What’s a good entry DSLR camera ?

32
Found 13th Feb
I have no experience with these cameras but I do like good photo quality, I would mainly be using it for holidays and family photos and if I go anywhere with good scenery. I was looking at the Nikon D3300 but someone mentioned it not having bluetooth. So a few features I would like are bluetooth (does sending pictures by bluetooth lower the pic quality?) LCD screen, good for beginners, preferably a Nikon or Canon, 1080p video and hopefully under £500. Anymore info I might need to know as a beginner would be great or any mistakes you made buying your first camera that you wish you hadn’t, thanks.
Community Updates
AskElectronics
32 Comments
I'm no expert on these thing but me and the missus have just bought our first dslr-canon eod 1300d for 380 and it came with 2 lenses. The lenses might not be the best but we've found it to be a really good camera
*eos*
Saw this recently and was quite tempting. I've currently got a 8-9 year old Canon EOS d400 and was tempted by this as an upgrade. Especially with £100 off.

hotukdeals.com/dea…218
Consider a smaller camera ! DSLR are a bit big to just take out for casual use.
I would recommend 16mp olympus m3/4 with touch screen . Sony nex are small too.
I love taking photos of everything..... so I too wanted a nice DSLR.. not because I considered the quality to be ''so much better'' but to look less weird, I always feel super touristy/ weird if I just used a compact digital camera haha.. so I wanted to look more ''professional''? yeah I'm weird, ok cool..

So I got myself a canon eos 1100d (which is very much as entry level as it gets) - I picked up a refurbished one from eBay with the standard 55-80mm lens (i think) I have since bought myself several lenses and still find I like to stick to the basic one.I paid roughly about £120 for it, in my honest opinion, fantastic deal.
It looked like new, came boxed and even had a warranty, so wouldn't be bothered about forking out for a brand new one off the shop floor.
I then bought lenses from CeX (I find Sigma lenses a good deal rather than Canon because of the price mainly).Now and again you can spot a good deal from Canon on Amazon too.

Also, in regards to the comment that they're too big, I don't agree.. you can just hang it around your neck.. I often even carry mine with a huge lens and a tripod, still hanging around my neck..

If you want a decent camera that is more compact then I recommend this wilkinson.co.uk/can…BwE or something similar..
but you're going to compromise on that steady zoom and clarity imho
DSLRs have a lot more customiseable attributes to them, personally I haven't ever learnt enough about mine to use it to it's fullest
Avatar
deleted1597344
Have you considered a bridge camera?
If you are after a DSLR, then realistically, you will be looking at Canon or Nikon. Both are similar in terms of quality, so either would be a good choice. However, when starting out you should consider that you are investing in a system, rather than a camera, so look at the lenses/accessories available for both before deciding on which to go for. If you own a DSLR and you want to improve the quality of your photography, then buying better lenses is almost always better than buying a newer/better camera and so over a lifetime of photography, it will be the lenses which make the most difference.
Personally, I would say that if bluetooth is that important to you, then a DSLR might not be the way to go. My Nikon produces files of about 30mb for the highest quality setting, and I don't think that size of file is useable in many situations that bluetooth would be involved in.
I don't use Canon so can't comment, but you have correctly identified the Nikon D3300 as being the most suitable beginner DSLR in the Nikon line up.
bingebunny1 h, 48 m ago

