DSLR camera for beginners?

JustAnotherSaver

Not a seasoned photographer at all but would like to get better photos. From talking to various people offline I've been pointed towards looking at DSLR cameras.

Now not wanting to jump in with both feet and spend thousands I'm wondering where to begin.

Primarily I'd be looking at two ends of a distance scale. Good macro lens for up close subjects, initially pets we keep but also would be interested in distance work, good zoom with wildlife shots - birds etc. Video recording would be a nice feature also.

I imagine the second hand market would be an ideal place to look  to pick up some bargains rather than brand new? Obviously this does away with any guarantee really.

So for those in the know, where would you begin?

If you need to ask any questions before you can even recommend then go ahead.

Sandtree

I would argue that DSLR is a dying technology and that most camera makers are pouring their R&D into mirrorless solutions now.

The thing with DSLR and mirrorless is that the camera body itself arguably doesn't lend itself to macro or "zoom" (aka telephoto) specifically. Those things are the job of the lenses not the body. Most the "tech" is in the body so to keep up you'd be replacing it every few years whereas lenses can last several generations of body. The first every lens I bought I am still using 20 years on despite having replaced the body of my camera 4 times.

You could buy some second hand DSLR options where you'll get more bang for your buck, lenses can even be used on a later mirrorless system with a convertor but will be unbalanced. Otherwise spend a lot more for a newer mirrorless system and at least know the lenses will last a long time.

Farway

Sandtree said:

I would argue that DSLR is a dying technology and that most camera makers are pouring their R&D into mirrorless solutions now.

The thing with DSLR and mirrorless is that the camera body itself arguably doesn't lend itself to macro or "zoom" (aka telephoto) specifically. Those things are the job of the lenses not the body. Most the "tech" is in the body so to keep up you'd be replacing it every few years whereas lenses can last several generations of body. The first every lens I bought I am still using 20 years on despite having replaced the body of my camera 4 times.

You could buy some second hand DSLR options where you'll get more bang for your buck, lenses can even be used on a later mirrorless system with a convertor but will be unbalanced. Otherwise spend a lot more for a newer mirrorless system and at least know the lenses will last a long time.

Agree with above, I'd forget DLSR and go for a used mirror less, one advantage of mirror lees is that with adaptors any lens will fit, in fact there is a sizable market in using vintage lenses

As mentioned above, the lens is what mostly matters and the ability of mirror-less to use any is a big advantage

Mirror less systems also tend to have image stabilisation, some both in camera body & lens, others one only. A very useful addition

Plus you mention video, the mirror less, mainly being later technology are excellent  at this, some better than others of course but most vloggers use them and some films have been shot with them

Plus mirror-less are lighter, smaller and more discrete, may not sound a lot but after lugging a camera & lens around you will appreciate less weight & bulk

If you do buy used then I would tend to use a second camera supplier and not unknown e bay one, a decent very good one is MPB plus of course check out you tube for any cameras that take your fancy, most reviews are honest

You will have to be on your guard because there does tend to be a lot of snobbery around regarding cameras, must have this, wouldn't touch that etc and it can get very confusing in the end

CoastingHatbox

dSLRs shouldn't be overlooked. They have certain advantages over mirrorless cameras. They certainly aren't going away any soon for professional use and the consumer end of the market is of course trying to produce more new shiny with higher margins.

The battery life can be longer, because you can use the view finder and view a real image, rather than a digital one.

dSLRs can have image stabilisation in the body and in the lens. IME in-lens IS is very good and can actually be more effective as it is tailored to the focal length of the lens in use.

I find the dSLRs are better to handle, ergonomically. They tend to have bigger handgrips and that is important for taking a steady shot. The slightlier heavier weight of a dSLR can also help, in terms of stabilisation.

In a dSLR the sensor is only briefly uncovered by the shutter when taking a photograph, and always remains covered when changing lenses. IME of mirrorless cameras, I was more often cloning marks on the sensor out of my images and cleaning the sensor more often.

Some of the mirrorless systems have smaller sensors than their dSLR counterparts. The larger sensor really helps with Depth of Field Control, and to be honest I think provide a better perspective. Smaller sensors need very short focal lengths and IME the result is a lot more distortion in images than you get with the equivalent focal length on either a APS-C or full framed dSLR.

