[Closed] Photography gurus - advice on digital SLR

Definitely go for Nikon and, for the money, I'd go for the 3200 as it does more than you'll ever need for a starter DSLR!

In my opinion, it'll be a while before you start to really get to the point at which you notice a difference between the two, and then you'll be able to upgrade if you need to. I've found my entry-level Nikon has lasted me 5 good years and still does what I need it to. Crucially it gives me the ability to create noticeably better shots than I'd got used to with crappy point-and-shoots, and unless I had substantially more time and money, I can't see me upgrading until it breaks.

Ergonomics are quite important, but I don't imagine the two would be much different. But try a couple of comparable models from Canon, Pentax, whatever, and see how they feel.

If I did upgrade, I'd certainly look at second-hand as well.

Snapsort is good for a quick comparison of specs:
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D5200

I've always preferred Nikon from an ergonomics point of view. The mid and entry level Canon's always felt a bit small and cheap, although functionally I doubt there's any difference.

My current DSLR/ Dust gathering device is a Nikon D90. One major selling point for me was that I could buy virtually any old nikkor nikon lens for it. I got some nice old lenses from Ffordes for buttons. Fair enough I lose full auto settings, but it's an slr. I only pick it up if I want manual control. I don't think newer canons will work with older lenses without adaptors.

EDIT: One quick caveat to all of that, the saying "the best camera is the one you have with you" is very true, and my xperia camera phone is capable of very nice pics. I almost never take the Nikon anywhere, despite the fact that I really love a bit of the old photography.

If I was buying again I'd seriously consider something in a range finder sized camera for portability whilst retaining creative controls.

FWIW, I've arsed about with entry level DSLRs, never reaching a respectable standard with either I should add, but Nikon have always given best colour results with canon 'easier' to use and much better AF. (I realise this is not your exact question, but it's STW!)

That said, when I paired a 5D with a 50mm prime, I was instantly turned into David Bailey.

Jaymoid ... Thanks for that comparison....... Stand out differences seem to be 11 vs 39 focus points , flip out screen, and ISO ranges........

So perhaps the 3200 could be a decent starting point

The 3200 is a great starter SLR. I still have my 3100, its predecessor and it's fine for a what I do. Spend your money on glass instead.

T hank you fellas for the input

I reckon the 'other' makes offer more for your money than Canon/Nikon do. Do yourself a favour and check out Sony, Pentax and Oly. And by check out, I mean go into a shop.

Loads of good choices, need the max budget though (430?) - as above definitely handle a few before you choose.

Worth thinking about how you will deal with - store or process all the files you will make as well!

Pentax often on offer at Amazon and good value vs Canon/Nikon. Olympus and Fuji mirrorless are interesting smaller alternatives to trad DSLR as well.

Sony A5100 (mirrorless not DSLR) kit regularly on special at Amazon for around 250

Lens *may* be the compromise at starter end.

Can be a bit tricky to find stores with a good range as the camera specialists disappear from high street - John Lewis is a surprisingly good place to see/try a few.

The good specialist stores sometimes let you rent or borrow the demos to get some proper test files if your comfortable comparing the output.

I'd second Molgrips.

Sony are currently accepted as makers of the best sensors at the moment, at least until Canon's 50mp full frame sensor technology starts to trickle down. For reference, Nikon use Sony sensors in (at least) their full frame cameras, maybe also their APS-C ones as well.

Sony's Alpha range of mirrorless compacts are very good. Pentax is vastly underated.

If I had your budget though, without a doubt the camera I would chose personally would be a Fuji XE2 with a 35mm lens. Lovely lovely rendering, great lenses, compact and very retro stylish (in the 'range-finder-esque' way cited above).

Quick edit - the XE2 is a better camera but it is probably way above the budget you were considering.

The XE1 can be had with a lens for about £450 and would still be the camera I would spend my money on.

get the cheaper one and spend the difference on a lens maybe AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8G

I'll second Sony - haven't really used anything else though.

Currently have an A55 SLT and will likely replace it with an A77 II soon

If I had your budget though, without a doubt the camera I would chose personally would be a Fuji XE2 with a 35mm lens. Lovely lovely rendering, great lenses, compact and very retro stylish (in the 'range-finder-esque' way cited above).

+1

its a joy to use, aperture ring to adjust the aperture, dial ontop to adjust shutter, like an old fashioned film camera.

Expensive though but beautifully built and the 18-55 "kit" lens is was above usual "kit lens" image and build quality.

mrs rocket has a 5100 we looked at the 3100 and it was tempting (coming from a compact) but I decided the 5100 would be better

That was a few years ago and it was the right decision because the screen and the sensor and the other bits are more useful in the long term

The only thing I would say is that the body is just the beginning because the lenses are the most important thing and although there are cheaper alternatives the Nikon lenses seem to be very flattering and they are £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££ esp the wide angle we are talking fork money here

Let me try and explain why the Fujis come highly recommended. This isn't about one camera necessarily being 'better' than another. Better is a difficult one to define anyway.

