Buying a DSLR

[Siddhant.]

Hi, I am a complete amateur in photography and have never owned a DSLR or an advanced P&S. The last camera I owned was a Sony Cybershot DSC W-350. My brother owns a DSLR and he takes some really fascinating pictures. I like photography but never took it up as I needed a good camera first.
I would like to know if I should or should not get a DSLR as there are many new features coming up in the sector of cameras. And if I should get one then which one. I should get a good DSLR with 18-55mm lens or a cheaper DSLR with a better lens. My budget is 40k max.
Thanks!

 

[The Incinerator]

If you love photography then DSLR is your answer to it. To start with get an mid entry level DSLR to learn,coz these have a very good guide feature and almost most of the features of a Pro DSLR. What you will miss in the entry level bodies is some advanced Metering and fast FPS options,among some other features.But that wont really effect you at all in the intermediate stage ,trust me.

Choose a Canon 600D or a Nikon D5100 initially and then move on to better bodies as you learn. Of the two the Canon has a better guide for beginners .

 

[sujoyp]

I would suggest a D5200 now ....D5100 is old ....get D5200+kit and learn /read books/take tips

 

[The Incinerator]

D5200 is at best 38K, I think the 600D with two lens ie 18-55 and 55-250 will be around Rs 36500 and IMO would be a better start up kit in that price range,what do you think?

 

[raja manuel]

Can't you just borrow your brother's DSLR for some time and see if it is something you can live with? Whether a DSLR is for you or not depends a lot on the kind of photography you will do with it.

 

[digit.sh]

I would suggest a D5200 now ....D5100 is old ....get D5200+kit and learn /read books/take tips

Being old doesn't mean its bad. His budget is 40K and D5100 is the best bang for buck. The best combination I can think of, in his budget is:

D5100 + 18-55VR kit --- 26K
35mm 1.8G DX lens --- 8k

Total --- 35k max. The 5K he saved, can be used later to buy accessories like tripod/better bag/memory card or battery.
Or, he may even buy 55-200 f/4-5.6 VR lens which costs 7.5k or so.


@Op,
The two cameras are almost similar and one year from now, D5200 will be priced similar to how D5100 is priced now. The sensor of D5200 is slightly better than D5100's sensor. No other difference. But D5100 has longer battery life. The extra that you pay for D5200 is not worth it. Better spend money on lenses/accessories. Lenses last forever. After a few years when you will learn more about photography(and if you are serious about it) you will surely want a better body(semi professional, like D7100 or professional, like D800). So its better not to spend much on body.

And believe me, lenses are equally(if not more) important than body. A D5100 + 18-55mm + 35mm + 55-200mm will give much better result than a D5200 + 18-55mm.

And please do not even think of Canon 600D. D5100 costs 5K less and beats it hands down in every aspect, be it ISO, Dynamic range, image quality, color depth, battery life and even build quality.

 

[nac]

And please do not even think of Canon 600D. D5100 costs 5K less and beats it hands down in every aspect, be it ISO, Dynamic range, image quality, color depth, battery life and even build quality.

This really gonna poke some people.

 

[sujoyp]

digit.sh ....please D5200 is way ahead of D5100 in technology ....please at least check the specs before posting.
D5200 have better 39 point 9 cross point AF system of D7000 ...Metering system of D7000 and a better sensor also 5 fps burst

I agree that twin lens combination is better deal ... then why not a D3100+18-55+55-300 its better for wildlife as 300mm is minimum for birds
there is no difference between D5100 and D3100 other then some funky features like articulated screen,selective color mode and HDR mode.

 

[digit.sh]

digit.sh ....please D5200 is way ahead of D5100 in technology ....please at least check the specs before posting.
D5200 have better 39 point 9 cross point AF system of D7000 ...Metering system of D7000 and a better sensor also 5 fps burst

I agree that twin lens combination is better deal ... then why not a D3100+18-55+55-300 its better for wildlife as 300mm is minimum for birds
there is no difference between D5100 and D3100 other then some funky features like articulated screen,selective color mode and HDR mode.

He does not need 39 AF points for good photography. Period.
Sensor is only marginally better.
Burst shooting is also only marginally better. And you don't need burst shooting capability for good photography. Period.

No question of D3100. It sucks big time and is much much inferior to D5100. I wish Nikon never made D3100. And price difference with D5100 is very little. D5100 + 18-55 costs around 27K and D3100 + 18-55 costs 23K. Difference = 4K. And, D5200 with 18-55 costs 37K!! Whopping 10K more than D5100. You are paying 10K more.

@op, you can get D5200 if you think its worth. But as I said, the sensor is only marginally better and other enhancements are mostly gimmicks.

 

[sujoyp]

marginally D5200 have a better sensor even then D7100 ...its the best cropped sensor there for nikon

So you mean
9 AF point vs 39 af point ...not needed really...god knows why costly DSLR's like D800, 5DMKIII or upcomming 7DMK2 have soo many AF points...only 9 would be sufficient
better metering not needed ..D5100 have D90 metering system where D5200 have D7000 metering system...choice is urs
4fps vs 5fps is big if you shoot even 10 second you will shoot whole 10 shots more

D3100 is not that bad as you say...dont forget I have used it for 3 years and got some great shots.....if photographer is not good enough then even a Nikon D4 wont help him...btw why not check my flickr profile for D3100 quality...I am sure you will be surprised..all shots after the spider web shot and magic shot are taken with D3100

same hardware you are ready to spend 4k more...but a lot better hardware 10k is huge

 

[digit.sh]

there is no difference between D5100 and D3100 other then some funky features like articulated screen,selective color mode and HDR mode.

