First DSLR

[barchetta_boy]

Hi,

I currently have a Fuji X100T which I absolutely love, but I've come to the reluctant conclusion that 35mm (or whatever the actual focal length of the fixed lens is, it's equivalent to 35mm I know that) is just no good for taking photos of cars, which is something I'd like to do more of.

Can anyone recommend a good starter DSLR? I don't mind buying used. The category moves at such a pace it's completely baffling! The only thing I've managed to learn so far is that as soon as you start buying kit, you're committed to an ecosystem so choose wisely...

Looking at Nikon D3300/3400 so far. Would £300 get me a decent setup?

Cheers,

Joel

[Nigel_O]

The Nikon D3200/D3300/D3400 are great entry-level crop-sensor DSLRs - all the controls you'll need to get started with "proper" photography

The key to buying secondhand is the lenses - if you can find a seller who has moved up to something bigger, you may get two or three lenses with your kit

The 18-55 "kit lens" is actually very good, especially in the later VR form. This will leave you a bit "short", so also look for something a bit longer - 200mm-300mm will cover most of the bases - there's even an 18-300 which would be a brilliant walkabout lens

Lots on Ebay for well within your budget

[barchetta_boy]

Great, thank you so much.

[Gad-Westy]

Everyone's mileage will vary a bit on this but my recommendation is nearly always to skip the entry level models (in Nikon terms, D3xxx and D5xxx). Not because they aren't supremely capable but simply because their lack of direct controls to certain things would personally drive me mad. As soon as you get into a D7xxx or D500, there is a button for almost everything and more importantly a front and rear dial. I'd rather have a slightly older pro or semi-pro body than the newest entry level models £ for £. Not snobbery, just pure ergonomics.

Also, in my opinion better to spend a disproportionately large amount on a lens than a camera. For example I'd rather have something like a Sigma 18-35 1.8 (or a couple of primes maybe) with an older D7000 or something strapped to the back of it than £450 camera with a £50 lens.

But that said, are you sure it's a DSLR you need? It would at least be worth considering some of the mirrorless options from Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic etc..

Edited by Gad-Westy on Tuesday 9th April 13:39

[craig1912]

this- I’d be tempted with An Olympus EM10 mkii, the lenses are very reasonable too.

[barchetta_boy]

Thanks Gad. Any other lenses you'd particularly recommend to complement an 18-55mm kit lens (as they all seem to come with this)?

[barchetta_boy]

I like the look of the D7000. Quite like the idea of a really hefty piece of kit, daft as that may seem. Bodies go for £165 on eBay, so cheap.

Before I pull the trigger on that, I have a couple of prime lenses in my drawer I've held onto for sentimental reasons, a Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 and a Sigma 28mm C/Y fit. Used to use these with my old Contax 139 Quartz (great camera).

I understand that these can be adapted to Canon bodies but not Nikon. Would this be a reason to go Canon instead?

If so, what would be a good used Canon body to look at as an equivalent to the D7000?

Many thanks in advance for your insights.

Joel

[Gad-Westy]

barchetta_boy said:

I like the look of the D7000. Quite like the idea of a really hefty piece of kit, daft as that may seem. Bodies go for £165 on eBay, so cheap.

Before I pull the trigger on that, I have a couple of prime lenses in my drawer I've held onto for sentimental reasons, a Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 and a Sigma 28mm C/Y fit. Used to use these with my old Contax 139 Quartz (great camera).

I understand that these can be adapted to Canon bodies but not Nikon. Would this be a reason to go Canon instead?

If so, what would be a good used Canon body to look at as an equivalent to the D7000?

Many thanks in advance for your insights.

Joel

Someone with a bit of Canon knowledge can better answer this but yes, adapting anything to Nikon is near impossible as the flange distance is among the longest. It can sometimes be done with optical adapters but I wouldn't suggest you get into that.
But as a side note here, manual focus lenses on DSLR's can be a pain in the arse. You really have to rely on the little focus confirm dot or live view because critical focus is very hard to assess by eye, especially on an APSC viewfinder. Speaking of which, will these focal lengths work for you when you consider the crop factor? 50mm might still be nice but the 28mm might not be that much be that much fun as it will feel like a short standard lens with (I assume) an unremarkable max aperture. A nice standard 50mm 1.8 lens can be had for Canon or Nikon for about £50 so I wouldn't place too much importance on adaptation personally.

[barchetta_boy]

Very good points. I had adapters for an Olympus EPL-1 with both these lenses and it never worked that well now I come to think about it. Good shout.