If you're getting 'back into photography' then you'll already have some appreciation and preference of how one camera renders a scene versus another. This is a very personal preference but lately, Fuji have been doing really lovely things with their sensors that give a fantastic 'look' to their images.

The XE1 is ostensibly the same camera as the X-Pro 1, (it just doesn't have the expensive hybrid OVF/EVF system that the X-Pro 1 has so it's a lot cheaper). Other than this, it's the same sensor, processor etc.

These image was taken with the X-Pro 1 so it shows you really well what I mena by the rendering; the colour and pop is outstanding for an APS-C camera, almost as good as you'd get from a full frame:

[url= https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8623/16080282906_61f543974d_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8623/16080282906_61f543974d_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/quXDT1 ]DSCF30782623_DxOFP[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/34301129@N03/ ]geeturner1972[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7523/15483737864_d5e5d3181f_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7523/15483737864_d5e5d3181f_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/pAfcPE ]DSCF30662627_DxOFP[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/34301129@N03/ ]geeturner1972[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7463/15878895658_ca20c86682_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7463/15878895658_ca20c86682_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/qcaut5 ]Mum[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/34301129@N03/ ]geeturner1972[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7477/15880566107_c1cc61c4dd_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7477/15880566107_c1cc61c4dd_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/qcj42V ]Ethan[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/34301129@N03/ ]geeturner1972[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8620/16103024707_2416bfd506_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8620/16103024707_2416bfd506_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/qwYde2 ]Do you like my hat[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/34301129@N03/ ]geeturner1972[/url], on Flickr

[url= https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8647/16254722872_acf00c3333_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8647/16254722872_acf00c3333_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/qLnGNC ]Posing[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/people/34301129@N03/ ]geeturner1972[/url], on Flickr

Now admittedly, these were taken with a very expensive 50mm prime lens that will cost quite a bit more than even an XE1, but even with the kit lens you'll still get the same look and feel as these images. You'll loose some of the edge to edge sharpness and the background blur won't be as pleasing but it will be a subtle difference.

I've just bought a new Pentax K50 which comes well recommended. It cost me £360 brand new with an 18-55m lens included.
I went for it as I have a number of Pentax lenses from older cameras which can be used on the camera.
People seem to be drawn to Canon and Nikon when there are plenty of other good cameras out there.
Sony DSLRs seem to be well spec'd too.

Pentax are about to release a full frame DSLR and their latest APS-C DSLR has had fabulous reviews.

The 3300 is out now, I have two sat right here at work (also a D750, mmmm, sweet sweet full-frame). We have the 3300s as in image quality terms it's not worth spending more till you spend a lot more (see the D750...)

Decent camera, nothing to complain about really. I don't think you get much benefit for spending extra till you get to the 7xxxx and above. In some ways the software on it is a bit "noddy" compared to the higher end stuff but mostly in the defaults, you can tweak it ok. Frustrating that they could make it better just software wise but don't, but they need to sell the better cameras somehow.

Anyhow, in summary, buy the bottom end one, if the bug bites you then upgrade, rather than dick about in the middle ground. Electronics in general tends to be best at the bottom and top ends. Incredible what you get for the money at the cheap end, and incredible capability at the top end.

These image was taken with the X-Pro 1 so it shows you really well what I mena by the rendering; the colour and pop is outstanding for an APS-C camera, almost as good as you'd get from a full frame:

huge magenta bias in the skintones is hardly “outstanding” is it.
(apologies if the subjects have a skin condition)

Pentax are about to release a full frame DSLR and their latest APS-C DSLR has had fabulous reviews.

'About' is a bit of a stretch. They had a 3D printed camera shaped piece of plastic on display. But the long term promise of another full frame player is good news.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

Quite an interesting read, although it is just one guy's opinion. FWIW I got a D5300 last year and I'm really enjoying it. However, I kind of wish now I'd got the D3300 and put the difference towards another lens / accessories.

It was a close call with the equivalent Canon, I just preferred the feel of the Nikons in hand.

Another full frame offering is interesting, but not really relevant unless the OP sees himself spending the kind of money that a nice used car or very flash bike costs on camera equipment at some point in the future (I have a Nikon D800E and tasty lens set in a bag somewhere close by... and it would cost a mental amount to replace!)

The smaller sensors are getting stonking results now - my backup is a Nikon D7000 which is really damn good and would blow some pro kit only a couple of years older right out of the water, full frame or not. But don't discount going even smaller on sensor size - I am tending to reach for the Olympus OM-D more often than not these days as it is robust, teeny and gives very high quality images.

MPB Photographic currently have an OM-D E-M5 for £334 used, which is what I would be going for. It is a weather sealed, metal body - they are astonishingly good paired with some nice lenses.

[url= http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-compact-system-cameras/used-olympus-compact-system-cameras/ ]Here[/url]

Stick a pancake lens on for something pocketable (in big pockets) or which will pop into a Camelbak in a small case easy as anything and you have a really nice biking camera that can take abuse, but will cut it for anything else you want to do too.

[url= http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/used-lenses/used-olympus-lenses/ ]Lenses[/url]

It is one of those cameras I would have no qualms buying used btw - mine is holding up to serious abuse really well!