Really?? I thought you know at least something about cameras!!
See it yourself:


Seen?
D5200 : Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D5200 - DxOMark
Now see this: Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D5100 - DxOMark
and this: Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D3100 - DxOMark

Dxomark overall sensor score:
D3100 -- 67
D5100 -- 80
D5200 -- 84

lol at you sujoyp


@op, D5100 is way better in each and every aspect than D3100. Most importantly, low light capability, dynamic range and color depth, and believe me, these are the most important thing you need for better photography. And price difference is only 4K. Don't even consider D3100.

 

[abc.kb]

digit.sh ....please D5200 is way ahead of D5100 in technology ....please at least check the specs before posting.
D5200 have better 39 point 9 cross point AF system of D7000 ...Metering system of D7000 and a better sensor also 5 fps burst

I agree that twin lens combination is better deal ... then why not a D3100+18-55+55-300 its better for wildlife as 300mm is minimum for birds
there is no difference between D5100 and D3100 other then some funky features like articulated screen,selective color mode and HDR mode.

No difference between D5100 and D3100??!

@op, the body and lens combination recommended by digitsh is the best I can think of in your budget. Surely D5200 is somewhat better, but not much. At the end of the day its the lenses that are gonna make difference. But yes, D3100 is way too inferior as digit.sh pointed out.
After a few years when you gain proficiency and know all the pros and cons you will want to settle for better body, so I think its not wise to spend 10K more on D5200 now. But yes, lenses last forever. Wiser to spend on lenses.

 

[sujoyp]

I am sure you must have compared D5100 and D5200 too at snapshot ...y not post that result too

And bro I am not telling something without using ....I have actually used it for 3 years ...and my flickr data shows that D3100 is more capable then what you think

I am not saying that get D3100....I recommend D5200

 

[digit.sh]

Plus points of D5200 compared to D5100, as requested:

 

[srkmish]

Any good photographer can create miraculous photos out of D3100 ( 500px / Search ). It is a very capable camera. My friend, who is into Bird photography dedicatedly( whose photos i had shared earlier) had many of his prints up for Sale at Mangalajodi Bird Exhibition at Bhubaneswar. The only thing which might prevent me from purchasing a D3100 would be lack of bracketing ( For HDR shots).

And these "Way ahead, Far better " are such exaggerations. Give a capable photographer any camera, he can produce amazing pics.

 

[sujoyp]

Thank you digit ....

I agree D5100 was better then D3100 ....but not on the ground of pic quality for focussing or metering ....but for better grip, more features tilt screen etc.

 

[srkmish]

[MENTION=113218]digit.sh[/MENTION] : Can you post a link to your photography page?

 

[The Incinerator]

He is too much in to synthetics and reviews rather than real time experience. I would love to be enlightened about the EOS600D being as bad as he is making it out to be! People are not fools like him buying the EOS 600D for no reason. And dont use that Period Sh#t with me. Post images you have taken with your synthetic favorite camera and I will post mine ...lets see. If you cant post photos and the gear you use please stop Trolling. We have very sensible people here who guide us better than your trolling ways without any concrete proof but links and reviews which mean nothing in the real world as long it is photography that is concerned.Your those comparison screen shots are laughable and shows your depth. Post some shots you have taken.

Post some Low Light images from the Nikon and Ill post some low light by the Canon show me a hint of noise that you are bragging about.Post some daylight birding shots and ill post mine too we will se what EV and Dynamic range you are ranting about.And yes do post some cloudy day shots we wanna see details and color rendition too.

 

[nac]

Guys, come on. He has gone little overboard with his opinion, I am not denying it. But opinion differs, right... He really believes D5100 is good and the D5200 isn't worth the extra. Like I didn't feel 70D worth the extra on the other thread. Like Raja said, it's the buyer can weigh up things and decide whether the extra is worth or not. We have four D5200 users and the recent being @kaz , and he is very happy with his purchase.

Inci, you sure have read a lot of discussion/debate on D5100 vs 600D before buying 600D. Let's take it as this is one among them.

Plus points of D5200 compared to D5100, as requested:

View attachment 13951

Really!!!

Seen?
D5200 : Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D5200 - DxOMark
Now see this: Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D5100 - DxOMark
and this: Tests and reviews for the camera Nikon D3100 - DxOMark

Dxomark overall sensor score:
D3100 -- 67
D5100 -- 80
D5200 -- 84

I am imaging what would Pranav say about this DXO rating.

( 500px / Search ).

That's a nice link. I really wonder how the eyes are so sharp even @ 1/6th of a second 500px / Into the white! by Marianna Roussou

 

[sujoyp]

yaah eyes are really sharp...1/6 on tripod with eye light may give the sharpness