The entry level dSLRs from both Nikon and Cannon have been really quite good for years now. If you can still get one with separate jog wheels for the aperture and shutter speed, all the better.

chrisbur

JustAnotherSaver said:

Not a seasoned photographer at all but would like to get better photos. 

What camera do you use at the moment?  What have you done so far to improve your photographs?
What are you unhappy about in your photographs?
The best start to improving your photographs is first to learn about photography then to practise with whatever you have 
You will then be in a position to know what sort of camera you need to move up to and what different cameras and lenses are capable off.  

Sandtree

CoastingHatbox said:

dSLRs shouldn't be overlooked. They have certain advantages over mirrorless cameras. They certainly aren't going away any soon for professional use and the consumer end of the market is of course trying to produce more new shiny with higher margins.

The battery life can be longer, because you can use the view finder and view a real image, rather than a digital one.

dSLRs can have image stabilisation in the body and in the lens. IME in-lens IS is very good and can actually be more effective as it is tailored to the focal length of the lens in use.

I find the dSLRs are better to handle, ergonomically. They tend to have bigger handgrips and that is important for taking a steady shot. The slightlier heavier weight of a dSLR can also help, in terms of stabilisation.

In a dSLR the sensor is only briefly uncovered by the shutter when taking a photograph, and always remains covered when changing lenses. IME of mirrorless cameras, I was more often cloning marks on the sensor out of my images and cleaning the sensor more often.

Some of the mirrorless systems have smaller sensors than their dSLR counterparts. The larger sensor really helps with Depth of Field Control, and to be honest I think provide a better perspective. Smaller sensors need very short focal lengths and IME the result is a lot more distortion in images than you get with the equivalent focal length on either a APS-C or full framed dSLR.

The entry level dSLRs from both Nikon and Cannon have been really quite good for years now. If you can still get one with separate jog wheels for the aperture and shutter speed, all the better.

Guess you haven't been following the likes of the Canon R5 which in almost all measures exceeds that of the Canon 5D MkIV with the one exception of number of shots off a single battery (900 -v- 460). So you may want to budget £30 or so for an extra spare battery. 

Body size depends on the person... for me both are good, for the Mrs she finds the R5 fine but the 5D too large... I've heard some guys say the R5 is too small for their hands.

Weight only helps in stability when you are considering a tripod or such... never heard anyone saying they'd want a Sigma 200-500 F2.8 because its 15kg weight is going to make it more stable when handholding. Indeed the reason why Canon do their DO range of lenses is to make lighter versions of their long lenses making them better to use hand held.

Both dSLR and Mirrorless can have IS in the body and/or the lens. In fact with Canon both lens types have IS however only their mirrorless cameras come with the option of in body IS. If you compare the 600mm 4L then the Mirrorless IS gets you 5.5 stops of improvement compared to the 4 stops in the DSLR plus the RF is 25%/900g lighter. 

All cameras come with different sensor sizes, you can get full frame in both and the majority are below that in both types. 

DSLR isn;t going away tomorrow but were I buying today as a new photographer I would be looking to buy into the future of mirrorless than the past of DSLR. Right now I've thousands invested in EF lenses meaning making the switch more painful... yes adaptors are available but RF lenses suit the body better.

CoastingHatbox

The Canon R5 is a snip at £4,2999 !!

Granted there are cheaper mirrorless systems with APS-C and full frame sensors, but I suspected the OP was on a budget and might be looking second hand.

There is a slight stability gain with a slightly heavier camera - with practice I could get a steady shot at 1/30 second with a 50mm lens on a full frame dSLR, a bit trickier with the smaller APS-C equivalent. Obviously there is a threshold at which the extra weight starts to work against you.

The traditional view finder, having the sensor less exposed when changing lenses and better grip are all big wins in my book. The smaller dSLRs are fine with small hands - I taught photography to a lot of people back in the day.

And @chrisbur is right, it is probably worth learning to take better photographs with what you have, even if it is a smart phone.

Then honestly, I'd go into a camera shop (when infection rates have receded) and try handling both a dSLR and a mirrorless camera and see which suits you best.

victor2

JustAnotherSaver said:

Not a seasoned photographer at all but would like to get better photos. From talking to various people offline I've been pointed towards looking at DSLR cameras.

Now not wanting to jump in with both feet and spend thousands I'm wondering where to begin.

