I am sorry if this is the wrong place to ask for help.
Currently I am using the most awful point-and-shoot camera which produces horribly blurry and noisy photographs and does not even give me the option to take uncompressed pics. As much as I am enjoying going out and taking a bunch of photos in new places; I feel like I could quadruple my enjoyment if the end product wasn't painful to look at due to the horrible picture quality.
So I need your help to choose a brand spankin' new camera for me to use. I am open to any suggestions; however I am preferably looking for a DSLR which is friendly for beginners, yet also has functions and modes which even pro's would be happy with, so in other words I am looking for a camera which is beginner friendly, not "too" pricey, but is also relatively future proof so I won't need to upgrade any time soon.
Sort: Top
[–] thatguyron 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
I'm curious what kind of price range you're looking at?
Also, since you're getting "blurry and noisy photographs" I'm guessing you take a lot of photos indoors and in low light? In general for cameras released in the same year, a camera with a larger sensor will have much better low light noise performance. As for blurriness, this could be for a couple different reasons. If your shutter speed is set too low (usually because it's so dark the camera needs a low shutter speed to gather enough light) there can be some amount of motion blur in your photos, but blurriness can also be caused by focusing issues.
Anyhow, if you give a bit more information about your budget and some examples of specific situations where you'll be using it, I could give a more tailored recommendation but in general I recommend a camera with as large a sensor as you can reasonably afford, but make sure you leave plenty of budget for a couple nice lenses for the camera body.
[–] ImTheJanitor [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Actually I mostly try to take landscape style photos and no matter what settings and modes I use on my camera I get blur and noise. I think it is just a bad camera rather than the actual setting for it. I'm using a Fujifilm XP20. Possibly the worst camera I have ever used.
As I said above I am looking at mostly doing landscapes -I often like to take evening shots so being able to take clear low light pics would be great. My budget is very undecided at the moment, I am probably looking at around about the £200 - £250 price range; however I can always try to work overtime for a little to make up any bigger price tags (I am a student, so my budget is basically however much I am able to make on top of my recommended budget).
[–] thatguyron 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
Cool, well if your current camera is that bad the good news is that almost anything would be an upgrade. Your budget is a bit limiting but you have a few options, and definitely buy used to get the most out of your money.
Given your use case, I'd recommend the Nikon D3200, which has already been discussed by others in this thread. You'll eventually want to get some other lenses other than the one that comes with it, but it may not be in your budget at first. If you can afford it, the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 is a very popular wide-angle lens. For landscapes, particularly evening landscapes as you mention, a good tripod would be very useful. Although the kit lens for the D3200 isn't particularly good for low light, a steady tripod will let you use a longer shutter speed without causing hand-shake blur (I recommend using the 2 second time delay setting so that the vibration from setting off the shutter has time to dissipate before the photo is taken).
On the other hand, if weight/portability is a concern, you may want to go with one of the Sony mirrorless cameras instead. If you could find a used a6000 in your budget that could also work well for you.
[–] ThingsHappen 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Ron is right on the money, but I'd like to emphasize his second point and add that with your budgetary constraints and desires I'd lean toward mirrorless.
If you shop around a little, you can probably find a Sony NEX-5N, an adapter, legacy 50mm f/1.8 and 28mm f/2.8 for under 250 pounds.
28mm on APS-C will still be a bit tight for most landscape use but is great for walking around. And later on you can pick up a focal reducer for roughly $100 that will make the 50mm act like a 35mm t/1.2 and the 28mm act like a 19mm t/2.
[–] ImTheJanitor [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I was looking at the Nikon D3200, but being the novice I am; I have no idea whether this is a good camera for me.
[–] Jecht 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
The D3200 is a good little camera for the price. If you're used to using a point and shoot, it will be a while before you outgrow the D3200. Most of my work is shot with a D3200, Nikon 35mm f1.8g lens, and a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 lens. If you're planning to get any prime lenses, I highly suggest the Nikon 35mm.
[–] GeorgeMichael 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
go for it, I bought a D3200 and I'm still using it. I spend my money on lenses and don't regret it. And if you learn how to shoot in manual mode (sounds scary at first, but it gets really easy after some time!), the results will get even better.
edit: review I considered helpful
[–] pan_kumrd 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
D3200 is a good choice in my opinion. I would suggest getting it with some basic zoom lens, so you will have an opportunity to explore what you like to shoot (landscapes, street, portraiture ...) and, if there's some money in your budget left, attend some photography course.
[–] imfrickenbad 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
After like 3 months of research, I went with the D3300. Reasonably priced body, standard mounts, and not overly complicated, while still having access to a relatively full feature set.
thatguyron is on the money, especially the last bit. Try not to blow your entire budget on the body. A few nice lenses for an okay camera will generally get you a lot further than one lens on an amazing frame. If you ever decide to upgrade, most, if not all of your accessories (lenses, external flash, etc) will be compatible. Nikon is especially good about this, but Cannon makes some great stuff too.
[–] bulksalty 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The good news is just about any DSLR (or most film SLRs) will meet your requirements.
For first DSLRs I'm a fan of buying used, and the further back you go (even moving up the value chain) the more depreciation will have happened and the less you'll pay if you sell later. My own experience was after the first year with an DSLR, I had a much better idea of what I really wanted and was able to buy a camera that I'm very happy with (even as it gets quite old now).
[–] AnalogRocks 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Personally my first camera was a used Canon t1i, and that was a great first dslr! Something from the entry Canon or Nikon line like that would probably work pretty good for you.
[–] grantstern ago (edited ago)
I was a "Nikon" guy for years, but feel like they fell behind the digital curve about ten years ago and made the switch to LUMIX with a LX3 and haven't looked back. They have all size cameras and produce, imho, the most lifelike and vivid images today with their Leica optics. Obviously, when you interchange lenses, the optics may be different, but I strongly believe in the Panasonic "worldview" of how a camera should operate, level of creative control and ease of use. I shoot a LX7 today, pondering a move to LX100