# What do you recommend for beginner?



## Tasneem (Apr 4, 2011)

Hello

I never owned SLR camera, and i think it's the time to get one, but i'm confused between four cameras:

1- Canon 60D (the plastic thing scares me)
2- Nikon D7000 (little expensive)
3- Nikon D5100 (will be announced today)
4- Canon 600D


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 4, 2011)

What plastic thing on the 60D scares you? The swivel screen?

If you can afford it, Get the 60D. I think it feels better in the hands that a rebel. The rebel's grips are really small. If you don't care then the rebel T3i should be fine (the 600D) for starting out. I don't know too much about Nikon's models, but if there are specific features you are looking for, tell us and we can make a better recommendation.


----------



## kubelik (Apr 4, 2011)

hi tasneem, welcome to the forum. my thoughts on your 4 choices:

1. Canon 60D

don't let the plastic thing scare you. my wife has a dinky little Rebel XTi that she flogged rather mercilessly ... still in working order today. unless you are willfully abusing your camera (and I rarely see anyone do that), there's no reason to get stressed over the build quality of the 60D. it's an excellent camera with some great capabilities that I've had no qualms about recommending to my friends, and they've been very happy with it.

2. Nikon D7000

excellent camera, I can't speak for the price. only you know how much you can really afford to spend. to me, in all honesty, if you are a beginner, get a cheap camera and learn with it and abuse it. one of two things will happen with ANY of these bodies: 1) you will outgrow it and upgrade as your skills improve, or 2) you will find that it is just right for you and happily use it for a long time. they are all fantastic choices, so ... pick what works. save the money for a better lens, or for multiple lenses, that's what will bring you real joy in photography and allow you to shoot differently than everyone else out there with a kit lens.

3. Nikon D5100

rumors are rumors. from what I've seen, this did not drop today. everyone on the forum knows how I feel about waiting to buy gear ... buy what works for you and I doubt you'll regret it.

4. Canon 600D

also an excellent camera, for a great price. choosing between this and the 60D can be hard since there are so many similarities. I'd say go to a store, and see which one feels better. I would pick the 60D for two very simple reasons: viewfinder size, and AF module. both of these are vastly better in the 60D and worth the slight uptick in price. but again, you pick your price range.

don't discount going online and shopping for older cameras. the Canon 50D is still an awesome camera at a great price. the 550D is equally a very great camera for the price. In fact, you could go a generation older (40D or the XSi) and still get a fantastic camera. despite owning and mostly shooting with my 5D Mark II, I have no problems with picking up my old 30D and taking some great photos, nor do I have any hesitation to shoot with my wife's current T2i (550D). learn the art of the photography, not just the specs of the camera.

good luck and have fun shooting.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 4, 2011)

Good answers. The only thing I would add is: Don't buy a camera system based on one particular model.

If you get serious about photography, the camera body itself will only be the first of many purchases. And, no matter what body you buy, it will be replaced with a newer, flashier model soon enough. So, think about what you want to do with your photography and what lenses and other camera accessories you'll likely want to purchase. 

Consider the whole package before buying.


----------



## EYEONE (Apr 5, 2011)

Based on those four options I'd recommend the 60D. The Nikon D7000 is a very good camera too but I like Canon's lenses better than Nikon's. As you already said, you are buying into a system. 

The 60D may be plastic but it isn't fragile.


----------



## Tasneem (Apr 5, 2011)

@Macadameane: I mean by plastic that the body is made from plastic rather than metal.
Most of my photography will be indoors.

@kubelik: Old models cost more than the new (50D is $100+ more than 60D)

@unfocused: You're right, every year several new camera bodies released, so the real issue is about the system i'll choose. I think i'm going Canon.

@EYEONE: I'll take it. the 60D.

Thank you all for your good replies.


----------



## K3nt (Apr 7, 2011)

Tasneem: Welcome. Please, come back to this forum. I'm new to this still and I have enjoyed all the info and tips from the more experienced guys immensely. Without this forum I don't think I would've gone DSLR (or Canon) anytime soon. 
But now, there's no going back, I just wish this L-fever would go away..


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

Tasneem said:


> @Macadameane: I mean by plastic that the body is made from plastic rather than metal.



Doh! I should have realized you were talking about it in general. Thought you were talking about some "thing" on the camera.


----------



## NormanBates (Apr 7, 2011)

I hardly ever shoot stills, it's mostly video for me, but my father does stills, and I recently had to get him a 50D and sell his 500D because of the lack of microadjustment

he was complaining that there was something wrong with the camera or the lenses, and everything came out blurred; he compared with images from a friend's 5D2, then complained to me, I run some tests, and it's a backfocus issue, present with all his lenses (with manual focus I could get sharp images, but with autofocus -center point only- everything came out soft)

I also tested my 550D, and a 40D, and none of them is able to consistently deliver sharp images unless I focus manually

my conclusion: if you're using autofocus, microadjustment is an absolute must

and none of those canons have microadjustment; I'd say go for a second-hand 50D, or look at some other brand


----------



## Tasneem (Apr 8, 2011)

Do you think $700-$800 is acceptable price for a second-hand 50D body?


----------



## Lionelai (Apr 11, 2011)

:-[ I have no idea..





______________________
ps3 controller, xbox 360 controller, wii accessories, wii remote


----------



## K3nt (Apr 11, 2011)

From what I can see the 50D bodies seem to go for something in the 600 - 750 USD range. Ebay had some interesting deals.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 11, 2011)

I'm sure some people will call me crazy but I would recommend to anyone who wants to go the SLR route to first pick up a decent old film camera, one or two lenses, a few books, and to learn the basics that way.

Stuff can be had dirt cheap - even cameras and lenses that used to be very expensive. And it can be easily sold again without losing any money I suppose. That way you can learn what your preferences are and if you're really willing to drag around a SLR plus lenses, etc

The only risk is that you may end up liking certain things that are a little more pricey in the DSLR world than your average Rebel kit from Costco.


----------



## K3nt (Apr 12, 2011)

You're right. You're nuts! ;D

I see your point, however, at least where I live, finding film and someone to do development of it is a) hard b) very costly. Almost no one has film for sale any more, only specialist stores and they charge you in blood for it. The gear may be cheap, but not using it.

It's close to using checks, I don't think I've seen a check since the late 80's.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 12, 2011)

K3nt said:


> You're right. You're nuts! ;D
> 
> I see your point, however, at least where I live, finding film and someone to do development of it is a) hard b) very costly. Almost no one has film for sale any more, only specialist stores and they charge you in blood for it. The gear may be cheap, but not using it.
> 
> It's close to using checks, I don't think I've seen a check since the late 80's.



See, I knew somebody would call me nuts ;-) And probably rightly so. And actually, I see checks all the time - and find that equally ridiculous. 

And unfortunately, you are right about the limits in film availability, places that process (or what that call processing these days...), the cost, and the pretty dismal output you get from all negatives being cheaply scanned and send to one of these horrible printers these days. None of this comes even close to how things used to be.

BUT: I still think you learn a lot about taking pictures. With a few rolls of film in your bag at 36 exposures a pop you think at least twice before pulling the trigger given the cost and complications. If you can translate that later into the digital world I personally think it's an exercise well worth the effort. Very disciplined and determined people can do this maybe right away with a digital SLR.

The other part I was getting at is how wrong it is that we are still being force fed the notion that "full frame" is only for pros and snobby rich people. I think there is something very wrong with the fact that beginners on a budget learn photography these days in a cropped format where all the standards and numbers are off. I know, people (rightly) said that also when "35mm" became widely used. It is like checks in that sense. And I'm obviously old.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> I think there is something very wrong with the fact that beginners on a budget learn photography these days in a cropped format where all the standards and numbers are off.



I'm not sure this matters, except that we often use FF equivalents for comparison purposes. In the film days, 'pros' used MF cameras, and numbers were 'off' for them. Ultimately, though, the principles of composition and light are still the most important.

On a related topic, do you advocate that beginners start their post-processing the way I learned it (and probably you as well)...when 'dodge' and 'burn' weren't tools you clicked in Photoshop, but were cards and wands waved around in a darkroom?


----------



## Rocky (Apr 12, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> K3nt said:
> 
> 
> > You're right. You're nuts! ;D
> ...


