DSLR camera recommendation

Forums › Digital Imaging › DSLR camera recommendation

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13765 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#303402 8-Feb-2023 07:52

While I enjoy taking photos, I've not yet owned a "real" camera, and always borrowed one when going to events such as car shows etc.

I'm hoping to change that in next few months.... but I'd like some input.

Lets say I have $1500 to spend on my first DSLR - what do I look at ?

I'm not picky on brand, but have used Canon most of the time
Min. 12MP
Spare batteries easily obtainable (prob want 3 in total)
Suitable lens for taking images of moving objects (ie: cars)
Suitable lens for general zooming (if a single lens can offer both lens reqs, great) - not wanting to see the man on the moon ;)

Already have lots of storage, tripods, bag, etc.

A kit like this maybe ? https://www.100percent.co.nz/cameras/1300DTKN/Canon-EOS-1300D-Twin-Lens-Kit.html

I am NOT after the latest and greatest, just something I can get good results with when out on family trips and at the race tracks :)

TIA

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

1 | 2

1571 posts

Uber Geek

#3033211 8-Feb-2023 08:12

If this is something you'll get into (or think you'll get into), save some money on the body and buy better lenses. Bodies improve over time far more rapidly then lenses.

Start with a "kit" where you get the body and a lens (or sometimes a couple of lenses). The lens will be "adequate" to get going. As you advance you'll find the limitations of the lens and want to "upgrade". Maybe thats a longer telephoto lens or a shorter macro lens.

IMHO: a better lens > more advanced body.

As for "what to buy starting out"... to be honest I've no idea whats out there these days :) Sorry! But if you look at Canon or Nikon you'll be sweet. You will pay a price premium, however, buying lenses or getting things serviced will be far easier.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3033215 8-Feb-2023 08:43

Just checking if you’re totally wedded to the SLR format, or if you’ve considered a micro 4/3rds or other format camera like a Sony Alpha?

With the same benefits of being able to swap lenses, full manual control and decent image quality, they are also signficantly more compact and lighter than an SLR - with a standard lens one of these is really not much larger than a moderately sized point-and-shoot.

nitro

656 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3033223 8-Feb-2023 09:04

there's a lot of advantages in going brand new, especially this being your first time to dive into serious photography gear. the 1300D certainly is no slouch! however, if you've decided to go on the dslr route (rather than mirrorless), there's a lot of them available on trademe and even fb marketplace as people move to mirrorless.

with $1500, shopping used, i'd consider a body up to $600 and the rest on a good lens.

obviously, there are risks with these things, e.g. warranty... and you might not be confident enough with some things that you might have to deal with when buying used, like having to clean the sensor. i've bought 2 different systems off tm just to try them - a nikon 1 (to try mirrorless and it's video capabilities), and a D600 to try full frame. i had to clean the sensor of both cameras, but i got the opportunity to try them first-hand, at a decent cost. i still have both and use them today, while i scrounge around for pennies towards full-frame mirrorless.

still want new? for the same outlay, i'd get this one instead - canon-eos-200d-mark-ii.

Handsomedan

7281 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3033225 8-Feb-2023 09:07

I got a Canon 1300D as my first DSLR. I got the same kit as what you have linked.

Whilst it was capable of taking good photos, I wasn't. I used it for a few years, but the sheer volume of settings etc was just not for me.

I've gone back to a bridge camera and gifted the DSLR to my son.

My son actually really enjoys using it and has now started looking at more expensive lenses to play with for street photography.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

wellygary

8312 posts

Uber Geek

#3033228 8-Feb-2023 09:12

Just be aware of the terms you use...

Strictly "DSLR" is a digital camera with an optical viewfinder, the light image is reflected by the mirror which then moves out of the way when the photo is taken,, ( this results in the shutter sound you hear)

Most of the big camera companies are now limiting or ending development of further DSLR cameras, and moving to "mirrorless" which replaces optical viewfinders with digital screens,

https://expertphotography.com/are-dslrs-dead/

Now the lenses and fitting will likely stay the same and allow a path to replace a DSLR with a mirrorless body in the future while retaining the lenses you have...

if you are going to a camera shop its just useful to be aware that both DSLR and mirrorless bodies look pretty much the same and do the same thing, but are called different things...

Scott3

3963 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3033253 8-Feb-2023 10:19

Canon is the dominant brand in the DSLR space, so can't really go wrong with it.

But with a $1500 budget, avoid that 1300D kit.