[Gad-Westy]

barchetta_boy said:

Thanks Gad. Any other lenses you'd particularly recommend to complement an 18-55mm kit lens (as they all seem to come with this)?

The 18-55 kit lens is fine optically but honestly I don't really like them very much. Hate the rotating front element and tiny focus ring and poor hood provision. I find it hard to recommend getting one other than that they're cheap and do a job. I much preferred the older 18-70 kit lens myself but they're all getting on a bit now. But honestly you might not be bowled over by either coming from an X100T. You might have been a little spoilt with that lens.

But it depends what you shoot. Cars could mean anything from static stuff at shows to the F1 at Silverstone with anything in between. I'm a huge fan of the Sigma 18-35 1.8 but it's big heavy and expensive but it's as close as you'll get to prime like image quality without having to switch lenses all the time. But maybe you need something longer?

[nitrodave]

Bought a Nikon D3300 a few years back as my first DSLR and still love it. I knew nothing about how it worked but bought a couple of decent books dedicated to getting the best out of it and I've take some great shots on my travels.

It's been around the world, beaten about and all sorts of climates and still going strong.

Happy with my choice, but saying that, I've never had anything else to compare it to but I was super impressed with the supporting info out there for it.

[barchetta_boy]

Man maths means I am now officially on the hunt for a D600 full frame Nikon

[DibblyDobbler]

If you like Fuji why not stick with the brand? The X-T1 is fab - you can pick one up for £200-300 these days and about the same again for the 18-55 lens which is also fab

[eltawater]

I steered clear of the D600 in favour of the D610 due to the oil spot issue on the D600, you might want to be aware of that.
You're also going to need FX lenses which are going to set you back more than your original budget.

[barchetta_boy]

The original budget is a distant memory

[Bumblebee7]

barchetta_boy said:

The original budget is a distant memory

[SCEtoAUX]

barchetta_boy said:

Man maths means I am now officially on the hunt for a D600 full frame Nikon

Is the wrong answer. Go for a used D700. Possibly the greatest camera Nikon ever made. Will cost less than the D600, has professional build, and a button on the back that you use for focusing. Trust me, you want this. (The D600 has one button there, not two, and whilst it can be used to focus it's too far left).

D700 is around 12 Megapixels. More than enough, I've been using a pair of them for years and years to earn part of my living. Nobody ever says the image quality isn't good enough.

Get one with 100k shutter count or less and it will be good for another 100k. (Shutter is rated to 150k, both of mine are over 200k).

[Monty Python]

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/nikon-d3400-digital-...

[Gad-Westy]

SCEtoAUX said:

barchetta_boy said:

Man maths means I am now officially on the hunt for a D600 full frame Nikon

Is the wrong answer. Go for a used D700. Possibly the greatest camera Nikon ever made. Will cost less than the D600, has professional build, and a button on the back that you use for focusing. Trust me, you want this. (The D600 has one button there, not two, and whilst it can be used to focus it's too far left).

D700 is around 12 Megapixels. More than enough, I've been using a pair of them for years and years to earn part of my living. Nobody ever says the image quality isn't good enough.

Get one with 100k shutter count or less and it will be good for another 100k. (Shutter is rated to 150k, both of mine are over 200k).

I sort of agree about being careful with respect to the D600. I owned one after my D700 and the oil spatter issue was real and a massive pain in the arse. I spent weeks without my camera as it went back and forward to Nikon for repairs until they eventually gave in and replaced it with a D610. I really, really liked that camera, and for landscape, blue hour, astro and low light, that sensor is a long way ahead of the D700. The D700 has a nicer look to certain images though, particularly people. Always thought it looked slightly less 'dgitial' than the 24mp sensor. The D700 is built better and is more comfortable to use generally but the A-EL button on the D610 is actually quite well placed, better than the D750 and few people complain about that. Even as a left eye shooter I never even thought about it and use BBF 100% of the time.

[coldel]

Gad-Westy said:

But that said, are you sure it's a DSLR you need? It would at least be worth considering some of the mirrorless options from Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic etc..

Edited by Gad-Westy on Tuesday 9th April 13:39

I used DSLRs (and an SLR before they became Ds!) for years then switched to mirrorless, much easier to carry about, takes a brilliant photo, the controls are not quite as intuitive but still work to a level I need and so glad I made the switch. Worth taking a look at these as they are very good quality and a used market is there.