Both of you have apoint. I would suggest the following approach.
Get a used 40D or even 20D with a cheap used 17-55mm lens. That will allow you to explore the DSLR and learn the technique with mininal cost. There is another catch about people moving from point and shoot (or small camera) to DSLR. Some people may not be able to get use to the bulk and weight of the 'New" DSLR. I have at least two friends are having their DSLR sitting in the closet for the same reason. I do not quite understand abour the statement of "all numbers are off for the crop snesor". Are you refering to the DOF or something else. Anyway. you can lean a lot about photography with a cheap used DSLR sysytem. Just do not form a habbit of clicking without thinking.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 12, 2011)

Both of you have apoint. I would suggest the following approach.
Get a used 40D or even 20D with a cheap used 17-55mm lens. That will allow you to explore the DSLR and learn the technique with mininal cost. There is another catch about people moving from point and shoot (or small camera) to DSLR. Some people may not be able to get use to the bulk and weight of the 'New" DSLR. I have at least two friends are having their DSLR sitting in the closet for the same reason. I do not quite understand abour the statement of "all numbers are off for the crop snesor". Are you refering to the DOF or something else. Anyway. you can lean a lot about photography with a cheap used DSLR sysytem. Just do not form a habbit of clicking without thinking.
[/quote]

I agree with you and these are most of the points I was getting at with my outlandish suggestion. Weight and size of such cameras being one concern. And yes, I was referring to the DOF difference (probably a new experience for people coming from P&S anyway) and also the fact that focal length in fact has a factor on on cropped sensors. No big deal really.

But I think starting with the kind of used models you suggest is certainly a viable approach. I would even consider a simple prime instead of one of those entry level zooms, like a basic relatively fast 35mm lens (on cropped). I still love the exercise at times of just taking my camera and a 50mm lens and nothing else.


----------



## branden (Apr 13, 2011)

I honestly believe the entry level Digital Rebel is the best place for beginners to start. It offers basic versions of all the digital photography technologies in a simple, cheap, and easy to use manner. It comes with a basic lens that takes you through all the standard focal lengths, and adding a EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS takes you up into the super-telephoto range for cheap, with a matching lens quality. This is where I started years ago, and this is still today how Canon has designed their lineup, and by my estimation they've put a lot on the line betting this is the best starting place. An EOS body is a very versatile base that can be used for almost all types of photography.

I do understand your point about shooting film, which is where I started way back in high school. But I also remember hating it, and being frustrated by the amount of time and effort that went into developing a crappy image. Digital allows a photographer to punch out photos extremely quickly, which allows the photographer to experiment and adapt much, much quicker. Some would say this automation and instant results will result in not really learning photography basics, but those people probably wouldn't have had the patience for film in the first place. 

As for your comments regarding the size and weight of SLRs, I don't know, there are a lot of film and digital SLRs out there, and I only have four of them, but both my film SLRs are significantly lighter and smaller than my digitals.


----------



## ssbuchanan (Apr 13, 2011)

A beginner should start with a 1D with a fast lens. Why? Well, you're going to spend less money starting with that than buying a 550D, growing out of it, buying a 70D, growing out of it, buying a 5DMkV, growing out of it, then finally getting the 1D. You could've just started with the 1D in the first place 

Same idea for lenses - nobody wants the cheap kit lenses, so you'll get no resale, so you may as well start with L lenses.


----------



## akiskev (Apr 13, 2011)

Get the 550d or the 600d with a decent lens and you will be fine!!!


----------



## endigo (Apr 13, 2011)

It depends.

If you are not sure if this hobby is something that you want to spend thousands of dollars on, then the 600D is a fine camera and will take you a long way.

If you are serious about entering this hobby, and you are confident that you will continue to enjoy this hobby for a long time, then I recommend that you go down the list of Canon cameras (This is a Canon forum) and imagine buying each camera, when the price starts to hurt, buy that camera. Be sure to keep the box, and all of it's contents in good condition. If you later decide that the camera is just collecting dust, the upper end cameras do hold their value for several years.


----------



## skitron (Apr 13, 2011)

Just went down this road for my niece...used XTi with kit lens $320. I've seen what that body can crank out with L glass and it is impressive. So if she shows promise I'll get her a couple of the well regarded non-L primes and she'll have no barrier due to equipment for a good while...and I'm not out much coin.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2011)

endigo said:


> If you later decide that the camera is just collecting dust, the upper end cameras do hold their value for several years.



