Budget constraint for entry-buyer: Lens or body?

[pete_s.]

<p>Maybe a dSLR is not the right tool for the OP. A mirrorless camera like one of the m43, NEX etc cameras might be a better choice. There is a reason why these cameras are cutting into the low end dSLR sales. If someone is very concerned about weight and size one of the small mirrorless cameras is a much nicer camera to carry around.</p>

<p>If one wanted to learn more about photography then I understand wanting a dSLR with a huge assortment of lenses and other stuff at your disposal. But then a minimum in my book would be a body that has one control for aperture and another for shutter speed so you can shoot in manual mode. That excludes all D3xxx and D5xxx camera and you'll start at the D7xxx and up.<br /> But if you don't care about photography itself and just want to make great pictures with a minimum of stuff to carry, a mirrorless makes much more sense.</p>

<p>There are a lot of people carrying dSLRs that are only using the kit lens and don't know anything about using their cameras. They are not taking advantage of the dSLR and they would get the same picture with a lot less hassle, weight and size from a mirrorless or one of the high end compacts.</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I just wanted to chime in on the camera decision. In image quality, the D5200 and D3200 are pretty much a wash (the sensors, though from different manufacturers, aren't all that different - though the 5200 has (according to Sensorgen) about an extra stop of sensitivity across most of its dynamic range, if that matters to you. Neither have the handling of, say, a D7000, but the 5200's AF is a big step up, and the flip LCD is handy. If you consider the D5200's features to be useful over the D3200, my advice would be to buy it. You may at some point replace the camera, but it's likely that it'll last you a while and you might, in the meantime, save up enough to expand your lens collection. Making sure that you buy everything in your budget now might leave you with an inferior camera when you have the budget to expand your system. Or it may be that the features of the D5200 don't matter to you, and you should save the money now - I just wouldn't base the decision on whether it allows all the lenses you might want to fit within budget, if you can avoid it.<br />

<br />

In good light, a zoom is very useful for following kids around (I stress <i>family members</i>, before that statement gets me put on a sex offenders' register). In dim conditions, you can spend a lot of money for an f/2.8 zoom and still have it do no better than a 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8 AF-S combination. If you really want to shoot indoors, with the constraints that you may have some cropping to do if your subjects move around, I'd think primes. But then I've never found fast normal zooms appealing, whereas some swear by them.<br />

<br />

Good luck, whatever you get.</p>

[Sycamoe]

<p>Just wanted to drop two cents in here about lenses: When you hear people denigrating the kit lenses or the "slow" zooms, it's primarily one of three criticisms--1)the slow max aperture requires a higher ISO or addition of flash, 2) the slow max aperture doesn't allow for extremely shallow depth of field to give a certain professional portrait look, 3) the overall quality is somewhat inferior, especially the bokeh (smoothness of out-of-focus backgrounds, especially for portraits) and sharpness wide open. IMHO, all of these factors are important but way overrated.<br>

1)Shooting the newer cameras at high ISO isn't that big a deal--not to say you want to be at ISO 1600 or 3200 but even if the camera does moderately well at, say, ISO 800 you can solve a lot of your exposure problem created by losing that stop or two using a less-than-professional zoom like the 18-105 that can't go to f 2.8. Once you learn to do a little post processing magic, you'll find out that moderate noise from shooting high ISO is very easy to tame anyway. 2)It's true nothing will substitute for the quality and look of a fast lens wide open. But if people tell you that you can't make a nice portrait with that 18-105 wide open I personally think they're being elitist about it. Your overall technique, lighting, posing, and timing are far, far more important. 3) Scott Bourne says something like 90% of the lenses made today are better than 95% of the photographers that use them and I truly believe that. In contrast to the very cheapest kit lenses, any of the mid-price moderate zooms are really quite good. Just read the technical reviews, then look at the results when used by skilled photographers. My real go-to lens is a 16-85 Nikon, although I don't disagree with any of the recommendations for fast zooms by third party manufacturers--I'm sure they are outstanding. For my work, the 16-85 handles just about everything very nicely. And finally, when I need shallow depth of field or low light performance, I grab for my $100 Nikon 50 mm f1.8 and, though it's not a professional lens, I get just about everything I could ever need from it. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Harry: What you say is true, but all things are relative. A modern DSLR will run rings around the level of grain you got from fast 35mm film, so you can shoot in lower light with smaller apertures and faster shutters than in the film days. But ye cannae change the laws of physics, and a prime at f/2 is still letting in eight times as much light as a variably-aperture zoom at f/5.6. In absolute terms you may need to do this much less than you used to, but having just come back from a relative's wedding during which I took photos of the father of the bride giving his speech from the other side of the room - and the primary light source was his iPhone's display bouncing off his speech notes - there is no such thing as "you won't need the aperture". If your idea of dim lighting is a lounge with the main lights on, you may be fine; if it's candlelit people in a pub, don't discount the f/1.4 glass just yet.<br />

