Need recommendations for a good start DSLR for 16 year old

[StacyMarie]

So, my daughter has become somewhat of a photography buff lately and to be honest with you, some of the pics she is taking are brilliant. She definitely has a different eye for angles and things than I do, taking pictures of just everyday things, etc. She is asking for a DSLR for Christmas. I don't have one so I have no idea where to begin. I use just a point and shoot but I'm not into photography and art like she is. I've always gone with Canon for myself but I'm not opposed to another brand. If anybody could point me in the right direction for a good starter DSLR, I would greatly appreciate it. I would like to stay around the $500.00 mark or less on this.

Thanks again for any help!!!!

 

[havoc315]

Truthfully, all the major branded entry level dSLRs are quite good, and will give similar quality.
You can also look to save a few dollars by purchasing new/refurbished/high quality used from ebay or another re-seller.

The Canon rebel is highly rated. With the recent introduction of the T4i, you can get good deals on the older models -- the T2i and T3i.
Traditionalists stick by the Nikons, and their entry level -- the 3100, may be found close to your price range.
Sony is doing the most innovation. They actually got rid of traditional SLRs and introduced SLTs -- the results are basically the same, the difference in terminology just has to do whether there is an inner mirror that flips or not. The more innovative technology allows the newer Sonys to shoot at a faster rate, take better focused video, etc. But in terms of quality, lenses and user experience, they are no different than other SLRs. They can be a bit more expensive, but I just got a new A55 (discontinued model) on ebay for $400.

Just prepare yourself -- Unlike P&S -- With a DSLR, the camera body is only half the picture. It's only a matter of time before a photographer wants additional lenses, which can start to get very very expensive. Often, the best lenses can cost far more than the camera.

 

[photo_chick]

There are a couple bare bones DSLR's on the market right at $500 including a kit lens. That would be the Nikon D3100 and the Canon T3 (not the T3i, it's more $$). Both of these cameras offer you everything you need to learn about photography and then some. At the moment I think those are the only new DSLR's with kit lenses in that price range. There's a few more options when you get closer to $600.

There are a ton of used options out there in your price range. I'd look at KEH.com if you want to go used because you know who you're buying from and they give you a 6 month warranty. KEH is also a great place to get older discontinued lenses and that can help build a lens collection for less money.

Mirrorless cameras are a great option as well but if she's got her heart set on a DSLR then I'd bet nothing but a DSLR would do. I know it's that way with my teenager.

 

[archimedes76]

I like the Canon T3 and its simple to use. Just don't forget the SD card.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

This is EXACTLY what this thread is about.

Have a read of the last few pages and look what she decided to do.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2995650

 

[SplashMo]

The Nikon D5100 would be an awesome choice. Currently $600.00 but the price might come down.

Otherwise the D3100 or the Canon T2i...

 

[StacyMarie]

Thank you all so much for your info. Like I said, I have no idea where to start but all your information has given me a jumping off point! Thanks again for your help!!

 

[boBQuincy]

Not to muddy the waters further, but there are some cameras that perform all the functions of a dslr while not technically a slr. A true slr has a mirror and an optical viewfinder, mirrorless cameras have an electronic viewfinder and are generally smaller and lighter. About a year ago I switched from a Canon dslr to a Panasonic G3 and have not given up any features as far as I can tell.

Anyway, this camera is in your price range and may be worth considering:

http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Fou...=UTF8&qid=1352205293&sr=8-1&keywords=lumix+g3


As PhotoChick noted, if she wants a dslr then this is *by definition* not one although it performs the same functions.

 

[havoc315]

For someone who truly wants to learn photography, I'd stick with an entry level, or used, dslr. The furthest I would stray, would be a Sony SLT, which gives the same user experience, except for only having an EVF.

Yes, some of the mirrorless systems are very nice, and produce comparable results, but its not the same experience.

 

[photo_chick]

For someone who truly wants to learn photography, I'd stick with an entry level, or used, dslr. The furthest I would stray, would be a Sony SLT, which gives the same user experience, except for only having an EVF.