Yes, if you go high enough. But that really means $2500 for the 5DII, which typically goes for $2000-2200 on the used market, meaning a depreciation of 12-20%. There are a few 7D's on my local Craigslist for $1000-1200 - that's a loss of 30-40%. And those are for current cameras - once a new version comes out, used prices drop. Sure, you can sell an original 5D for ~$1000, but when new that body was more expensive than the 5DII. That's a main reason the lower-end cameras don't hold value - new models come out much more frequently. 

I think if you are unsure if this is the hobby for you, get a used dSLR - the 50D or even 40D would be a good choice there. Buy a good lens (or two).


----------



## foto (Apr 13, 2011)

I am also a beginner and got the 60D. I took some pictures outdoors and indoors. I was dissapointed with my indoor pictures. Can anyone advise me what is worth buying, maybe some dvd or book to improve my skills in taking pictures?


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 13, 2011)

foto said:


> I am also a beginner and got the 60D. I took some pictures outdoors and indoors. I was dissapointed with my indoor pictures. Can anyone advise me what is worth buying, maybe some dvd or book to improve my skills in taking pictures?



Were you using the onboard flash? Photography is about light, so it is important to get the light right, and the camera will do a excellent job. Too little light usually results in the camera lowering the shutter speed, and getting a blur in the photos.

I can recommend this web site for training, its done by a pro who knows his stuff. It is not for total newbies, but you likely know enough. They have a 60D specific course. They also have a beginner course, but its a massive 11 session course.

You can see the indroduction online free. You can also download the course and save it to a DVD for future reference.
http://www.creativelive.com/courses/ $50.00


----------



## K3nt (Apr 14, 2011)

As a beginner I was trying to get my head around this whole DSLR thing too and I found this set to be very good:
Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Boxed Set: v. 1, 2 & 3 

His humour is sometimes a bit, well, dry but he explains things in a very understandably way without getting too technical. I then got a much more technical book to follow up, but what a great start. Now I know what aperture and shutter speed to use when, how I use my flash (430EX II) etc... Good stuff.


----------



## ronderick (Apr 14, 2011)

Well, I started my exploration with Kelby's Digital Photography books too (I think it was volume 2).

It's good for people who wants to be spared of the basic "Intro to Photography 101" approach. There's some pretty direct concept in the book which I still use (for example, the three key factors of landscape photography - tripod, wired release, and mirror lockup). Of course, those concepts could found on other books, but I just like the way the author puts all of those in simple language and quickly accessible. 

However, there's one drawback: he's a Nikon shooter! That's blasephemy!


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 14, 2011)

foto said:


> I am also a beginner and got the 60D. I took some pictures outdoors and indoors. I was dissapointed with my indoor pictures. Can anyone advise me what is worth buying, maybe some dvd or book to improve my skills in taking pictures?



I don't know much about using high end flashes, but you could probably use a faster lens. The 50mm 1.8 is a cheap fast lens that is relatively sharp and gets good reviews (though the build quality is cheap).

Having a faster lens will allow you to crank the ISO lower and get pictures that are less noisy. Additionally, shoot RAW and use a gray card. With the gray card you can get the white balance just right. There is no good way for the camera to detect WB, but it tries to guess. Under Tungsten lights, this can be problematic. If you don't have a gray card (or a pretty accurate gray object), just adjust the white balance on the computer until it looks better.

I need to get a gray card, but in the meantime, I have a Sketchers shoe box with a medium gray surface that works great.


----------



## K3nt (Apr 14, 2011)

ronderick said:


> However, there's one drawback: he's a Nikon shooter! That's blasephemy!



I agree, that was the biggest letdown..  But, seriously... Good books, easily accessible. Just the other night I needed to quickly refresh what settings I needed to use when taking a shot of the moon and it took me less than a minute and I was ready. I did a comparison to one of the 500 page-monster books I have, took me about 10 minutes to find the location and the it rambled on about a bunch of technicalities, all I wanted was a suggested shutter and aperture. 
The monster-book is great in explaining the actual workings of stuff, but for quickly finding suggested settings it is not the right place.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 14, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is something very wrong with the fact that beginners on a budget learn photography these days in a cropped format where all the standards and numbers are off.
> ...



Good points. But in all seriousness, yes, I think the latter wouldn't be a bad way to understand things - and appreciate the good things about digital while also getting a feel for its limitations, perhaps?


