Need a new camera

[cleanshaved]

I'm in need of a new camera as my old canon power shot is shot. No power.
I have not made my mind up on what to get but are leaning towards a DSLR camera.
So hope you guys can help with a bit of guidance here.
I'm looking for a entry level camera or a mid range at the most. This with be used by a novice who just wants to play and get good photos.

DSLR

brands, what brands are good.
megapixels how many to go for. It seems they are always going up.
Lens. Some come with body only and other with one or two lens. I'm guessing two is a good start, what sizes would you advise.
Any other things to consider?

Mirrorless Cameras.

Would these be worth a closer look at, given my needs/wants? I only knew that they existed after surfing a few sites to see what is out there to buy.
A quick look at these shows they are lighter but lack the range of lens available. This sounds like it is improving?
Any thoughts on these as a alternative to a entry level DSLR?

 

[malocchio]

You left out the most important part , what is your budget ?

 

[Chapinahat]

I shoot A77, then bought A6000 - half the price. IQ is definitely there or better in some parts. Next purchase will be 18-105m f4 G - lightweight, high image quality for less than £1k

 

[cleanshaved]

You left out the most important part , what is your budget ?

I left that out as I'm in New Zealand, so the cost of the same camera is different. I was hoping the entry or mid range would be a good guide as to indicate what I'm looking at.
Maybe as a guide, so far my eye has been drawn to a Nikon 3300 for entry level and a Nikon 5500 (mid range for entry?)

 

[PeteB]

I left that out as I'm in New Zealand, so the cost of the same camera is different. I was hoping the entry or mid range would be a good guide as to indicate what I'm looking at.
Maybe as a guide, so far my eye has been drawn to a Nikon 3300 for entry level and a Nikon 5500 (mid range for entry?)

Those are both great cameras. You wouldn't loose much in image qual or functionality to get a something older in the same line of 5xxx or 3xxx series and put the saved money into better lenses. Or anything from Canon or Sony in a similar budget will get a very good camera. Try some equivalents in a shop, see what fits your hands better and feels better to use. They will all pull off similar results. Shops and fanboys might tell you different but thats the truth really.

A big thing to consider that new photographers normally overlook is good lenses. Cameras are expensive and come with a kit lens, but if you want to get the best out of the camera, you need a good lens or two. Normally, a prime (fixed zoom) are better and cheaper than zoom lenses. A 35mm prime will knock the socks of a kit or regular zoom lens, for less cash too.

 

[shaveitoff]

I have a humble D3300 and I love using it. It is an entry level model, but it has many more features than my older entry level Nikon DSLR that I bought in around 2008. I bought the body only for the D3300, since the kit lens from the older Nikon was working fine. You can take good sharp pictures with a kit lens, even though many people seem to dump on them. I generally use Nikon's 18-200 lens, but primarily because of the flexibility it gives me, not concerns that a kit lens isn't good enough. I also have a prime 35 mm lens from Nikon that I pop on from time to time. It only cost about $180 Canadian. It is extremely light (as is the D3300 body), and can get you razor sharp results if you ask it too, especially when on a camera like the D3300 which has no anti-aliasing filter.

When I went from my old camera to my new camera, I did think about mirrorless, but the D3300 is quite small. By the time you add a lens to the mirrorless body, you are looking at roughly the same size. So I just stuck with a camera format I was familiar with.

I think the reality is that any entry to mid level DSLR or mirrorless will is capable of getting good image quality.

Do you have any specific type of photography that you do a lot? If so, that might lead you to buy a camera/lens that is particularly suited for it. I'd say get to a camera shop and get them in your hands to see what you respond to.

 

[malocchio]

Don't get sucked into the "more pixels is better" game for starters.I would consider Canon and Nikon to be the best bets,every year one outdoes the other, so do side by side comparisons,they are both excellent cameras.I chose the Nikon D-7000 because it has a semi metal body,and that's a big plus for keeping dust and moisture out when in desert or tropical areas.I also chose it because a full frame camera was not in my budget limit,but if you can afford it , that's the way to go.

 

[bberg100]

The Nikon mirrorless series (the wife has one - J-1) has an adapter to allow use of many of the later Nikon DSLR lens, including the anti-vibration and auto focus. It takes fantastic pics. I have a D-300s and a bag full of lenses, if I was starting over, the mirrorless would be my choice. Much lighter, lenses are much more compact than the equivalent DSLR lens.

 

[Blue_2]

Lots of good points here. It would be hard to go wrong with Nikon, Canon or Sony. I also agree that some older versions (ex. D5200, D3200) can save you money and still get the same image results.

As far as lenses, the best bang for the buck is the "Nifty Fifty". A 50mm f/1.8 (if you go Nikon, the 35mm f/1.8G) is capable of outstanding image results, is small and lightweight, and is on the cheaper side of lenses. Because of their popularity they also tend to plentiful on the used market.

 

[cleanshaved]

A big thing to consider that new photographers normally overlook is good lenses. Cameras are expensive and come with a kit lens, but if you want to get the best out of the camera, you need a good lens or two. Normally, a prime (fixed zoom) are better and cheaper than zoom lenses. A 35mm prime will knock the socks of a kit or regular zoom lens, for less cash too.

