Budget entry level dslr
- Thread starter hseplak
- Start date
gilfredpaul
Active Member
Nikon d3100 good entry level dslr. But long zoom lenses will put hole in your pocket. If your are more specific about zooming many digital compact cameras can do this in less budget.
nshankar
Active Member
In Canon, EOS1100D. 70-300 or 55-250 lenses are available as part of kit sometimes, check your local market.
Hi, I was thinking on similer lines,to get a compact camera to do zoom, but our some learned forum members coerced me to think otherwise and go for dslr camera which i at this moment don't want.
Thanks.
ranjeetrain
New Member
Buy a Nikon D3200 + Nikon Nikkor AF-S DX 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 VRII. You will not NEED to upgrade next 4-5 years unless you decide to turn pro.
just4kix
Well-Known Member
With the most basic D-SLR (Canon, Nikon, etc.) with an 18-55 mm lens will be Rs. 27+ k.
The most basic D-SLR will take outstanding picture will outshine 95% of P&S cameras. The disadvantage is size, bulk and cost. But if you are serious about photography, D-SLR is the way to go.
But do note ...
The average photographer worries about equipment and paraphernalia ...
...... a good photographer worries about the right moment and scene.
Professionals have produced award winning photographs using the simplest cameras.
The most basic D-SLR will take outstanding picture will outshine 95% of P&S cameras. The disadvantage is size, bulk and cost. But if you are serious about photography, D-SLR is the way to go.
But do note ...
The average photographer worries about equipment and paraphernalia ...
...... a good photographer worries about the right moment and scene.
Professionals have produced award winning photographs using the simplest cameras.
Hi, Many thanks for replying,but is nikon d3200 an upgrade of d3100?? And at what price will i get it?
apk
Well-Known Member
Hi,
From my experience in using SLRs (in the film era) and DSLRs more recently, I would definitely say that if you are serious about SLRs then you should put your money into good quality lenses. Any good DSLR body from Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Olympus (APS size or full frame) which can support your lenses should suffice. You are investing in a system, consisting of a body and many lenses. Yes, a kit lens is good to start with, but if you are open to experimenting, buy a body (Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Olympus are all good) with a 50mm prime lens (which usually go for around Rs 5000) and you will get very good results to start with. As you gain more experience, you can expand into buying wide angle, telephoto, macro lens, etc.
I have been using Nikon systems for the past 10 years and am very happy with Nikon. I will not change to another brand since I have too many good quality Nikon lenses, but if I had started with Canon/Pentax/Olympus, I would have been equally happy.
Ultimately, it is not the tool (camera) that matters; it is the person behind the camera that makes a good picture.
Best,
APK
From my experience in using SLRs (in the film era) and DSLRs more recently, I would definitely say that if you are serious about SLRs then you should put your money into good quality lenses. Any good DSLR body from Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Olympus (APS size or full frame) which can support your lenses should suffice. You are investing in a system, consisting of a body and many lenses. Yes, a kit lens is good to start with, but if you are open to experimenting, buy a body (Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Olympus are all good) with a 50mm prime lens (which usually go for around Rs 5000) and you will get very good results to start with. As you gain more experience, you can expand into buying wide angle, telephoto, macro lens, etc.
I have been using Nikon systems for the past 10 years and am very happy with Nikon. I will not change to another brand since I have too many good quality Nikon lenses, but if I had started with Canon/Pentax/Olympus, I would have been equally happy.
Ultimately, it is not the tool (camera) that matters; it is the person behind the camera that makes a good picture.
Best,
APK
Hi, Rightly said,no doubt dslr cameras are the best to take good pictures but who wants to be bitten by the upgrade bug??? Who has the time and money??? I don't think i want to be a pro.atleast now!! Maybe later.... Point and shoot compact camera with zoom feature will suffice for now.
Thanks.
Shivam
Well-Known Member
Buy the lens that you want to use and then buy the cheapest body you can find to mount and use that lens.
Unlike what people usually do, I always recommend buying a lens first after having tried it on someone else's camera.
If you want to go the Nikon way, buy a D40, D80 or a D200 body (in good condition with low shutter count or maybe NOS). Choose among these depending on the lens that you buy and then click raw. Post-process all your images and you'll have picture quality at par with the latest dslr models.
Unlike what people usually do, I always recommend buying a lens first after having tried it on someone else's camera.
If you want to go the Nikon way, buy a D40, D80 or a D200 body (in good condition with low shutter count or maybe NOS). Choose among these depending on the lens that you buy and then click raw. Post-process all your images and you'll have picture quality at par with the latest dslr models.
ranjeetrain
New Member
D3200 is a big jump from D3100, even as D3100 is no slouch itself. D3100 price has fallen a wee bit since D3200 came to the market. But even if you go for D3100, you wouldn't go wrong.
The price difference is not much either.
I would have gone for a used dSLR. That will reduce my investment, let me know what I really want to shoot.
Digital SLRs has less moving parts than a film SLR and so are more reliable. Sensor get dust and can be cleaned. But on the other hand dSLR bodies can be had for much less compared to their street price.