Yes, some of the mirrorless systems are very nice, and produce comparable results, but its not the same experience.

The only real difference, aside from a physically smaller camera, between a mirroless and a DSLR is the loss of the TTL optical viewfinder that you have with the DSLR. And you loose that with the SLT as well. The principles of photography are still the same.

 

[havoc315]

The only real difference, aside from a physically smaller camera, between a mirroless and a DSLR is the loss of the TTL optical viewfinder that you have with the DSLR. And you loose that with the SLT as well. The principles of photography are still the same.

Quite a few other functional differences. With rare exceptions, mirrorless cameras have smaller sensòrs than SLR/SLTs. Sony SLTs use Sony/Minolta SLR lenses. Mirrorless cameras typically have a smaller selection of specialty lenses. SLTs and SLRs use phase detection for focus, most mirrorless still use contrast. And generally speaking, mirrorless cameras have a different look and feel than SLRs. Meanwhile, I find the user experience and image quality of SLTs to be identical to SLRs.

The lines are certainly blurring. But in terms of user experience and results, I see a SLT as being very very very close to a SLR, virtually indistinguishable. While mirroless cameras usually deliver a different feeling experience, and generally lesser results. (though certainly some of the best mirrorless can out-perform some of the lesser SLRs).

 

[boBQuincy]

Quite a few other functional differences. With rare exceptions, mirrorless cameras have smaller sensòrs than SLR/SLTs. Sony SLTs use Sony/Minolta SLR lenses. Mirrorless cameras typically have a smaller selection of specialty lenses. SLTs and SLRs use phase detection for focus, most mirrorless still use contrast. And generally speaking, mirrorless cameras have a different look and feel than SLRs. Meanwhile, I find the user experience and image quality of SLTs to be identical to SLRs.

The lines are certainly blurring. But in terms of user experience and results, I see a SLT as being very very very close to a SLR, virtually indistinguishable. While mirroless cameras usually deliver a different feeling experience, and generally lesser results. (though certainly some of the best mirrorless can out-perform some of the lesser SLRs).

We may have to disagree somewhat. After 10 years of using Canon dSLRs and a year of Panasonic micro 4/3 I would say the experience is quite similar. Once I got used to the new locations for the controls there was not much difference between Canon and Panasonic, except I still sometimes zoom in the Canon direction (opposite of Panasonic's lenses). The process of photography is about the same: plan the photo; choose a mode; compose; set exposure; press shutter.

Now for the agreeing part. The difference in the experience is partly that the Canons are based on film camera architecture, with a digital sensor. This is not a bad thing but it does show some limitations. Mirrorless was designed digital from the start and it shows: fast focus in Live View; live histogram; live exposure viewing; live shutter speed effects; *large* bright viewfinder; auto magnification for manual focus; etc.

Most of this information is available on the dSLR *after* taking the photo but after getting used to seeing it live it would be difficult to go back. The downside is the electronic viewfinder is not at its best in low light but this is rapidly improving. As for results, I see negligible difference between my APS-C dSLR and my micro 4/3.

My guess is that most interchangeable lens cameras will be mirrorless in a few years, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I typically pack a range of lenses from 7mm to 175mm in a medium size bag (Crumpler $4 M home), this would be impossible with an APS-C dSLR.

 

[havoc315]

We may have to disagree somewhat. After 10 years of using Canon dSLRs and a year of Panasonic micro 4/3 I would say the experience is quite similar. Once I got used to the new locations for the controls there was not much difference between Canon and Panasonic, except I still sometimes zoom in the Canon direction (opposite of Panasonic's lenses). The process of photography is about the same: plan the photo; choose a mode; compose; set exposure; press shutter.

Now for the agreeing part. The difference in the experience is partly that the Canons are based on film camera architecture, with a digital sensor. This is not a bad thing but it does show some limitations. Mirrorless was designed digital from the start and it shows: fast focus in Live View; live histogram; live exposure viewing; live shutter speed effects; *large* bright viewfinder; auto magnification for manual focus; etc.