The xxxxD series have had features stripped (and lacks Diopter adjustment, which is essential if a user wears glasses). an 800D or 850D is a much better body for not much more money.
The EF18-55 III is very entry level. It lacks image stabilization and has a rotating front element (problematic if you want to run lens hoods, or polarising filters). Oddly a different lens is in the photo to the one described in the text. The STM lens that comes with the used 800D below is much better.
The EF75-300 MKIII has a poor reputation. It is an old lens dating back to film days, and again lacks image stabilization. The latest 55 - 250 EF-S STM IS lens has a much better reputation and is not excessively expensive

Would you consider going used?

----------------------

As an example, the below is a Canon 800D, with a EF-S 18-55mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens & EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM lens, great condition, buy now $1200 (pickup in Auckland)

https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/electronics-photography/digital-cameras/digital-slr/canon/listing/3984102776

Additional batteries are $70 each at pbtech for genuine (LP-E17), knock off's can be had for $26+shipping at photoshack.

$50 for a 64gb, 200MB/s SD card, and you are go to go.

I own the 800D, and both the above lenses (and some other lenses + flash also). The 800D is now a generation old, but remains a good enthusiast body.

-------------------------

If you are willing to stretch your budget a little, you could get the 850D, which is the latest cannon enthusiast level DSLR body.

Below is $1250 start price, no reserve for the body and the 18-55mm STM lens.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/electronics-photography/digital-cameras/digital-slr/canon/listing/3978502245

+ $285 shipped for the 55-250 STM lens

https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/electronics-photography/camera-accessories/lenses/canon/listing/3984296292

-------------------

If you want to only run a single lens, there are lens options available. (but you do loose some zoom range, and a touch of image quality for the convenience of not swapping lenses).

For example the below Canon EFS 18 - 200mm F3.4 - 5.6 IS for $400 used.

www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/electronics-photography/camera-accessories/lenses/canon/listing/3984784241

---------

Other considerations:

Going mirror-less. At APS-C sensor size, the sony alpha range is the most popular one in the market. I don't know about them.

Cannon has it's M series, and a couple of bodies in it's R series (latter well out of your budget). M series is more focused on being compact, but they have the same sensor's as the DSLR APS-C canon camera's, and if you want can run EF/EF-S lenses via an adaptor.

Going for an ultra-zoom. These have smaller sensors, and non removable lenses. you give up some image quality, but gain a comically massive zoom range. for example the Coolpix P1000.

jonb

1771 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3033280 8-Feb-2023 11:00

I've been looking at the price range and below for a few months and eventually got a Sony a6100 mirrorless with 16-50 kit lens for $750 on TradeMe. If you haven't had a Sony before the menu system is convoluted and hard to learn. Can then buy the 70-200 F3.5-6 lens for $200-300 used, for car events photography. The a6400 is slightly better and easier to buy new, but then running out of budget for a longer zoom lens.

My other serious contender was the Canon M50 Mark II - the lens system has been discontinued now but there are enough different ones already that you would likely ever need. I too would avoid the EOS 1300, or the similar ones sold as EOS 'Rebel' overseas.

Else something like Fujifilm X-T20 or T30 was another good ones from my recent research.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MarkM536

309 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3033562 8-Feb-2023 15:52

I went to a mirrorless camera. It's awesome in low light and wickedly fast for photo bursts. Great for action photography like wildlife and sports.

I got a Sony Alpha series camera and some extra lenses. Compact yet mighty, this is one of my photos:

This photo was taken on a DSLR camera for comparison (Nikon or Cannon, I can't remember when I was talking with the photographer).

(Copyright: Wayne Martin - Times paper, photo is loaded from: https://www.times.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Northpark-Ave-Northpark0009.jpg).

www.times.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Northpark-Ave-Northpark0009.jpg

cshaun

401 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

#3033769 9-Feb-2023 00:43

I've had a Sony A6300 since release, with the kit lens and 2 additional prime lenses I've purchased (+tripod and lighting).

I agree with previous comments RE mirrorless vs DSLR.

There's a fair bit of learning, plus editing RAW images to get the most out of a 'proper' camera.
One of the things I often struggle with is getting the settings just right for the particular situation in the time required to still capture the moment. I bought it primarily to take photos of my kids. Also reliably getting perfect focus can be tricky (kids!). Newer more expensive cameras are much faster and nail focus to whichever eye you prefer - very impressive.

I'm not too sure I'd really recommend buying under this price point. I assume you're just really after getting 'decent photos', and not really wanting to take up photography as a hobby? As a hobby there's constant learning and improving, and an endless rabbit hole of gear and accessories.

A decent phone camera, like say this or last generation Pixel phone will probably more consistently take better photos than a budget camera. Have a look at comparisons or YouTube videos comparing...

If you learn to use a proper camera, and can work around it's quirks and limitations, sure it'll win. There's just more light, bigger, better optics/lens etc, it has the advantage. But computational photography on smart phones really does do wonders. It often gives you results comparable to a 'proper camera', that was used correctly, and edited, and perhaps with a tripod and other gear. But you're talking about hand held, in the hands of a novice, with a few seconds of effort to frame the shot, vs someone that's skilled, with additional gear and editing.

As an example my A6300 with a prime lens takes fantastic photos if outside with good lighting and you nail the focus. You'll see all the skin pores and those almost invisible face hairs etc and you're just blown away at the level of detail. But take it to somewhere like Snowplant, and I struggled. There's not enough light while trying to capture fairly fast moving subjects.

Anyway pros and cons and just something to consider. Really depends on what you're after, and your use case. Better gear can help, but doesn't automatically take great photos, you need to know how to best use it, and there's a bit of an art to composition and framing etc.

xpd

Geek @ Coastguard NZ
13765 posts

Uber Geek

Retired Mod

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3033789 9-Feb-2023 07:47

Thanks for all the comments.... I'm open to all technologies :)

I have a Samsung A72 phone which takes decent pics but to use at a track with media accreditation, I'd be laughed at ;)

My main goal is to have something that offers some form of optical zoom allowing me to be able to get closer shots of vehicles on tracks, animals at the zoo etc at a decent resolution.

If there are fixed lens solutions out there, then I'm open to those, but have read that a lot of those are not great for sports style photography due to the delay on them zooming and focusing.

I did use a Sony fixed lens (will dig up model) a few years back which I was really impressed with and took some great shots, but at $2k at the time, it was out of my reach (was my bosses camera). :)

So it is a hobby to a degree, just not a full time one :)

Gavin / xpd / FastRaccoon / Geek of Coastguard New Zealand

LinkTree

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3033790 9-Feb-2023 07:53

I used to be a professional photographer. I used Canon DSLRs for years. I switched to Nikon 6 or 7 years ago and my in-focus keeper rate went WAY up.

$1500 is basic hobbyist level, with a kit lens. For a decent camera and a long zoom like you're looking for $5K would be a minimum at a guess. The 4/3 systems might be cheaper as they have less materials.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3033792 9-Feb-2023 07:59

I'd reiterate a key point made by a number of posts above: it's important to have realistic expectations of the photos that you'll get from these cameras 'out of the box' compared to photos taken on phones with their significant amount of post-processing that produces a ready-to-consume image. By comparison, photos taken on a traditional camera often require post processing on a computer (even if using automated software) to deliver the same 'pop' you may be expecting. Even then, it's not hard to identify which photos in our collection were taken with my mirrorless vs a phone.

TBH, this is one of the reasons I don't use my Sony Alpha as much as I should. But this thread has got me inspired to get back to using it - or at least downloading all the photos I took on my Xmas holiday! (At least setting up the wireless transfer, which while clunky at least manages the need to copy via SD card.)

Handle9

11386 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3033799 9-Feb-2023 08:16

Your budget is tricky, especially if you want good levels of zoom. Glass is expensive and camera systems aren’t cheap to get into.

You’re pretty much either looking at the used market or a super zoom type camera. For your use case a super zoom is probably the best bang for buck. It’ll come in well under your budget and give you the money for your accessories. It’s a dead end as far as expandability but something like this will give you very good results.

https://www.photowarehouse.co.nz/shop/shop-by-product/digital-cameras/point-and-shoot/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz300-digital-camera/

If you go for a camera system the Sony alpha series gives you a lot to of third party lens options. They have their problems but they have very good market share so that gives you options.

dazzanz

214 posts

Master Geek

#3033803 9-Feb-2023 08:19

I have a Fuji XT30 and I can only recommend Fuji. You get great photos direct from the camera with Fujis amazing colours, I rarely edit mine further. Their lenses are also excellent.

Handsomedan

7281 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#3033823 9-Feb-2023 09:22

Handle9: Your budget is tricky, especially if you want good levels of zoom. Glass is expensive and camera systems aren’t cheap to get into.

You’re pretty much either looking at the used market or a super zoom type camera. For your use case a super zoom is probably the best bang for buck. It’ll come in well under your budget and give you the money for your accessories. It’s a dead end as far as expandability but something like this will give you very good results.

https://www.photowarehouse.co.nz/shop/shop-by-product/digital-cameras/point-and-shoot/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz300-digital-camera/

If you go for a camera system the Sony alpha series gives you a lot to of third party lens options. They have their problems but they have very good market share so that gives you options.

This is exactly the camera that I moved to from a DSLR - has enough of the manual controls available should I want to use them, but it's a great "point and shoot" option, too.

I use it to take photos of sports, travel, nature etc. It has the ability to go full auto for the no-fuss approach, plus has good enough manual controls to get a bit more creative.

Having a massive zoom and good stabilisation helps.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

1 | 2