Recommendation for entry level DSLR

Hoseman

Hi, I want to get a DSLR camera for me and my daughter. My knowledge of cameras is very basic. Therefore I'm not sure what I specifically want apart from quick/easy image downloads which I guess is best via wifi (?). I'm ideally looking for an entry level camera for around the £150+ mark. Ive had a quick look around and the cheapest recommendations Ive seen so far are £220+. Therefore I don't mind spending a bit more for a new one or getting one second hand.

Any tips and suggestions would be appreciated.

d0nkeyk0ng

You can get SD cards with wifi built in so don't rely on that specific feature.
Why specifically a dSLR? Why not a compact camera with a large sensor, or a bridge camera?
What sort of photography will you be using it for?

For that budget, I'd go second hand. I'd also go into a store and play around with the cameras to see which feels better. Ergonomics are important. I was deciding between a Canon and a Nikon dSLR and the Canon just felt a better fit in my hands and the menus were more intuitive.

Hoseman

It will be used for creative photography (daughter) so all sorts of things Id imagine and I will use it for leisure and for taking some work (product) shots from time to time.

Why not a compact camera with a large sensor, or a bridge camera?

I dont know. I thought a dslr would be a better option for the above.

mr_fishbulb

I've been using DSLRs for about 15 years now. I have a good selection of lenses and a prosumer level body which has taken ages to learn, but I can now make the most of it. I'm not going to replace this.

But..... if my camera equipment was stolen/lost and I had to start again, I would definitely look at the Micro 4 3rds route. They are up to the same functionality of DSLRs in all but fast moving pictures. Good selection of lenses nowadays. Image quality isn't as good, but only to a tiny detriment (and I'm talkabout about poster size prints). They are a lot smaller, so I'd take my camera with me to more places.

Ebe_Scrooge

SLRs are "better" cameras than compacts, but cost more. One reason ( not the only reason ! ) why professionals use them is the ability to switch lenses - use a different lens for different requirements. An important point to consider - a cheap-ish body with a high-quality lens will give better results than the most expensive body with a cheap lens - a broad generalisation, but that's the principle.


Unless you really need an SLR, then a good-quality compact or bridge may be a better option ?


But if you do want an SLR, it's worth researching and spending money on good quality lenses if you want good results.

knightstyle

A friend who teaches youngsters has several old 35mm cameras she gets them to use.
The reason is that film is very expensive so they have to think hard before taking any pics!
Bit extreme but makes you think.
So look for a camera with full manual exposure modes, App priority, shutter priority and full manual.
Plus get a simple point and shoot camera and always have it with you.
Personally I carry a Lumix TZ, it will go in my pocket and has plenty of exposure options.

Johnmcl7

Hoseman wrote: »

It will be used for creative photography (daughter) so all sorts of things Id imagine and I will use it for leisure and for taking some work (product) shots from time to time.



I dont know. I thought a dslr would be a better option for the above.

DSLRs offer superb image quality but they're not a good all in one solution, most DSLR lenses have a short zoom range or no zoom at all so to make good use of a DSLR you need a few lenses which are not cheap each. For your price range you'll only be able to get a short range normal lens (18-55mm, around a 3x zoom) which is ok to start with but it means no wide aperture shots for low light/shallow depth of field (to get that blurred background effect), no close up macro photography and no telephoto either. Also although DSLRs offer video it's not a platform designed for video use and more difficult to work with.

John

Gloomendoom

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

Also although DSLRs offer video it's not a platform designed for video use and more difficult to work with.

Odd. Our media department make films using Canon DSLRs.

Johnmcl7

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Odd. Our media department make films using Canon DSLRs.

What's odd about that? I didn't say it wasn't possible to use DSLRs for video use and experienced professionals can work around the issues but it doesn't change the fact that DSLRs are not designed for video use and difficult to work with. To start with, you can't use the DSLR viewfinder for video use as it's blacked out and you can't use most DSLR lenses either without issues - when a DSLR is in video mode its high speed PDAF system is disabled and the camera has to use the CDAF system on the sensor. The lens AF motors have to be designed to work with this AF system otherwise they're very slow to focus, also the AF motor has to be silent otherwise it gets picked up in video. The aperture iris should be stepless for video use for smoother aperture changes, some recent DSLR lenses are modified to work better with video but most DSLR lenses aren't.

Experienced users can work around these issues by using full manual lenses but it's not something I'd make a general recommendation for.

Mirrorless cameras on the other hand were built from the ground up to include video capability, the lenses all have silent motors, quick AF in video use, a continuous iris and the electronic viewfinders mean you can use the viewfinder while recording video. All that essentially means is that they're easy and convenient to use in video. Also there's a good range of mirrorless cameras now ranging from 1in sensors up to full frame so there's no IQ loss using that type of camera. The very short distance between the lens and sensor (much shorter than a DSLR) means they can mount just about any lens that wouldn't fit on a DSLR.

I can see why people with existing DSLR equipment would use it for video but for a beginner with no such restrictions, I feel it's worth mentioning the compromises rather than people going with a DSLR then finding out themselves the video isn't as great as promised.

John

Big_Graeme

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Odd. Our media department make films using Canon DSLRs.

They shoot major motion pictures on them too, they are very definitely designed for video.

Johnmcl7

Big_Graeme wrote: »

They shoot major motion pictures on them too, they are very definitely designed for video.

No, they're most definitely not designed for video - the name DSLR stands for Digital Single Lens Reflex, to use a DSLR for video you effectively disable the entire SLR part as the reflex mirror gets locked away disabling the camera's optical viewfinder and in DSLRs other features like their high speed PDAF system.

Just because DSLRs are capable of high quality video doesn't change the fact they're ill suited to it, you'll find video cameras are still primarily used for film making and part of the reason DSLRs have been used for a small minority of video is due to people having existing equipment and the fact that initially DSLRs were the only cheap choice for large sensors. The market has since moved on and there are numerous video focused choices that offer 4/3in, APS-C and FF sensors.

Even all that aside, the fact that it's used by movie companies doesn't change any of the points I was making - the OP who started this thread makes it clear in her first post her level of experience is minimal, clearly a very different situation to experienced media professionals. It shouldn't be hard to see that having a camera system with slow, noisy AF in video and no viewfinder is nowhere near as convenient as a system with silent, fast AF and an EVF. A beginner is unlikely to be prepared to invest in cine lenses or similar that are operating entirely manually.

John