I love taking photos of everything..... so I too wanted a nice DSLR.. not …I love taking photos of everything..... so I too wanted a nice DSLR.. not because I considered the quality to be ''so much better'' but to look less weird, I always feel super touristy/ weird if I just used a compact digital camera haha.. so I wanted to look more ''professional''? yeah I'm weird, ok cool..So I got myself a canon eos 1100d (which is very much as entry level as it gets) - I picked up a refurbished one from eBay with the standard 55-80mm lens (i think) I have since bought myself several lenses and still find I like to stick to the basic one.I paid roughly about £120 for it, in my honest opinion, fantastic deal. It looked like new, came boxed and even had a warranty, so wouldn't be bothered about forking out for a brand new one off the shop floor. I then bought lenses from CeX (I find Sigma lenses a good deal rather than Canon because of the price mainly).Now and again you can spot a good deal from Canon on Amazon too.Also, in regards to the comment that they're too big, I don't agree.. you can just hang it around your neck.. I often even carry mine with a huge lens and a tripod, still hanging around my neck.. If you want a decent camera that is more compact then I recommend this https://www.wilkinson.co.uk/canon-powershot-sx620-hs-black/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxKe39tyi2QIVrr3tCh0tLwEoEAQYAiABEgLbofD_BwE or something similar.. but you're going to compromise on that steady zoom and clarity imhoDSLRs have a lot more customiseable attributes to them, personally I haven't ever learnt enough about mine to use it to it's fullest


Thanks for the detailed reply, I’ll look into that
Edited by: "jayonline85" 13th Feb
deleted159734413th Feb

Have you considered a bridge camera?


I was looking at these due to the size of a dslr but I wasn’t sure about picture quality compared to a dslr, wasn’t sure if they are way off on quality. Also not sure what would be a decent bridge camera. Any recommendations I can look into?
Pandamansays44 m ago

If you are after a DSLR, then realistically, you will be looking at Canon …If you are after a DSLR, then realistically, you will be looking at Canon or Nikon. Both are similar in terms of quality, so either would be a good choice. However, when starting out you should consider that you are investing in a system, rather than a camera, so look at the lenses/accessories available for both before deciding on which to go for. If you own a DSLR and you want to improve the quality of your photography, then buying better lenses is almost always better than buying a newer/better camera and so over a lifetime of photography, it will be the lenses which make the most difference.Personally, I would say that if bluetooth is that important to you, then a DSLR might not be the way to go. My Nikon produces files of about 30mb for the highest quality setting, and I don't think that size of file is useable in many situations that bluetooth would be involved in.I don't use Canon so can't comment, but you have correctly identified the Nikon D3300 as being the most suitable beginner DSLR in the Nikon line up.


Thanks for the info, I’ll remember that about lenses. Bluetooth is not massively important as it’s only a quick cable to plug in so I’ll take this off my list of features required , thanks
Bluetooth isn't used for file transfer anymore because its junk, you'll see most have WiFi now, although it's a bit of a gimmick imo.

I have an old 1000D with a few lenses (kit 18-55mm, Canon 50mm F1.8 & a Tamron 70-300mm) and have got some great pics.
Avatar
deleted1597344
jayonline851 h, 23 m ago

I was looking at these due to the size of a dslr but I wasn’t sure about p …I was looking at these due to the size of a dslr but I wasn’t sure about picture quality compared to a dslr, wasn’t sure if they are way off on quality. Also not sure what would be a decent bridge camera. Any recommendations I can look into?


I have a Panasonic 60x optical zoom bridge camera and to me the quality is amazing without the hassle of carrying bulky lenses. I guess it depends what you want/need the camera for.
dcx_badass2 h, 34 m ago

Bluetooth isn't used for file transfer anymore because its junk, you'll …Bluetooth isn't used for file transfer anymore because its junk, you'll see most have WiFi now, although it's a bit of a gimmick imo.I have an old 1000D with a few lenses (kit 18-55mm, Canon 50mm F1.8 & a Tamron 70-300mm) and have got some great pics.


Is it not worth bothering with WiFi then to send pics, I suppose this feature would also raise the price of the camera.
Sony
My first DSLR was a canon 550D, great camera and I'm certain you can get something similar for a couple of hundred.

Picture quality will not really improve much based on the body. It's really down to the lense quality. Which isn't going to effect a newbie.

I would skip the low range Nikon, my ex had the D3000 and it was a s*** camera. Everything was hidden in pointless menus and took a year to change basic settings.

I'm unsure how the d3300 is, but I'd stick to Canon based on the experience I've had out of the low/mid range.

Grab yourself a budget 50mm 1.8f lens as well. They are a nice starter prime lens to mess around with.