<br />

Which isn't to say that Martin is doomed unless he goes straight for a D4 and a set of f/1.4 primes, just that slow zooms can still be limiting. Besides, I try to stay at the lowest ISO I can for dynamic range reasons, which also saved me in other photos at the same wedding!</p>

[michael_hendriksson]

<p>Thanks for advancing this further guys. Last night I actually went in the same direction as Brian and Pete combined:</p>

<ol>

<li>Maybe it <strong>is</strong> unwise to shop this much before loosening one shot</li>

<li>If convenience is a priority to me, why not lok into mirrorless?</li>

</ol>

<p>Same logic as when I was looking into how good a lens I needed, once I decided on entering the world of intelligent flash:<br>

<strong>If priorities are, good indoors pictures, portability and max $1,000 for the whole package which mirrorless hotshoe-featuring camera would you recommend me?</strong></p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Tricky, Martin. Micro 4/3 is the most portable (arguably ignoring the 1-series, which we should if we're talking low light) but the smaller sensor hurts it somewhat for low light - though the sensor in models like the OM-D is pretty competitive despite its smaller sensor. Other bodies may be as small (especially some NEX cameras or the Eos M), but have larger lenses. It's a trade-off.<br />

<br />

The thing that would make me nervous about going mirrorless is the autofocus performance in low light. Some models suffer more than a DSLR with a dedicated sensor would. It's possible that my information is out of date, so check reviews, but I'd not necessarily dismiss the DSLR unless you really do want the camera to be smaller - bearing in mind that the camera doesn't necessarily make that much difference to the size if you have to put a big lens on it (as Canon demonstrated with the Eos 100). The range of lenses for DSLRs is generally (numerically, though sometimes physically) larger than for mirrorless, at least if you don't resort to adapting and want the autofocus to work. Mirrorless is cool technology, but at the moment it has a functionality and price premium, so be sure you want to pay it.<br />

<br />

As for which to get... if you care about low light, I'd wait for Canon to put the sensor from the 70D into a mirrorless body or for Fuji to do the same with the X100S sensor, or possibly look at the NEX 6. But read the reviews, because - other than playing with some in store - I'm out of my knowledge zone here.</p>

[tom_elessar]

<p><strong>If priorities are, good indoors pictures, portability and max $1,000 for the whole package which mirrorless hotshoe-featuring camera would you recommend me?</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>An Olympus EP-3. It's $300. Get a fast prime and FL-600 flash. If/when you're ready for something more serious, you should be able to sell the EP-3 for $200 more and put that towards a different back. <strong><br /></strong><br>

Also, consider renting or borrowing one or more of the cameras you're considering; nothing you read beats using one for a couple days. That's what I did, and it convinced me that an OM-D was the way to go. </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>FWIW, I simply stopped using flash once I got a camera with good enough low light performance.</p>

<p>Yes, flash well-used is terrific, as in the band photo included above. </p>

<p>But, when I went to the D300, able to shoot at ISO 1600 or even 3200, with an f/1.8 or sometime f/2.8 lens, I started getting excellent images in available light indoors, in the kind of lighting that supports human social interactions. The light in your living room, at the dining table, in a restaurant.</p>

<p>I find this incredibly liberating and I like the results. I have the gear. I'll pull out the flash, the umbrellas or soft boxes, and do the whole setup for groups and so forth. But for family shots, kid shots, portraits of friends, available light for me.</p>

<p>OK, that's me. Advice? My advice for Martin is don't over do the flash.</p>

<p>Hope this is helpful.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>For what it's worth, I agree with Sebastian: I consider flash positioned carefully off the camera to be a light sculpting tool; a flash on a hotshoe is kind of a last resort for getting a photo (possibly ignoring fill flash in bright conditions, but even then it's a pain to balance the light). So where possible for candids, I don't use flash (though if it's really dark, there's sometimes no choice). But a photo with the light coming from a simple flash is usually better than a photo with so little light that all you've got is grain and motion blur. Getting an off-camera cable for your flash is not a bad idea as a first upgrade.<br />

<br />

I didn't take a flash for the wedding I went to recently, since I trusted the official photographer to be taking flash photos and I wanted to complement the official shots - and trying to flash someone from the far side of the room is at best going to be annoying. That was fine, but since the official photographers had left before the first dance, I was a little less prepared than I would have liked. Fortunately the happy couple held still occasionally!<br />

