Let's Talk About DSLR Cameras...

So, in a few months after I save up a few bucks, I think I want to dive into the wonderful world of DSLR's. I know many of you here, including some friendly members of the GRM staff, have these. The thing that has shocked me on these is the price of a somewhat decent model. DAYUM THEY ARE EXPENSIVE!!!! I was hoping to get in the game for $300 or less, but that seems unlikely.

Right now, I have a Fujifilm FinePix S1500 big body point and shoot. It's served me well over the years, but since I started blogging and covering motorsports events, it just can't cut it. At the last event I covered, I couldn't get a clear shot of really anything on the track. Image stability was crap, and everything would be blurry. It didn't help that the vantage points were terrible at the track, but needless to say, hundreds of shots got tossed out. I found myself using the camera on my Galaxy S5 by the end of the event with greater success.

A friend of mine who is a pro photographer uses Nikon stuff. He recommended picking up an older D300, which is an older "prosumer" camera. He has one, and I've used it, and it rocks. But used "body only" ones are pretty pricey. He recommended that I get something that can take a lot of shots quickly, like 6 frames per second burst rate for the type of stuff I'm shooting.

Another relevant development (no pun intended) is that my dad has an older Canon 35mm SLR with a ton of lenses. I know that Canon cameras can be finicky with what older lenses can work on the newer stuff, but if they work on something like the EOS 50D, then that is an option. It matches up spec-wise with the Nikon D300 pretty well.

The dark horse in my race is a Pentax K50. It's an entry level DSLR, but it does 6 fps burst rate. It's also weather resistant and does 1080p HD video capture, which is a big bonus. It's not as feature-rich as some of the "prosumer" ones, but it's a LOT cheaper and I can buy it new. But since it's a Pentax, there are not as many available accessories out there for it.

So, those of you with DSLR experience, what gear do you have? What do you think of my choices? Am I insane?

Can you share one of your pictures, something that you feel is representative of the kinds of shots you try to take? What's your budget? Are you open to used gear?

What accessories aren't available for the Pentax that you're interested in? That system is well established and has been around a LONG time, so I can't imagine what it might lack. It also works well and will meter with older lenses, even manual focus ones from the 60s.

I would think that a fast long lens would be best at the track. Since you'll be shooting at predictable distances, you should be fine with even older manual focus lenses in that situation. A 200mm f/2.8 would be doable on your budget if it's an old lens. It certainly would not be affordable for a modern AF piece of glass. Get a nice fast AF "kit lens" replacement and you're covered.

I have a Pentax iST DSLR I bought quite a few years ago. I think it was in the $500-600 range at the time. It has been a great camera, but...like you found out, accessories are far and few between.

I bought a cheap telephoto lens and got what I paid for. I get lazy and use my potato phone camera constantly. Every once in a while I break out the DSLR and am reminded by the gigantic jump in quality and color. Too bad the photos tend to sit on the SD card forever.

I find it hard to imagine the sort of subject that would require 6fps shooting, but then I shoot motorsports with sixty-year-old film cameras by choice, so what do I know.

In any case, unless you're planning on huge prints, you don't need anything even remotely current. If you have access to Canon lenses, figure out what they work with and buy that. KEH is a good source for used gear with a guarantee and easy return policy.

If I was buying a new interchangeable lens camera and I did not own any other equipment, I'd be looking at Micro 4/3 or "Mirrorless" cameras.

Despite my last-year new Nikon D5300 being smaller and lighter than my old D50, I still regularly say to myself "man this thing is a pain-in-the-ass big".

I consider myself more of a street photographer with an eye towards portraits, landscapes and more recently I've loved trying to snap shots of birds or animals that are really far away. In that respect, I'm glad I got my D5300 refurbished because it allows me to spend a little bit more on lenses. I still wish I had a wide 20mm lense and a long 800mm Rokinon.

I just got a Nikon D3300 with a kit lens and a 200m zoom for about 500. Everything I read said that it was pretty much the best DSLR in its price range and was basically the same as the 5300 except for the lack of WiFi and touchscreen. Easy to use, takes great pictures, doesn't break the bank. Lots of camera for the money, I think.

I got my refurbed D5300 with kit lens for $530.

It also came with a SD card that had pictures of some Asian folks working on lots of Nikon cameras.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1063522&gclid=Cj0KEQiAtMSzBRDs7fvDosLZmpoBEiQADzG1vFK1lDYgvLC1OL8g20EJ7ac2AjB8UeRzCNbtaqOSJcUaApsQ8P8HAQ&Q=&ap=y&m=Y&is=REG&A=details

K-50 with a DA L (Pentax speak for digital, kit lens) 18-55mm weather resistant lens + DA L 55-300mm f4-5.8 lens for $600. I'm in the Pentax camp so I can't really speak with much authority on the Nikon or Canon options. My sister has a Canon SL1 that she seems really happy with. She's got an older Canon kit lens, I think a 35-80mm from the mid-90's, that works with it. AF is kind of wonky with that combo sometimes though. In any case, for the money, I think this would be a hard kit to beat unless you get some crazy clearance or other one-off deal.