Sadly I can't recommend camera models. As I've not followed the low end range and I currently have a Canon 70D.
I personally would go for Nikon if you're not used to them, menu is a bit confusing. Anything cannon or one of the neat Fujifilm camera. Might be able to get a second hand X-T10 now
kos1c1 h, 38 m ago

As I've not followed the low end range and I currently have a Canon 70D.


To me the 70D is "low end range" haha. It's a great little camera though (I have one), and I'd recommend it to the OP. It can be found for around £500 on ebay, it has wifi, and it'll do HD video. Install Magic Lantern on it and you'll have even more features/options. Much better IMHO to buy used DSLRs, and put the money you save towards lenses. A good lens will always hold it's value better than a DSLR, especially if you buy used and take good care of it.
traylee1 h, 57 m ago

To me the 70D is "low end range" haha. It's a great little camera though …To me the 70D is "low end range" haha. It's a great little camera though (I have one), and I'd recommend it to the OP. It can be found for around £500 on ebay, it has wifi, and it'll do HD video. Install Magic Lantern on it and you'll have even more features/options. Much better IMHO to buy used DSLRs, and put the money you save towards lenses. A good lens will always hold it's value better than a DSLR, especially if you buy used and take good care of it.


I was considering sub £350 low end. And anything around £750+ mid range. With the high end being the Mark sets/full frame.

I've had my 70D for years now. Was around £1100 when I got it. At the time it was a decent mid range. Not sure now as I've not followed photography in a good while.

But I wish I took the 5D Mark ii instead for that little bit extra.
Edited by: "kos1c" 13th Feb
I would also recommend you think about a bridge camera.

To be honest, I found the larger the camera, the less likely I am to take it anywhere as I just don't want to carry it.
I would recommend a mirrorless camera: Sony A6000. Extremely compact, tough, with an excellent image quality and the option of interchangeable lenses. It’s great.
You are only going to get opinions but that's to be expected. I give you my penny's worth


I just think Fuji lenses have the beating of Nikon, Canon and Sony at any price point. I think the Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4.0 is pretty much the best kit lens available at sensible prices. I think if you bought that lens with a Fuji X-E2 body secondhand from eBay you could would have a brilliant piece of kit for not much money. I find most Fuji cameras require more thinking, they are slower to use, but I believe that lends itself to a better photography. Don't get me wrong, a top photographer will quite rightly tell you all the reasons to choose a DSLR, but fr what you want it's not a necessity.

In any case, the right choice will be your choice. Cameras with interchangeable lenses is the way to go, and whilst I do like Fuji, your lens choices With Nikon and Canon will be far greater.

Here's an honest review conclusion of the Fuji
Edited by: "OllieSt" 13th Feb
eos 70d is a dinosaur well past it's sell by date.
I got an oly e-pl5 buy-it now ebay for £100
dxomark.com/Cam…839
I have some nex/alpha and d3200 (hardly use) I like canon sx50 superzoom for daytime , a fun camera ~£100 used
ebay.co.uk/sch…684
New iphone camera is not that bad.
zzzz1 h, 6 m ago

eos 70d is a dinosaur well past it's sell by date.


Thanks for opening my eyes. Guess I'll have to bin all my 20ds, 5ds, 1dsmk2s, 30d, and my 70d now that I know that..
I'm just going by the sensor performance - it is not very good.
With most expensive models you are paying for controls,dials,switches and buttons - maybe even weatherproofing.
People do debate dxo scores but a difference of 10 is definitely noticeable.
The cameras you mention are way behind todays models just look at these pages -
dxomark.com/Cam…191
dxomark.com/Cam…000 - sub £400 on offer

Really though , the gear has to be just good enough and the rest is down to the photographer.
Edited by: "zzzz" 14th Feb
zzzz30 m ago

I'm just going by the sensor performance - it is not very good.