<br />

Fortunately, a DSLR - or most interchangeable lens cameras - especially with a fast lens, is likely to be much better at handling low light that any compact you've been using - so we're only concerned about extreme situations here. I'd start with the minimum kit and work up once you've decided what you need for your shooting conditions. Good luck with it!</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>Sigh. Well it was worth a try. We had the OP considering learning to use a flash. Perhaps it is a good idea for those of us who have decades of experience to remember that we started somewhere. We know how to shoot flash. On camera, off camera, remote, bounce, fill, commander mode, have pocket-rockets in so many pockets they clog up the washing machine. </p>

<p>A new person has to learn. Getting started with a DSLR and on camera flash is a recipe for disappointment. Learning be basics of flash photography,</p>

<p>Sebastian. What would you say, if I as a photojournalist told you I "stopped using flash"? Absurd. Fill flash is not hard once you learn how to do it. Sadly most people just don't take the time to learn. Also, we hold the bar higher than would someone just learning. We all use flash less than we used to when film maxed out at about 400 ASA for all practical purposes, of course, but we still have that tool in our bag when we need it. <br>

Look at what Andrew wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That was fine, but since the official photographers had left before the first dance, I was a little less prepared than I would have liked. Fortunately the happy couple held still occasionally!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So having the flash would have been just want the doctor ordered but without it he had to do the best he could under the circumstances rather than the best he could period. There were simply shots of the reception that could not be made. And our OPs kids or grandkids will hold still once in a while too. But there is a recipe for missing a ton of very good shots of them if we post not pounce all of the time. </p>

<p>The point to the OP is to arm himself with a tool set that allows him to learn and grow in the hobby while getting good shots in the meantime. He has a budget. Did I mention that he has a budget? He has a budget of around $1K. Setting aside P/S and mirror-less options for the moment that pretty much limits him to either F/2.8 in an off brand zoom or F/1.8 and a fixed focal length lens. So if his body is $600.00 with a card he is pushing his budget with one 17-50 lens. I have no problem with this if that is what he wants to do. But he could be on his way with the D3200, kit lens, (18-50) and SB-400 flash for about $600.00. Then he can sit on his budget and see how it goes. He can always add the f0mm F1.8 afs later if he wants or one of the after market 2.8's. But in the meantime he will be taking great pictures (and movies if he wants) and learning a lot about photography. </p>

<p> </p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Rick, let's just say different strokes for different folks. Many valid and effective approaches to photography and good images.</p>

<p>I'll stand by my advice: Just don't over do the flash.</p>

[michael_hendriksson]

<p>:o) Sebastian and Andrew's inputs gave further perspective, but also frustration and - indeed - sighs.</p>

<p>Rick pretty much summed up why. If I could put my money down in a way that left me with the possibility of going both ways even after a little while, it would be fine. But given that I need a lens to start out - and barring reselling my hardware again later - I need to either</p>

<ol>

<li>Pick a lens cheap enough to afford the external flash (probably the 18-55 or 18-105), or</li>

<li>Buy the 35 mm f1.8 from the beginning, hoping that my indoors results will be what I hoped for, and finding out what zoom lens to purchase afterwards, and whether I feel like improving my indoors possibilities even more with external flash</li>

</ol>

<p>Certainly the first seems less risky and most versatile from the beginning. I do, after all, also shoot outside! I think I'll go for the 18-55:</p>

<ul>

<li>The quality of the 18-55 and the 18-105 being so similar</li>

<li>The 18-55 is easier on the budget</li>

<li>Makes for a reasonable entry into DSLR when it comes to convenience and portability (my current is a Canon S95!)</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Any final thoughts on my picking the 18-55 on these grounds?</strong></p>

[pete_s.]

I'll throw another aspect into the mix - resale value.

 

If you can buy something more expensive and sell it without much loss if it turns out you don't need it it will be LESS expensive than buying something that has zero resale potential. Unfortunately I think a 18-55 may fall in the latter category.

 

And that's also the advantage of buying used. If you sell it you will more or less get your money back. More so on lenses than on the body as camera bodies depreciate faster.