If you do not want A3 or bigger prints, hardly will do night photography and print them big, look for Canon G1X, Nikon P7100. If you more into street, candid, macros and not into sports and birdings, try out Sony Nex cameras. They are amazing for versatility and have amzingly fast sensors. You can use many good old lenses if you do not mind manual focus and know the trick of zone focussing.
Digital SLRs has less moving parts than a film SLR and so are more reliable. Sensor get dust and can be cleaned. But on the other hand dSLR bodies can be had for much less compared to their street price.
If you do not want A3 or bigger prints, hardly will do night photography and print them big, look for Canon G1X, Nikon P7100. If you more into street, candid, macros and not into sports and birdings, try out Sony Nex cameras. They are amazing for versatility and have amzingly fast sensors. You can use many good old lenses if you do not mind manual focus and know the trick of zone focussing.
gilfredpaul
Active Member
Nikon or cannon both are good for DSLR. But I would suggest you to buy body with focus motor. Nikon d3100 doesn't have this.
apk
Well-Known Member
+1 to that. The difference between a good quality lens (as in pro level - prime or zoom) and a consumer quality lens is noticable even on an entry level body, whereas with a low quality lens you will not find much difference between an entry level and a high end body
I have been using a D80 for the past 5 years. Would definitely recommend this model if you can find a good quality used one or a NOS (New Old Stock)
Just one point to keep in mind - Some of the entry level Nikon models (D40, D3XXX etc) do not have build in autofocus motor in the camera body. What this means is that if your lens does not have an autofocus motor built into the lens, then you will have to manually focus. Lens with autofocus motors are usually more expensive. Just something to keep in mind. You will find similiar issues with other brands too (Canon, Pentax etc)
Last edited:
You should all read this thread:
http://www.hifivision.com/general-lounge/26136-essence-photography.html
Cheers
http://www.hifivision.com/general-lounge/26136-essence-photography.html
Cheers
apk
Well-Known Member
If you are not keen on a DSLR then do not go for it. It is an investment, both in terms of money and time. Just getting the DSLR will not make you a better photographer.....you will have to spend time to get to know you camera controls better, experiment with options such as Depth of Focus, White Balance, ISO etc and will have to invest in time for taking photos and analyzing them. I have seen many friends buy DSLRs out of curiosity (or hoping that the DSLR would make them better photographers) and ended up discarding these because of the commitment required.
Many of the P&S cameras today will give you good pictures which will easily serve the purpose for most non-serious photographers.
HT SME
New Member
Strongly recommend that you check out the new Nikon D3200 for an entry level DSLR.
Del
Del
ranjeetrain
New Member
No entry level DSLR has focus motor built-into body. For that he will have to at least look for a semi-pro model.
milestoneseeker
Active Member
First point - Which one do you prefer - Nikon or Canon? I cannot speak for Sony I have not been exposed to the DSLRs of Sony. While it is subjective, it is said that Canon's image processing tends to "over saturate" the colors. In other words, you may see very "green" green than usual. It is not necessarily a bad thing and some like it to. Gives "vividness" to the snaps.
So decide which characteristic works better for you. And you need not be a professional to figure this out ... just look at the photos shot by equivalent cameras in the shop.
Post that, go figure if you really need DSLR. If you do not think this will ever go beyond the need to have a super zoom, then don't bother. Nothing hurts more than buying a DSLR and then sticking to plain kit lenses. As people mentioned, it is an expensive hobby and go for DSLR only if you wish to do justice to the equipment.
If you do feel compelled to buy a DLSR then I would NOT recommend a Nikon D3200 and would rather recommend the 5100. It has a better sensor and provides for a longer upgrade cycle than 3200. Of course, it is more expensive too (35-36k - body only)
Nikon does better in low light photography than Canon. This is not to say than Canon is not good ... it is plenty good, infact!
Remember, a DSLR makes sense only if you are willing to invest in additional lenses and are willing to pick up the technical nitty-gritties of photography. No point in buying a DLSR and then using it as a point & shoot (as I have seen quite a few relatives of mine do so).
So decide which characteristic works better for you. And you need not be a professional to figure this out ... just look at the photos shot by equivalent cameras in the shop.
Post that, go figure if you really need DSLR. If you do not think this will ever go beyond the need to have a super zoom, then don't bother. Nothing hurts more than buying a DSLR and then sticking to plain kit lenses. As people mentioned, it is an expensive hobby and go for DSLR only if you wish to do justice to the equipment.
If you do feel compelled to buy a DLSR then I would NOT recommend a Nikon D3200 and would rather recommend the 5100. It has a better sensor and provides for a longer upgrade cycle than 3200. Of course, it is more expensive too (35-36k - body only)
Nikon does better in low light photography than Canon. This is not to say than Canon is not good ... it is plenty good, infact!Remember, a DSLR makes sense only if you are willing to invest in additional lenses and are willing to pick up the technical nitty-gritties of photography. No point in buying a DLSR and then using it as a point & shoot (as I have seen quite a few relatives of mine do so).
Get the Wharfedale EVO 4.2 3-Way Standmount Speakers at a Special Offer Price.