Some sample images:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

If portraits are more your bag the Mr McGillcuddy uses OM-Ds to produce work like [url= http://www.damianmcgillicuddy.com/general-showcase/ ]this[/url]

huge magenta bias in the skintones is hardly “outstanding” is it.
(apologies if the subjects have a skin condition)

Well the chap in the second picture down does suffer from eczema, but the other example are just poor PP on my part. I'm still learning how to get colour balance right; honestly I find it the hardest part and in many instances I end up being less worried about verisimilitude and more about whether I like the end result or not.

The Fuji system is also awesomely good - I know a few pros starting to ditch full frame for them. A friend of mine whom runs a photo trekking company has entirely switched now to the X System:

[url= http://thedigitaltrekker.com/ ]Matt Brandon[/url]

I am sure there are a few more Photographer mates of mine using Fuji and Olympus now as their main systems, but the names are escaping me!

Do any STW photographers have any advice?

This is worth reading regarding lens choice. Although written for the 5200, it is a good general summary of lenses on non full-frame bodies.
Choose a Lens for Your Nikon D5200

I last went in 2012 when it was still ‘Focus on Imaging’, but coming up on March 21 – 24 2015 is
The Photography Show at NEC Birmingham

It is a good opportunity to get hands-on with a variety of kit – and usually some bargains / show only prices.

Good site for comparing prices: Camera Price Buster

Also worth considering / budgeting for:
A second battery.
A clear (UV) filter* to protect the lens from dirt / water / fingers etc.

*Purists hate this.

You will be able to take equally good photos with any of the major brands so get to a good camera shop and have a play and buy the one that you like using the most

I favour Canon and Sony over Nikon but it is entirely personal preference.

If you shoot mainly jpeg's then each camera will render the photo a little differently, if you shoot RAW then you can make just about any photo from any camera look how you want (within reason).

Note also that how a photo looks on the little screen on the back of the camera is not necessarily how it will look on a computer monitor or printed out. My advice here would be to take your own memory card, shoot s a few photos with each camera on your short list and have a look at them at home.

Don't get suckered in to the whole this camera goes to whatever ISO or that camera has more megapixels. Any modern dSLR can take good photos or bad ones - Remember the rule - a good photo is 90% photographer and 10% camera.

@GeeTee,

Just wondering what film and colour settings your are at with the colour images above?

On standard my photos look a bit subdued (XE-2)

I'm shooting in RAW so everything is is post production from there. With the X Pro-1 I tend to stick to just a contrast curve and white balance. Sometimes I use DXO Film Pack to covert to Fuji Velvia which is what I think I did in the first two images (and possibly where the Magenta skin tone has come from).

If you are shooting RAW then this is worth looking at :

[url= http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/ ]Fast Picture Viewer[/url]

especially if you take lots of shots and then prune them.

I'm after some advice too. I'm looking for a compact system camera as I want something smaller than a DSLR. I am a total novice. I was looking at the Sony A6000. I know that the A5000 is aimed at the beginner, but I thought if I went for the A6000, it would save me upgrading in the future.

I've a Lumix GF2 and two lenses for sale if that's of any interest to you?

I'm shooting in RAW so everything is is post production from there.

If you're shooting in raw, then the camera really doesn't matter much to the image output - there's some variation in bit depth from the sensor, perhaps a little difference in the sensor filters, but the camera isn't doing any processing on the image. I don't think you can say one camera has more "pop" or whatever - that's all down to in-camera JPG processing.

I use a relatively elderly Sony A900 - it's full frame, can use a massive collection of old Minolta lenses, and is very, very tough. Best thing you can do is visit a shop and try things out. See how easy it is to change settings quickly. Can you change ISO with one button, or is it buried in the menus? Stuff like that.

You can only PP from RAW what the sensor has captured so while in camera raw processing to JPEG may well be a key step, the idea that if you're shooting raw renders the sensor obsolete doesn't ring true to me. Dynamic range is not a function of the processing.

Susie ordinarily I would say buy the cheaper camera (which will be the same sensor) and save the cash to buy a really good prime lens. But in the case of the A5000 I don't think it has a viewfinder and that's not something I would be comfortable without. You may feel different in which case go for the cheaper camera but holding the camera to your eye does help steady things and is a much more enjoyable experience in my view.

That's true of most if not all CSCs though, isn't it? (If you discount the pointless EVF idea anyway.)

Thanks. The view finder was one of the reasons why I was leaning towards the A6000.

Olympus OM-D EM10?

Small, very good, really good electronic viewfinder built into the cam. Definitely one to check out.

I wouldn't dismiss EVFs. Like you I was sceptical at first and some of the older versions of these are woeful but Sonys are excellent and the one for example in the Fuji XT1 is bordering on being as good as an OVF. Not quite but close enough.

But yes, most CSCs have a electronic rather than an optical view finder.

Thanks. The view finder was one of the reasons why I was leaning towards the A6000.

Yes, well worth having a built in viewfinder. The a6000 is extremely good value. Go for it.