Most of this information is available on the dSLR *after* taking the photo but after getting used to seeing it live it would be difficult to go back. The downside is the electronic viewfinder is not at its best in low light but this is rapidly improving. As for results, I see negligible difference between my APS-C dSLR and my micro 4/3.

My guess is that most interchangeable lens cameras will be mirrorless in a few years, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I typically pack a range of lenses from 7mm to 175mm in a medium size bag (Crumpler $4 M home), this would be impossible with an APS-C dSLR.

Very valid points. On a side note, that's the nice thing about SLT, get those live view advantages, in SLR architecture.

But getting back on topic; most mirrorless still can't quite match the full potential of current SLRs. The differences may not be huge to a casual user. But I'm pretty sure the Panasonic is contrast auto focus. And of course, the sensor is smaller. Bigger sensor gives better dynamic range and better depth of field.

Putting aside these differences in potential quality, the question was, what camera is best to *learn* on. As you pointed out, dSLRs are still based on film camera architecture. As such, they have all the manual controls that are lacking in some mirrorless. They have the huge variety in specialty lenses.
And for the photography *student,* they have the same shared architecture.
Learn on a Nikon dslr, and you can easily pick up a Sony SLT or Canon SLR. You can pick up an old film SLR. . As you did, you can easily adapt your knowledge and use it on a mirrorless.

On the other hand, the architecture of each brand of mirrorless is quite different. If you learn on a Nikon J1 (which doesn't even lend itself to full manual control), I don't know how easily you could switch brands.

 

[photo_chick]

Quite a few other functional differences. With rare exceptions, mirrorless cameras have smaller sensòrs than SLR/SLTs. Sony SLTs use Sony/Minolta SLR lenses. Mirrorless cameras typically have a smaller selection of specialty lenses. SLTs and SLRs use phase detection for focus, most mirrorless still use contrast. And generally speaking, mirrorless cameras have a different look and feel than SLRs. Meanwhile, I find the user experience and image quality of SLTs to be identical to SLRs.

The lines are certainly blurring. But in terms of user experience and results, I see a SLT as being very very very close to a SLR, virtually indistinguishable. While mirroless cameras usually deliver a different feeling experience, and generally lesser results. (though certainly some of the best mirrorless can out-perform some of the lesser SLRs).

Have you used all the formats you're discussing? I have.

I guess my point of view is just a little different. When I think of a different experience using a camera I think of view cameras or pinholes, where you have to change your whole approach to making an image because of how the cameras work. To me all digital cameras are pretty similar experience wise and the only real difference is do you have optical TTL viewing or not, and even that really is a slight difference that as boBQuincy pointed out really doesn't affect the process of making a photograph. The sensor size, the lenses... that's all bells and whistles and not the process.

And the mirrorless cameras I've used all had manual controls (I'm not saying they all do, just the one's I've used). As do many point and shoots. Photography is photography.

Edited to add.. Again though, this is all pretty pointless in this thread. If the OP's daughter has her heart set on a DSLR then anything else will probably be a disappointment.

 

[havoc315]

Have you used all the formats you're discussing? I have.

I guess my point of view is just a little different. When I think of a different experience using a camera I think of view cameras or pinholes, where you have to change your whole approach to making an image because of how the cameras work. To me all digital cameras are pretty similar experience wise and the only real difference is do you have optical TTL viewing or not, and even that really is a slight difference that as boBQuincy pointed out really doesn't affect the process of making a photograph. The sensor size, the lenses... that's all bells and whistles and not the process.

And the mirrorless cameras I've used all had manual controls (I'm not saying they all do, just the one's I've used). As do many point and shoots. Photography is photography.

Edited to add.. Again though, this is all pretty pointless in this thread. If the OP's daughter has her heart set on a DSLR then anything else will probably be a disappointment.

I have used film SLR, digital SLR, SLT, compact, and mirrorless.
Certainly learning how to compose a shot is the same, regardless of format.