Thanks, a good lens is what I'm keen on. With that said I don't want to go all out with this, so one all two general use seems a good start.
I may look at adding or changing lens later on after I have a good play.

I have a humble D3300 and I love using it. It is an entry level model, but it has many more features than my older entry level Nikon DSLR that I bought in around 2008. I bought the body only for the D3300, since the kit lens from the older Nikon was working fine. You can take good sharp pictures with a kit lens, even though many people seem to dump on them. I generally use Nikon's 18-200 lens, but primarily because of the flexibility it gives me, not concerns that a kit lens isn't good enough. I also have a prime 35 mm lens from Nikon that I pop on from time to time. It only cost about $180 Canadian. It is extremely light (as is the D3300 body), and can get you razor sharp results if you ask it too, especially when on a camera like the D3300 which has no anti-aliasing filter.

When I went from my old camera to my new camera, I did think about mirrorless, but the D3300 is quite small. By the time you add a lens to the mirrorless body, you are looking at roughly the same size. So I just stuck with a camera format I was familiar with.

I was thinking the size difference in the DLSR and mirrorless is small. Good point on when they have the lens on them being similar in size.

Don't get sucked into the "more pixels is better" game for starters.I would consider Canon and Nikon to be the best bets,every year one outdoes the other, so do side by side comparisons,they are both excellent cameras.

Yes the pixels do seem to be climbing.

The Nikon mirrorless series (the wife has one - J-1) has an adapter to allow use of many of the later Nikon DSLR lens, including the anti-vibration and auto focus. It takes fantastic pics. I have a D-300s and a bag full of lenses, if I was starting over, the mirrorless would be my choice. Much lighter, lenses are much more compact than the equivalent DSLR lens.

Thanks I check the lens adapter.

As far as lenses, the best bang for the buck is the "Nifty Fifty". A 50mm f/1.8 (if you go Nikon, the 35mm f/1.8G) is capable of outstanding image results, is small and lightweight, and is on the cheaper side of lenses. Because of their popularity they also tend to plentiful on the used market.

Thanks, that sounds like a good fit.

 

[Cash_Stronomer]

Really pleased with my 'Nifty Fifty' on my Canon T5! I'm sure a Nikon with a 35 would be terrific too! By the way, the Canon T5 I got came bundled with a case and the standard 18-55 lense for $498.

 

[cleanshaved]

Really pleased with my 'Nifty Fifty' on my Canon T5! I'm sure a Nikon with a 35 would be terrific too! By the way, the Canon T5 I got came bundled with a case and the standard 18-55 lense for $498.

I think the T5 is known here as a Canon EOS700D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_700D It is quite common with electronic goods to have different model numbers in different countries.
Now I just found one here and it is a couple hundred more than the Nikon D3300. It does look just want I'm after but the Nikon looks a better deal for me.

 

[Cash_Stronomer]

Actually on the box it EOS 1200D. I'm sure it's not much different. But yeah, they had a Nikon that was more or less the same for a bit cheaper here too, I was tempted but I went with Canon purely because of lense reviews.

 

[Andy]

I picked up a near new Nikon D3100 (with an absurdly low shutter count) and 18-55 lens on ebay a while back for a nice price.

Only an entry level model, but performs well.

Also picked up a Sigma 70-300 telephoto lens for less than AU$150

For around AU$400 I ended up with a pretty good kit, now if I could only learn to use it

Couple of sample photos:

 

[Cash_Stronomer]

I don't man, I think you've learned! Eternal practice never hurts though!

 

[Legion]

I would suggest a D3300 from what you have said. They may be a bit hard to get your hands on at the moment in our part of the world (Earthquake in Japan broke Sony's sensor factory, and that has effected some of Nikons production), but if you can hold out until the end of the month when stock should be reaching our side of the Earth, that camera is pretty good bang for the buck with a standard kit lens.

Also, I don't know if you get to Aus too often, but it will be cheaper here, plus you will get the tax refunded to you when you leave. And all the plugs will be the same.

You will have to spend a couple of hundred more to get a mirrorless with comparable picture quality.

 

[cleanshaved]

Thanks everyone. I came home with my new camera today.
I went with the Nikon 3300 bundled with a 18-55mm VRII lens, plus a Tamron 18-200mm lens, carry case, lens filters and 16GB SD Card.
Charging up now.

I will look at other lens options after having a good play with what I have now.

 

[Andy]

Thanks everyone. I came home with my new camera today.
I went with the Nikon 3300 bundled with a 18-55mm VRII lens, plus a Tamron 18-200mm lens, carry case, lens filters and 16GB SD Card.
Charging up now.

I will look at other lens options after having a good play with what I have now.

That's a great piece of kit! Congrats!

 

[Cash_Stronomer]

Awesome! Congrats! Telephoto so you can do birds

 

[cleanshaved]

That's a great piece of kit! Congrats!

Thanks Andy. The first charge seems to take forever.
The wife wanted a ukulele, so I hit her up about getting the camera. Well she said OK so no mucking around before there was a change of mind....