If you want to go used, on KEH.com there's an Excellent condition K20D for $220, which I'd pair with a DA (non-L) 55-300 they have for $185. After that grab an 18-55 kit lens for $75 or less, or else look for something like a Sigma 17-70, Pentax 18-135, or Tokina 17-50 if you want to get a nice two lens setup for about the same $600.

You want a Canon SL1. It should work with some of your existing lenses. Even if it doesn't, Canon has some of the best cheap ultrawide and 35 or 50 mm prime lenses. This is as close as you'll get to your budget. I'd look for refurbs from reputable sellers and strongly consider used from Adorama (they have an "excellent +" condition one for $320 body only).

If you wanted to go Nikon, I'd be looking at refurbished D3100/3200/3300 bodies and snagging whatever lens worked best for your uses. I love my D3100 (refurb from Adorama for cheap!), but if I started from scratch again, I'd have gotten the Canon.

My experience is that if you want to shoot motorsports and don't have the press pass necessary to get access to the holes in the safety fences, you have to climb hills so you can shoot over the fence. That means shooting from a long way away, and you need a long telephoto lens to get that to work. Unfortunately, $300 isn't really a viable price point for doing this.

(the rest of this post, I'm going to assume you're willing/able to adjust your budget to meet your stated goals, rather than adjusting goals to meet budget. If the latter, please disregard)

Unlike most sports photograph, you probably can get away with relatively slow lenses. Gymnastics, basketball, hockey -- they're all held indoors in buildings that are caves as far as photography lighting goes. Automobile racing is outdoors, and unless you're shooting at Le Mans it's usually in fairly bright sunlight. You don't need f/2.8.

I wouldn't recommend a manual focus lens. Yes, in theory you can pre-focus at a particular distance and then shoot the car when it crosses that point, but even when it works right that drastically limits what you can shoot. You can get photos of each car, but you'll have a hard time getting "action" shots, and panning the camera to track the car to get the background blur effect is unlikely to work well.

micro-4/3 bodies are cool, but the downside to them compared to the big brands like Canon and Nikon is a vasty reduced lens availability, especially in the long telephoto category. IMHO, you're better off sticking with the big brands for this area.

Are you shooting video, or just stills? If you don't need the fancy video features, you're better off with a used mid-level body than a newer consumer-level one, IMHO. In the Canon line, I wouldn't buy anything with the "Rebel" trademark -- a used 50D or a 7Dmk1 will cost about the same and will deliver better results IMHO.

The usual recommendation I give to people who ask about Canon vs Nikon is to buy what your friends own, because that way you can borrow lenses from each other. If your dad has a pile of Canon "EF" lenses, then go with that. ("FD" was the pre-autofocus Canon line and is generally very difficult to get to work with a modern body).

If I were looking to do this, I'd buy a used Canon 50D ($200-300) and a used 70-200 f/4 "L" non-IS ($400-500), or the Nikon equivalent (dunno the exact gear specs for Nikon, but they'll have something similar) That's craigslist pricing -- something like KEH is going to be higher due to reputation. I would avoid the non-L 70-300 and 75-300 lenses, they are cheap but really have significant compromises in the image quality. There is an "L" 70-300 that is reportedly quite good (but expensive!). With the 70-200 f/4 you could stick a 1.4x teleconverter on it to make it approximately 100-300 f/5.6 and still get AF and decent image quality.

I don't really know what a 35mm prime would be good for here. 50mm seems doubtful as well but I find it to be a kind of confusing focal length on APS-C. When the budget is tight like this example I think it's all about the zooms; a bit of a compromise but they cover more bases for the money. That's my personal opinion and should be taken as such.

I just snagged a D3200 with 5 lenses, a zillion accessories, a backpack case, bag, tripod, and macros for $500 brand new. I would imagine a body with two lenses could be had for $300 easy.

The 3100 is the same camera but gives up the video option from the 3200. D3000s can be found used for under $300. Two years ago, lots of aspiring shooters bought them and didn't use them much, so packages should be cheap.

Nikon is the current go-to standard for DSLR for many folks. The CMOS sensor they use is from Sony. Sony has the best CMOS for low-light, response time, and overall image quality up to very high ISOs. Add in Nikon's very comprehensive hardware/software, and it makes for one of the best on the market right now.

Of course next year, Canon might up its game, but right now Nikon is the generally-accepted leader for imaging.

pres589 wrote: I don't really know what a 35mm prime would be good for here. 50mm seems doubtful as well but I find it to be a kind of confusing focal length on APS-C. When the budget is tight like this example I think it's all about the zooms; a bit of a compromise but they cover more bases for the money. That's my personal opinion and should be taken as such.

Multiply by 1.6 to get approximate equivalent focal length (at least in terms of field of view) for 35mm film. So a 35mm prime is approximately 56mm, and 50mm is approximately 80. Neither is particularly useful for motorsports, unless you're shooting cars in the paddock or hot pits.

In reply to codrus:

Yeah, agreed, you're spot on with why I don't really like those focal lengths. A decently fast 35mm might be nice as a walk-around but I'd rather have something in the mid-20's for that. And for some reason that area seems under-served unless you want a zoom.

Just as a bit of an out of the box suggestion Sony makes a good DSLR. I bought my Daughter an A58 a couple of years ago and it's been fantastic. Nikon uses Sony's CMOS sensor in their cameras so you know they're top notch. All of the vintage Minolta AF glass from the 80s and 90s fit the Sony body and you can pick them up for cheap. She grabbed a 28mm and 70-210mm Minolta lens along with a Minolta Maxxum 35mm body for $50. She ended up throwing the body away but the lenses were like new. As a bonus the Sony is cheaper than either of the equivalent Canon or Nikon.

I have a Sony A77 and I love it. The A58 is 95% of the camera at about 30% of the cost. Because the newer Sonys are not true SLRs, they have a translucent mirror that doesn't flip up, the fire rate is a bit faster than a comparable Canon or Nikon.

You will have issues finding cheap(er) lenses for the Sony. As stated above, the older AF Minolta lenses work, and many of them were known to be as good or better than the competition back in the day. That said, I've yet to use a lens that I loved more than the Canon 70-200 f2.8. I imagine something like this would be perfect for you, and the f4 would get closer to your budget. Based solely on that, I'd go with the Canon that fits your budget.

I have to admit that if I didn't go with Pentax, I'd look really hard at Canon, simply for the lens selection available. I'm not really sure where this is all heading for Pentax or not. That said, Pentax offers features that cost more or seem to be unavailable in otherwise comparable DSLR's. In-body anti-shake is one that I really appreciate. Another is weather-resistant bodies.

Without trying to start a holy war of brand vs. brand, I don't really understand why so many folks are posting in this thread and only seem to consider Canon or Nikon and ignore Sony, Pentax etc. Sony seems to be knocking it out of the park with some of their offerings. Is it just market share and the knock-on effect that it provides the big two?

I sold my 50mm 1.8 for a 35mm 1.8 and it's still not wide enough. Thinking of selling it for a Rokinon 14mm.

All I know is that people who shoot motorsports for a living, have lenses like this. And this retails for $13,000.

If it were me, I'd double the $$$ and buy this for $650. Everything you need including a 300mm lens. Nikon 3300

Or this for $400 with a 200mm lens.

You can usually get a body with a basic lens used for $300, then save up for a decent long lens. If you were set on $300, then I would stick with the Sony Alpha, mostly because it has more and longer lens options that the Nikon J1 series. You can get them for $300 refurbished or slightly used.

Whatever you get, do not get something without a proper viewfinder, and preferably an optical one. Trying to shoot anything that moves, in bright light, especially with a long lens, with only the screen on the back of the camera will quickly become an exercise in frustration.

I have a D200 with some lenses, great camera (as is the D300, which I've used but not owned). For motorsports the cost is going to be in the lenses, not in the body. A 200mm tele lens for example wasn't enough for shooting at Laguna Seca, and you can easily spend your whole budget on a used decent zoom lens that goes up to 300 or 400mm.

I would definitely look at the Sony cameras (née Minolta), Minolta had a whole bunch of mediocre glass but there are some spectacular lenses that can be had pretty cheap.

Oh, and my D200 is going to be for sale in the next month or two as I do want a slightly newer body - if I didn't have a whole bunch of DX format lenses I'd love to get a D600 or D700, but that would require news lenses.

Also remember that, in the end, too many equipment options can be detrimental. I would argue that you would be far better off getting a body and a single prime, the field-of-view of which matches the type of photos you want to produce. Learning to get every last bit out of one lens will make you a better photographer far more quickly than screwing around with multiple zooms.

Ok, so here's some sample shots from my Fuji:

There's some good and bad in there. While I like some of the shots, colors always feel like they are washed out. Movement shots are really tough to get, and it's hard to focus. The camera DOES do burst fire shots, but the frame rate is very slow, so most get tossed out anyway.

There's a lot of good info in here. The camera that has really piqued my interest so far is the Pentax K-50. I do like the specs, and it's weather sealed, which is awesome.It's also priced attractively, and I should be able to stretch a little to get a new one over some unknown used one. Like I said before, I need to see what my dad has for a setup, because if I can somehow use his lenses, then that would rule.

Learning how a particular camera, lens, and sensor work together to produce color is part of learning how to get the most out of them. With digital, there is a general expectation that you will have to do at least some basic post-processing to get the best results. Everyone has their favorite photo editing software; I won't go into that beyond saying that there are some very good free software packages. Learning how to make some basic adjustments will help you to produce results more to your liking.

I took the liberty of making a couple simple adjustments to one of your photos above - I hope you don't mind - to show you what I'm talking about. This is literally three adjustment processes that took about one minute to complete.