But if you are newly learning about photography, there are wide ranging areas where you may want to explore knowledge. You can call it bells and whistles, but they are part of photography.
Being able to have greater control of depth of field (as with a larger sensor), taking bracketed photos (not available on the Nikon J1), shooting in RAW (not available on all mirrorless systems), the ability to explore dozens and dozens of different lenses.

Quality... Look at objective standards. The Panasonic GX1 gets a DXOmark score of 55. Most dSLRS are much higher. The similarly priced Nikon D5100 scores 80. (Mostly but not entirely a result of sensor size. The Nex series scores in SLR range, but they used a SLR sized sensor)
And of course, the benefit of using an architecture that crosses brands. Some mirrorless cameras don't even have a viewfinder, only a LCD screen.

 

[photo_chick]

I'm going to agree to disagree here. I still think you're getting hung up on specs.

 

[havoc315]

I'm going to agree to disagree here. I still think you're getting hung up on specs.

We will agree to disagree. I think you're taking a very narrow view of photography education. Heck, you can learn composition and exposure basics on cheap $50 compact.

 

[photo_chick]

We will agree to disagree. I think you're taking a very narrow view of photography education. Heck, you can learn composition and exposure basics on cheap $50 compact.

Exactly. I don't think my view is narrow though, actually quite the opposite. I think you can learn on anything. The camera you use is only as limiting as you let it be.

 

[havoc315]

Exactly. I don't think my view is narrow though, actually quite the opposite. I think you can learn on anything. The camera you use is only as limiting as you let it be.

Exactly my point of disagreement. Yes, you can learn composition on any camera. I have my 7-year-old practice the rule of thirds on a cheap digital point and shoot.
And you seem uninterested in anything beyond basic composition and exposure.
That may be fine for you, it may be the elements of photography that you personally love the most.

But there is a lot more to photography. And different people, different students of photography, may take interests in different things.

For example, many people love playing with Bokeh. Now, I have an excellent compact camera, the RX100. In many situations, it can rival a dSLR or mirrorless. (in fact, the sensor is the same size as some mirrorless cameras). But if I really want to take a great bokeh shot, I switch to my dSLR.

dSLRs gives you the most freedom to explore different aspects of photography, at the highest quality, in an architecture that is shared over brands.
Now, as I stated several posts ago, the lines are getting blurred. Technically, the Sony SLTs can be considered akin to a mirrorless, but to me it is closer to a dSLR.
Out of curiosity from this thread, I briefly looked at the Lumix G3, a camera that I wasn't specifically knowledgeable about. And found that the basic architecture was similar to a dSLR. PASM dial in the same spot, etc. So certainly not a bad camera to learn on, but at the same time, it can't compete with dSLRs in terms of image quality and other aspects.

Go ahead and dismiss this as a war of specs. And certainly, specs can get overblown. Even an expert isn't going to be able to distinguish between an IQ or 77 and 78.
But ultimately, when the question is "which camera is best" -- It's a disingenuous and dishonest answer to ignore specs and say that "all cameras are the same."
Different cameras have different pros and cons. A dSLR (or mirrorless built very very similarly to a dSLR) has the greatest range for a photography student to practice their craft.

Here is a good article on whether a mirrorless can replace a dSLR:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/06/30/can-a-small-mirrorless-camera-replace-a-dlr/

The basic conclusion was that for sports photography, dSLR is still king. For portraits, mirrorless can be very good, but dSLR still has a bit of an advantage. For street photography, mirrorless is superior but primarily due to simply being smaller.

Now certainly, a photo enthusiast can do quite well with a mirrorless system. The advantages for their style of shooting may be more important than the disadvantages.
But for someone who is ready to throw themselves into learning about photography, someone who has graduated beyond the Rules of Thirds basics on their entry level point and shoot, I simply see a dSLR as being the most advantageous learning tool.
Certainly, some of my reasons are purely subjective and personal, and other reasons are objective.

 

[My2Girls66]

My nephew got a Canon T3i for his 15th birthday yesterday. He is super excited!