[michael_hendriksson]

<p>Thanks Pete. I guess through this process I have become more open for the refurb concept - but I struggle to find good ways to do this, living in Europe? Most sites with attractive prices are abroad, leaving me with a significant risk of extra charges (toll, customs and/or fines).<br>

Can you point me in any direction?<br>

Thanks again.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If you like available light shooting - shooting in low light without flash - ignore the others and get a fast lens so you can shoot the way you want. Available light shooting is a perfectly valid approach, especially now that you can shoot DSLRs at ISO 3200 without much loss of quality. You just need to develop your camera handling skills and meter the shots correctly, and shoot raw in difficult situations.</p>

<p>An f/3.5-5.6 lens isn't so good in low light anyway, with or without flash, because the autofocus struggles.</p>

<p>Also, what Pete said. If you're comfortable with buying and selling on eBay, you can usually buy any given used item - which is already depreciated - for a lower-in-the-range price and sell it later at no loss. If you buy the camera with the kit lens (which is cheap enough as part of a kit that you can resell it at negligible loss) and used 17-50 and/or 35mm lens and SB600 or SB700, and decide one of those items is not for you, sell it.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>We are talking to a new photographer here. Yes we can shoot at ISO 3200. It will give acceptable but not great results if (As Andy correctly points "You just need to develop your camera handling skills and meter the shots correctly, and shoot raw in difficult situations." He wants to shoot Jpeg. He wants easy. He wants auto mode when possible. Anyone here want to defend Nikon's in camera high ISO noise reduction on even average size enlargements? Now we are sending him into the world exposure bracketing, spot metering, and the expense and training investment called for by Photoshop? Trust me. A flash is far easier to master than is CS5. Give the poor man a break starting out.</p>

<p>Let him take great pictures easily, with the minimum of fuss. Then if he wants to buy into the whole enthusiast thing we can help him do that. </p>

<p>It was easy when many of us started out with our first SLR. We had to learn ASA 125 Kodacolor at 100 and Ektachrome at 160/400 a bit later. Kodachrome in all its glory made us look good if we could get the light right. We had a flash-bulb or maybe strobe with a dial thingy on the back which told us how to guess. Our 50mm lens was F1.4/1.8. If we could afford it we had a 135 or 200 F4 too. I had a light meter around my neck at first and then got the one in the camera which had one choice. Bottom center weighted. We had to memorize stuff but not too much stuff. When you pulled the trigger that was what you had until you got into the darkroom world. My point is that we had no choice but to go slow. </p>

<p>Now there are wonderful machines that allow us to go slow while taking vastly better pictures. For some people this is as good as the hobby needs to get. Others will go further. Why don't we let Martin experience the joy of taking good pictures with a minimum of angst and perhaps really enjoy the hobby? A nice new DSLR with the 18-50 or 18-105 kit lens and a useable flash is just what the doctor ordered. And if we oldsters think back to our day and age it is vastly more flexible and vastly superior in just about every way than the very best F2AS with the fastest glass Nikon had. And it shoots movies. Really. Movies. Sound ones in stereo. </p>

[andylynn]

Who said anything about Photoshop? Lightroom and Aperture are easy. The guy said he wants to shoot without a flash,

I'm saying he can if he wants to, it's not really that difficult.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>O.o<br />

<br />

Martin: There's nothing wrong with the 18-55. It's complemented by the 55-200 and 55-300 if you find you want something longer. It's cheap enough that you won't lose much if you switch to an f/2.8 replacement or get a longer zoom range. It won't give everything the camera can do, but it gives a lot for the money - that's why they're kit lenses. Nothing wrong with getting that, finding out whether you need a faster prime lens or f/2.8 (or f/1.8) zoom for your needs, <i>then</i> making a choice, unless it's really difficult for you to acquire things incrementally. No amount of advice from us will tell you how much of your time you find yourself thinking "I wish I had another stop of lens speed", or "I wish I had a faster aperture so I could blur the background", or "I wish I had a flash so I could shoot at f/11 and keep everything in focus", or "I keep running into one end of my lens, I wish I had a longer/shorter lens" until you try it.<br />

<br />

Fast lenses and high ISO are great for getting shots under poor lighting. Ironically, with fast glass on my D800E (which is about a stop better than my older D700), I find myself shooting more at f/5.6-ish and ISO 100 than I ever did with my D700 - because stopping down a little extracts the best sharpness from the lens and lower ISOs give more dynamic range. I also get more depth of field than if I used a faster aperture. There's a disadvantage to any solution, even if it's because demands are increasing. More light does help: carefully-staged flash can look amazing, but it does tend to look like carefully-staged flash; carelessly-positioned flash just looks like badly-positioned flash! I could, in fact, have used the on-camera (built-in) flash in the wedding dance scenario I described, but I've such a dislike for on-camera flash it actually never occurred to me to try it. There was, I must add, no sensible way to bounce a flash if I'd brought one - but if I had, I'd have been using it off-camera anyway.<br />

