lot of brightness range to cover, you're a long way from your subject, you had to hike five miles with your camera to get there). Any recent camera is worlds better at all of this than what pros used in the late 1980s, and yet there are still many amazing images taken from before the advent of digital. Don't worth too much about spending a fortune chasing tiny improvements (speaking as someone who has) and remember that technique, luck and just having a camera with you make way more difference than any of this.

Get a good point-and-shoot camera (water resistant is good) and stick it in the diaper bag.

Baby will keep you busy enough without the complexities of "photographic 'science'".

Instead of buying a "real" camera, take real pictures. That's what you'll be looking at when the kids are grown.

You are making things complicated. - You have your budged and made a quite sane* choice how to spend it.

*= I am no camera shopping expert in that market segment. - Other people make their living from that knowledge. You could watch Tony Northrup's current recommendations on YouTube, read through dpreview.com, dive into DxOmark or draw a generous extra helping of confusion out of Ken Rockwell's site.

 

AFAIK the low end Nikons have better sensors and AF (when their optical view finders get used) than their Canon counterparts but are a bit more expensive and inferior for video. Discussing Canon vs. Nikon makes little sense. - Just pick which of them you(!) like better.

Yes, a current trend goes towards MILCs instead DSLRs but MILCs are probably more expensive and the argument about DSLR weight and bulk doesn't really count as long as we are talking about just a single D5300 with up to two budged zooms.

I really liked d5300, but a guy I know told me it's not a very good body, and as a beginner, I should pick something else

Hunt him down, lower your wallet's pants and ask him what he suggests instead. If he outs himself as your "friendly" neighborhood loan shark('s best friend): Close the file and buy within your budged. Sometimes overly expensive cameras can't take pictures, because you won't dare to take them out.

If he has a splendid suggestion you could afford, be so kind to share it here.

I want to buy something that I would not regret buying, that or I will not want to replace it in something better like a year after.

To me an elderly APS sensored DSLR (or rangefinder or even MILC) seems fine for a whole lot of tasks. The ones I am using can't compete with the D5300. There will be stuff it doesn't do as well as something later and / or greater but the deal is usually like: "Hey, spend 200% as much as last time, to gain an additional 3% of abilities." Why should I not say "no, thankyou"?

Also keep in mind: fully replacing with something better tends to be really(!) expensive. Lots of folks end using multiple cameras to avoid changing lenses or to have a backup. You have a $1k budged now and plan a $500 body. What would be the next step up? - D750 kit at about $2k5? (Thats what my D5#00 owning coworker added.) How are you going to get $6k for two of those bodies and a basic lens line together at once? Or roughly $16k for a pair of D850s with a "holy trinity" of f2.8 zooms?

My usual solution is to drag the old camera along, for stuff it does well enough.

 

I suppose you did your homework about the D5300 and every lens you are pondering for it. - (If not: DxO link) So you can gain knowledge about potential shortcomings and capability of your kit.

Being me, I wanted to use the opportunity to buy a real camera, and not only use it for the family stuff but also to jump into a new hobby as professionally as I can.

"Being professional means getting the job done." If I order a pizza, it will arrive by anything between pedal bike or tiny budged car. - Photography is part of my job. - My main camera in use (there) is over 10 years old, the secondary one not much younger. I bought both used and put half decent primes on them. The most professional fact about me in the studio is: I have backup at hand.

 

Some genres & task might benefit from superior tech but most have been dealt with by the users of far worse equipment before.

The D5300 is a "bang for the buck" consumer camera, distinguishing itself probably mainly with a few UI inconveniences from the more expensive models. If you are planning your shots you can take the time to set stuff in advance. If you want to react on subjects jumping into your face: Keep the camera in "auto", use your zoom and be most likely luckier nailing your subject than another guy with a bag full of super sharp primes and a FF or MF camera with slower AF than yours.

Lenses demanding AF micro adjustments that your camera isn't offering will most likely be out of your budged anyhow and if you buy them new you can send them in together with your camera to get both bits adjusted to play well together.

 

If you have a chance to save up $$s for your real dream and want a camera for now, I recommend browsing the market for $200 DSLR kits.