Really? What exactly is it not good enough for?
I didn't say anything was not good enough. I said not very good.
I said that the gear really only has to be just good enough and the rest is up to the photographer.
Look at this another way , who uses 15 year old mobile phones now ?
zzzz12 m ago

I didn't say anything was not good enough. I said not very good.I said …I didn't say anything was not good enough. I said not very good.I said that the gear really only has to be just good enough and the rest is up to the photographer.Look at this another way , who uses 15 year old mobile phones now ?


People who worry about this need to take more photos

I've got film cameras from the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's, are they not very good too?
Edited by: "OllieSt" 14th Feb
Not in low light I guess.
I have many manual lenses ,several 50/f1.4 's that I use on my sony's.
Unfortunately they are way behind modern lenses like Nikon 35/1.8 or sigma 30/2.8.
I believe the instructions on the box brownie were spot on.
Edited by: "zzzz" 15th Feb
zzzz14th Feb

I didn't say anything was not good enough. I said not very good.I said …I didn't say anything was not good enough. I said not very good.I said that the gear really only has to be just good enough and the rest is up to the photographer.


I knew pros who used to use the 20D (announced in 2004), and I'm sure some (including myself) still use them. They are just as good now as they were in 2004. Good enough for pros, so why wouldn't a much more recent iteration (70D - announced in 2013) be good enough for the OP?

The 70D is just one iteration behind the current X0D iteration (80D - announced in 2016), and the 80D is not leaps and bounds better than the 70D. If anything, its perhaps 3-5% better, if you had to quantify it, and I doubt most casual users would even notice any real difference. I would bet that for 95% of shots the OP would be using it for, even using a 20D the OP would not see much difference between it and an 80D aside from the large difference in resolution.

Even with that difference in resolution, the 20D still more than enough to post good looking pics on social media or even to make reasonable sized prints that look great. Sure it would struggle with any sort of action in low light, but something like the 70D could help a bit there, and you'd be hard pressed to find anything significantly better in that department with out spending significantly more than the OP proposed. Besides, good low light performance is MUCH more dependent on having fast lenses than it is on the camera itself.

I do agree though, much depends on the photographer, and knowing the limitations of their tools. With that in mind, the 70D is a very capable camera in the right hands IMHO, and few would feel limited by it unless they had a very specific application in mind. I don't think that's the case here?

I don't think comparing DSLRs to mobile phones is a very good comparison, but if you want to go down that road, then I'll bet that if I dug out an old mobile phone from 15 years ago, bought a new battery/sim, it would probably work just as well as it did 15 years ago. If you mean a phone with a camera, then again it's not a great comparison. Mobile phone cameras were pretty dire back then (resolutions like 800x600), barely usable from a creative point of view.

A 15 year old DSLR on the other hand, the 10D for instance, had 3072 x 2048 resolution, which was good enough for most uses. Mobile phone camera tech has progressed much faster than DSLR camera tech over that time partly due to how quickly electronic components have shrunk in size, which has more impact on compact devices like phones. DSLRs have not benefited quite as much, although the improvement over that time is still significant, but likening 15 year old mobiles to the less than 5 year old 70D makes no sense.

Fine by me if you want to think that way though. If it were not for people like you thinking like that, I would not be able to pick up perfectly good cameras for a fraction of the price people like you paid for them, and put the cash I save towards better lenses/other supporting gear. It's never bothered me that I'm slightly behind the curve, although there have been rare occasions when I've actually required something only a relatively new camera could do. Even so I usually wait till something is at least a couple of years old and has lost perhaps 1/2 it's value, unless someone was paying me, in which case it might make sense to pay a premium.
zzzz17 h, 9 m ago

Not in low light I guess.I have many manual lenses ,several 50/f1.4 's …Not in low light I guess.I have many manual lenses ,several 50/f1.4 's that I use on my sony's.Unfortunately they are way behind modern lenses like Nikon 35/1.8 or sigma 30/2.8.I believe the instructions on the box brownie were spot on.


So you're now into guessing. Have a look at the Contax G system as just one example
Edited by: "OllieSt" 16th Feb
But what about the OP's question ?
Are you recommending Contax g system for him ?
Edited by: "zzzz" 17th Feb
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants