# Camera recommendations



## EWC88

So me and my girlfriend are getting more into photography and would like to get a proper camera. Now we are use to point and shoot style cameras, but don't let that hold you back from other styles because we can learn. Camera will be used for a sorts of things such as; vacation pictures, scenery pictures, my girlfriends blogging, and just other basic things. 

With information like that do you guys have any recommendations? Price range would probably like to be under a thousand.


----------



## Geoff

If you're a bit worried about making the jump right to a DSLR, check out some mirrorless cameras.  The Canon EOS-M would be a good choice: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/883304-REG/Canon_6609b033_EOS_M_Digital_Camera_with.html

You will need to purchase at least one other lens though, as this one comes with just a 22mm lens.


----------



## EWC88

Not really worried on jumping into a dslr, I just have heard people say going from point and shoot style to a dslr can be confusing and all. As mentioned I don't mind the advanced change from point and shoot to DSLR, that's what user manuals and Internet is for to read up and learn lol.


----------



## Fatback

Look at some Sony Alpha Models. I have owned the A230, A300, and currently the A33. The thing I like about Sony is that they are compatible with 30+ years of previous Minolta AF lens. Also Sony offers Image stabilization in body so you don't have to pay extra for lenses with it. The only draw back to Sony is you wont find as many accessories as you will for Nikon, and Canon. If you have a Camera store around that carriers all Major Brands Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, etc I would go and try some out. Hold them and see what feels best in your hand. I have always liked the Sony and Canon bodies better but that's just my preference.


----------



## spirit

You could get a Nikon D3200 or D3300 with the 18-55 VR DX and possibly another lens for under $1000. Either would be a great choice. Very well built and great value for money. Quite small and light for a proper D-SLR which is great too.

I've owned a D3200 since December 2012 and been very happy. If you'd like some sample photos, you can look at my Flickr photostream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/ 95% of those are taken with the D3200. Should be uploading some shots from the weekend shortly.


----------



## EWC88

I will have to look at the sony. The only store, that I know of, in my area or close by that does cameras is bestbuy, not sure if they are the best place to go or not.

Spirit I will be checking out your photos and that camera as well. I was lookin at canon when I first started googling, not saying canon is what I wanted it was just the first camera to be shown lol. I do know my father has always been a big Nikon fan, and I always liked his cameras.


----------



## spirit

Yeah I was debating between Canon and Nikon but ultimately went Nikon because I thought the D3200 offered better value for money (and better build quality) than the Canon EOS 600D or 650D (Rebel T-something in the States). Not sure what the 700D is like but I would personally still buy Nikon. 

I'd have a look at the D3300 now since it's newest, but if you can get a good deal on a D3200, go for it. You could look at the D3100 but I'd stick to the 3200 or 3300 now I think.


----------



## voyagerfan99

EWC88 said:


> I will have to look at the sony. The only store, that I know of, in my area or close by that does cameras is bestbuy, not sure if they are the best place to go or not.



Depending on where you are in Jersey, if it's close enough take a trip into NYC and visit the B&H Photo Video Superstore. They're located on the corner of 9th Ave and West 33rd St. They've got millions of dollars in camera equipment and other goodies in their store. I highly recommend checking them out!

I shoot Canon myself - own both an EOS 50D and EOS 7D. They're both very good bodies. I do like Sony's for the fact Fatback mentioned - Optical Stabilization is in the body instead of the lens; kinda wish Canon did that because lenses with Image Stabilization are so much more expensive than their non-IS counterparts.

I do recommend feeling the cameras in your hand to see what is comfortable for you. Some are built better than others. In my opinion, entry DSLR's such as the Canon Rebel like and Nikon cameras like the D3200 feel very cheap and not as durable as say a 50D or 7D. But in the end you can start cheap and upgrade when you feel the need to.


----------



## Geoff

voyagerfan99 said:


> Depending on where you are in Jersey, if it's close enough take a trip into NYC and visit the B&H Photo Video Superstore. They're located on the corner of 9th Ave and West 33rd St. They've got millions of dollars in camera equipment and other goodies in their store. I highly recommend checking them out!
> 
> I shoot Canon myself - own both an EOS 50D and EOS 7D. They're both very good bodies. I do like Sony's for the fact Fatback mentioned - Optical Stabilization is in the body instead of the lens; kinda wish Canon did that because lenses with Image Stabilization are so much more expensive than their non-IS counterparts.
> 
> I do recommend feeling the cameras in your hand to see what is comfortable for you. Some are built better than others. In my opinion, entry DSLR's such as the Canon Rebel like and Nikon cameras like the D3200 feel very cheap and not as durable as say a 50D or 7D. But in the end you can start cheap and upgrade when you feel the need to.


I'm glad Canon doesn't do this, you get much better IS performance on high end L lenses than anything in the body.  It is better for the cheap lenses though.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II has 4 stops of IS performance


----------



## voyagerfan99

WRXGuy1 said:


> I'm glad Canon doesn't do this, you get much better IS performance on high end L lenses than anything in the body.  It is better for the cheap lenses though.



Good point. Didn't think about that :good:



WRXGuy1 said:


> The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II has 4 stops of IS performance



*Drool*


----------



## G80FTW

spirit said:


> You could get a Nikon D3200 or D3300 with the 18-55 VR DX and possibly another lens for under $1000. Either would be a great choice. Very well built and great value for money. Quite small and light for a proper D-SLR which is great too.
> 
> I've owned a D3200 since December 2012 and been very happy. If you'd like some sample photos, you can look at my Flickr photostream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/ 95% of those are taken with the D3200. Should be uploading some shots from the weekend shortly.



This.  I think Nikon offers much better image quality than Canon when it comes to entry level DSLRs.  I spent alot of time deciding between the Rebel XTi and the D3100 I have now.  Both were similar prices but I think the D3100 is a better choice.  I also opted for the D3100 over a D3200 mainly because all the reviews I read said that the lower pixel count on the D3100 allows it to have better night shots or in low light situations so it creates less noise.  I dont know if there is a big difference between the 2 in night shooting, but I was mainly buying one for astrophotography so I wanted the best possible night shooting I could get.

Which I still have yet to buy an adapter for my DSLR to mount it to my telescope, but that will come when I have time to look at investing in a new telescope.

It should also be noted, that with the D3100 kit I bought for $650 I got the standard 18-55 lens and the 55-200 lens neither of which have image stabilization.  It hasnt become much of an issue to me yet, but I would certainly try to get lenses that have that.


----------



## spirit

You can probably get very similar image quality out of both - it's the build quality and expensive prices which put me off Canon. I also tried out the Canon kit lens. Didn't like it too much. I remember it being plasticy and noisy (literally noisy - not grainy). 

If you go Nikon and want an affordable zoom lens, I can recommend the Nikkor 55-300 VR DX ED Glass. It has image stabilization and is a nicely built affordable lens. It's f4.0-5.6, so not the fastest, but still plenty fast enough for animal photography and airshows. See some of my shots below which I've taken with it (excuse the banding in the airshow photos - these are lower resolution for the web. The full res images are much better, believe me):










































It's also quite good for flowers too, producing nice enough bookeh.






You get the idea... you can see more of my shots from the 55-300 here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/sets/72157633401330395/

The 18-55 kit lens is also pretty good too considering it's a kit lens. You can see some samples here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonbrown2013/sets/72157633416782698/


Which Jersey are you located in? The state in the US or the little Channel Island off the coast of France?


----------



## G80FTW

spirit said:


> It's f4.0-5.6, so not the fastest,



Dont mean to derail a bit, but maybe you can quickly explain to me why f stops are referred to as a speed.  Isnt it just the size of an opening for light to pass through? The aperture?


----------



## spirit

G80FTW said:


> Dont mean to derail a bit, but maybe you can quickly explain to me why f stops are referred to as a speed.  Isnt it just the size of an opening for light to pass through? The aperture?



Yes, but with an aperture of f/2.8 (for example), you are letting more light into your lens than you would be with f/4.0, and so you can use faster shutter speeds. This is why sports photographers like to use f/2.8 telephoto lenses - they can use faster shutter speeds which is critical for sports photography. Take a look at the diagram below:






This is why we refer to f/2.8 lenses being 'faster' than f/4.0 lenses - it's because we can use faster shutter speeds with an f/2.8 lens than we can with an f/4.0.

If I'm wrong, somebody correct me! This is something I spent a little while trying to get my head around...


----------



## G80FTW

spirit said:


> Yes, but with an aperture of f/2.8 (for example), you are letting more light into your lens than you would be with f/4.0, and so you can use faster shutter speeds. This is why sports photographers like to use f/2.8 telephoto lenses - they can use faster shutter speeds which is critical for sports photography. Take a look at the diagram below:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we refer to f/2.8 lenses being 'faster' than f/4.0 lenses - it's because we can use faster shutter speeds with an f/2.8 lens than we can with an f/4.0.
> 
> If I'm wrong, somebody correct me! This is something I spent a little while trying to get my head around...



Makes sense to me! :good:

I guess I was just over-thinking it.


----------



## spirit

G80FTW said:


> Makes sense to me! :good:
> 
> I guess I was just over-thinking it.



Yeah I think it's right... still a little wobbly myself though. I'm pretty certain that f/2.8 is faster than f/4.0. But as I said - if I'm wrong, somebody can correct me.


----------



## G80FTW

spirit said:


> Yeah I think it's right... still a little wobbly myself though. I'm pretty certain that f/2.8 is faster than f/4.0. But as I said - if I'm wrong, somebody can correct me.



Well, I was thinking of it as "is the aperture moving somehow? wtf?".  But I can completely see it as a reference to useable shutter speeds.


----------



## Fatback

If I was going to spend $1k I would probably go with a set up like this.

Sony Alpha SLT-A58 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/924688-REG/sony_slt_a58k_alpha_slt_a58_digital_slr.html

Sony 50mm f1.8 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/622190-REG/Sony_SAL50F18_SAL_50F18_50mm_f_1_8_DT.html

or the 35mm f1.8 if you want wider http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731697-REG/Sony_SAL35F18_DT_35mm_f_1_8_SAM.html

Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423729-REG/Tamron_AF017M700_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_Di_LD.html


That would come to around $865 add about $50 if you choose the 35mm over the 50mm. Still plenty of room left to get yourself a nice bag to put it all in and some extra batteries. Something like that would be great for what you need. A lot of versatility there. You would have your wide-angle for those landscape and group shots. The 50mm or 35mm is a great lens for portraits or night life photography. Then you got the zoom for when you need some more reach whether it be wild life or shooting the moon.

Keep in mind this is just my personal opinion. Everyone here is going to have a different opinion. Nikon fans are going to say buy Nikon, Canon fans around going to say buy Canon, etc. You best bet is to find a camera store go and test out some bodies then go from there. You can always decide on extra lenses later.


----------



## spirit

^ That would be a great setup!

You could probably do a similar setup with the Nikon D3200 if you wanted. The D3200 and the 18-55 lens is just under $500 from B&H. The D3300 and the 18-55 is just under $650. I would probably advise you spend the $150 difference on a lens, since there is not a lot of difference between the D3200 and the D3330 and good quality lenses will give you a far greater increase in image quality than going from a D3200 to a D3300 will. It's also nice to have the versatility. 

But the Sony setup would be a good choice too. I agree with Dale on going to a shop and trying them out. We've given you some options, have a look (in person) and see what you think of each.


----------