----------



## Rocky (Apr 14, 2011)

K3nt said:


> ronderick said:
> 
> 
> > However, there's one drawback: he's a Nikon shooter! That's blasephemy!
> ...


I can recommend a cheap, concise and GOOD book. "National Geographic Photographer's Field Guide". ($4.95, at least used to be). with pictures, examples etc. It is 120 pages, 4' X 8" fits into any coat pocket.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 14, 2011)

Rocky said:


> K3nt said:
> 
> 
> > ronderick said:
> ...



There's usually some interesting things to be found poking around here as well: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/photography


----------



## skitron (Apr 14, 2011)

foto said:


> I am also a beginner and got the 60D. I took some pictures outdoors and indoors. I was dissapointed with my indoor pictures. Can anyone advise me what is worth buying, maybe some dvd or book to improve my skills in taking pictures?



Based on my very recent experiences with two different 60d bodies I'd recommend this (it's free):

http://focustestchart.com/focus21.pdf

The issue for me on both bodies was front focus with all lens. Outside in bright light, the lens will stop down (if using program modes) and give a large depth of field which masks the problem. Inside with low light, the lens opens up and the problem becomes more noticable. The faster the lens, the more the problem manifests (as apeture opens and DOF gets shallower).


----------



## branden (Apr 14, 2011)

ronderick said:


> for example, the three key factors of landscape photography - tripod, wired release, and mirror lockup


These are the three key factors? How about, composition, a polarizing filter, and a small aperture?


----------



## ronderick (Apr 15, 2011)

branden said:


> ronderick said:
> 
> 
> > for example, the three key factors of landscape photography - tripod, wired release, and mirror lockup
> ...



Hey, it works for me when I was taking my first step into landscape photography. If I had to read an entire chapter on composition, I'd probably get through about 3 pages and call it quits. For a slow learner like me, it took a little while even to get these three things down correctly *shrug*

Complicated terms tend to scare newbies, and that's the reason why I like this series: short, terse, to the point, and relatively few complicated terminology.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 16, 2011)

1. Begin at the beginning.

2. A journey of a thousand kilometers begins with a single step.

3. A picture is worth a thousand words.

4. Do not walk a mile for a Camel.

5. Every place is walking distance if you have the time.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2011)

distant.star said:


> 5. Every place is walking distance if you have the time.



Hawaii?


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 16, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Every place is walking distance if you have the time.
> ...



I think you have to take enough time for the oceans to dry up so you can walk


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 16, 2011)

Both Nikons will have way better Iso performance, canon will offer slightly better video and won't have af in video mode...
The d7000 really is a big step up from the 60d in my mind, altought I think starting out with the 5100 or 3100 would be the best since you could invest in better glass (more important than the body and keeps the value). Canon imo is out of the game since they try too hard to impress with the high megapixel count... The best thing you could do to start of with a limited amount of money is getting the 3100 or a used camera like the d90 or d5000 and get something like the 17-55 2.8 from nikon or the best you can afford that suits what you want to do... 

Oh and don't listen to people that say the nikon glass is not as good as canon', both brands compete at a really high level, altought nikon is often a bit more expensive.


----------



## distant.star (Apr 17, 2011)

You guys can't walk on water?

Well, as Dirty Harry said, it's good to know your limitations.




neuroanatomist said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > 5. Every place is walking distance if you have the time.
> ...


----------



## jhanken (Apr 18, 2011)

Depending on how quickly you want to be taking pictures versus the depth with which you want to learn about photography, I almost think as a first camera, you might want to get an older one with fewer video gizmos and artistic photography modes. I don't say that because the are no good (they can be really cool), but because you may want to strip photography down to the bare essentials, force yourself to focus on why you would want a certain aperture or shutter speed, whether you want flash or not based on the lighting situation, etc. I was all jonesing for the 60D to be released so I could purchase one as my first DSLR, and I am sure I would have been very happy, but instead I bought a used 5D (not 5D II) with a full frame sensor for about the same money. I also got a 24-105MM f/4 L lens, and a 430EX flash as part of the deal (not included, the whole package was about $2k). I think I am the better for it, but then again I am the guy that wants to master the technical aspects before I even start focusin on improving composition, etc.


----------