Primarily I'd be looking at two ends of a distance scale. Good macro lens for up close subjects, initially pets we keep but also would be interested in distance work, good zoom with wildlife shots - birds etc. Video recording would be a nice feature also.

I imagine the second hand market would be an ideal place to look  to pick up some bargains rather than brand new? Obviously this does away with any guarantee really.

So for those in the know, where would you begin?

If you need to ask any questions before you can even recommend then go ahead.

Some years back, I was in a similar position. I started by writing down my percieved requirements under "essential" and "desirable" headings.

I then read online reviews (for which I found DPReview very useful), changed my requirements a little and ended up with a FUJI bridge camera. It was inexpensive but gave me enough flexibility to further my knowledge in using cameras. Still have it, but rarely use it because I found serious photography wasn't really my cup of tea. 

Its greatest use was that it gave the options for semi manual or fully manual modes. Biggest drawback was that it has a longest exposure time of 4 seconds, effectively ruling out any really long exposure shots. Great macro capability and zoom facility on the non-removable lens, which meant it was easy to carry around and wouldn't get dirt inside.

It's horses for courses though...

JustAnotherSaver

chrisbur said:

JustAnotherSaver said:

Not a seasoned photographer at all but would like to get better photos. 

What camera do you use at the moment?  What have you done so far to improve your photographs?
What are you unhappy about in your photographs?
The best start to improving your photographs is first to learn about photography then to practise with whatever you have 
You will then be in a position to know what sort of camera you need to move up to and what different cameras and lenses are capable off.  

I'm wondering if some are thinking 4 figure recommendations. If so then my post wasn't clear enough as it's not what i'd call beginner level.

You make a good post Chris. Hopefully it makes things a little clearer....

I use a Samsung Galaxy S10 at the moment Before that an iPhone 6S. You get the picture (no pun intended). If you're asking about an 'actual' camera then my last one was some time ago. A Kodak v603 https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/V603/V603A.HTM

What have I done to improve them? Battled with lighting. Sworn at the focus (or lack of).

The pictures are grainy. Especially zoom. It's poor up close, the focus seems to take forever. We take plenty of pictures of moving subjects (fish) which is a case of try and try and try and then delete 19 to keep 1. Wont be the sole purpose of the camera though.

cymruchris

Nobody has asked before running away with recommendations - but what's your ideal target budget to get a camera body, macro and a longer zoom?

Sandtree

CoastingHatbox said:

The Canon R5 is a snip at £4,2999 !!

Granted there are cheaper mirrorless systems with APS-C and full frame sensors, but I suspected the OP was on a budget and might be looking second hand.

There is a slight stability gain with a slightly heavier camera - with practice I could get a steady shot at 1/30 second with a 50mm lens on a full frame dSLR, a bit trickier with the smaller APS-C equivalent. Obviously there is a threshold at which the extra weight starts to work against you.

The traditional view finder, having the sensor less exposed when changing lenses and better grip are all big wins in my book. The smaller dSLRs are fine with small hands - I taught photography to a lot of people back in the day.

And @chrisbur is right, it is probably worth learning to take better photographs with what you have, even if it is a smart phone.

Then honestly, I'd go into a camera shop (when infection rates have receded) and try handling both a dSLR and a mirrorless camera and see which suits you best.

You mentioned professional use of dSLRs and so it was appropriate to mention that there are very much professional use mirrorless cameras now... they aren't all micro 4/3rds. Professional cameras come with professional price tags but I suspect neither of us were suggesting professional cameras as a solution to the OP.

Smaller dSLRs for smaller hands however introduce the limitations of smaller sensors that you called out. The advantage of mirrorless is getting a full frame sensor into a smaller format for smaller hands.

The other consideration is naturally, the size of the electronics and mechanical elements dictate the minimum size of the camera body. There is absolutely nothing that stops the makers of mirrorless cameras from putting it into a body the size of a dSLR camera or adding extra weight to the body. The fact that makers of professional camera equipment are deciding not to do so is potentially telling. 

My last film camera was an EOS 5, the autowinder (looking similar to a modern battery grip) slid over the normal grip making it larger. In the same way that there is nothing stopping camera makers putting mirrorless into a larger format body there is also nothing stopping accessories being made to equally bulk out the body.