<br />

We can argue the pros and cons of the fast lens vs flash debate, but since either solution has merits my advice is to get the minimum, maybe try out some options in a shop (or look at some gallery photos and see how they were shot), and make up your own mind about the look you like. If you hate sharp eyes but fuzzy ears, a fast lens may be out. If you hate unnatural lighting or your family freak out when you use one, a flash may be out. (My father had a series of heart attacks and had a defibrillator fitted; my first digital compact had him convinced it had gone off when I used the flash. Still, it does mean I have a decent photo of him when, with that technology, I wouldn't have had with low light; the shot the same camera took of my mother is annoyingly blurred by the long shutter speed - but this was over a decade ago. For what it's worth, my first SLR <i>was</i> a DSLR - but it was old enough that the noise wasn't much better than film grain of the same ISO.)<br />

<br />

Martin: Where in Europe? I can say where II tend to shop in the UK, but that may not help if you're somewhere completely different...</p>

[stank]

<p>Have you considered a refurb? I picked up a D5100 with a 18-55 VR lens, bag and SD card for $490 at B&H. They have a few D5200 now.<br>

Stan</p>

[michael_hendriksson]

<p>Andrew (Stan & others)</p>

<p>I live in Denmark, which means co.uk shops are fine when it comes to customs etc. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ooh - I had a stutter when I had no sleep...<br />

<br />

If it helps, my used Nikon purchases in the UK tend to be from Mifsuds, Ffordes or Aperture, or occasionally from the used departments of WEx or Park (whence I tend to buy new); Nicholas is usually also worth a look, and Gray's are the obvious choice if you want used in mint condition (at a premium). This is generally the selection that advertise in the UK camera magazines that I buy. Carmarthen have sometimes had stuff that I've had trouble finding elsewhere. I've no idea how competitive their prices are compared with shops in Denmark, but they may be worth a look. I've been able to visit most of these (except Ffordes and Carmarthen, because they're miles away) and I'm generally supportive of them - they've been helpful and knowledgeable. I would have recommended Jacobs, but they were a casualty of the economy recently. There are a few places on Tottenham Court Road that sometimes have decent content, though some have also seemed less knowledgeable. These are only places that I've tried - I can't particularly say how much better they are than other places you may find!<br />

<br />

I've mostly been shopping for more obscure used stuff, though; the places with a large stock of obscure historical equipment may not be the cheapest place to get a refurbished or low mileage current model. Good luck!</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>When I buy used I look at buying from hobby photographers. They usually don't put much milage on their gear and they treat it well. Pros and also semipros usually have a job that needs to get done so babying their gear is not their primary objective.</p>

<p>I'd also like to talk to the person who owned the product before buying it. Despite being from the 70's some of my AI lenses have only been used by the person I bought it from and they where in mint condition.</p>

<p>And usually it's very good to know what you are buying. For instance if you wanted to get a cheap 17-50 f2.8 with good optics, you could look for a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 without VC and without a motor in the lens. That means that fewer people can buy it since you need AF in the camera body which the cheapest cameras don't have (like D3200 and D5200) but enthusiast cameras do (like D7000/D7100 or the older D90).</p>

<p>But it's also wise to check out what new items costs. Sometimes buying used makes no sense. Usually it makes the most sense when you're looking for something one generation old. For instance a used D7000 might make sense but a used D7100 probably not. A used SB600 makes sense and a used SB700 probably not.</p>

<p>To look for gear for sale in other countries check out the national photography forums buy and sell. If you live near a big city, in Denmark for instance Copenhagen, it shouldn't be hard to find good equipment. One could also check out national sites where people want to sell all kind's of gear.</p>

<p> </p>

[virginia_john_mybusiness]

<p>It's not just the camera. With digital photography you have to consider the whole system. That means the computer and the processing software. You also have to consider what you intend to have for an end product. Are you just going to post images on the net and share them with friends, print them, do you need Photoshop or is the camera company's software good enough? There are some great shots taken with smartphones. Some of the previous generation cameras are great pieces of equipment. If it were me, I would get a piece of gear that is a bit of a reach technically for you -- something you could grow into and would not grow out of in a year or two. I might be looking at a used D7000 or something along that line. Just my personal thoughts, but who listens to old guys? There has been lots of good advice posted here. I'd be thinking about where you will be a year of two from now and make a decision that will stand up then as well as now.</p>

[michael_hendriksson]

<p>To conclude the thread, I ordered a D5200 w 18-35 mm standard lens and SB-400 flash.<br>

- All new; maybe I will work my way into refurb business later.</p>

<p>Thanks for all helpful and enthusiastic answers! I will surely revisit this thread in the future :o)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm glad we could help, Martin. (At least, I hope we helped!) Good luck with your new toy - I'm sure it'll do you good service.</p>