The latest and greatest for a noob photographer - What to look for

You will get as many opinions on the best entry level camera as you will get people posting on here. It depends on what you are looking for and what features you want. So why not turn to one of the review magazines for their recommendations? These ones look sensible.

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/roundups/camera/507500/1/best-entry-level-dslrs-2013-our-top-five-entry-level-dslrs-of-the-year.html

http://reviews.cnet.com/best-entry-level-dslr-cameras

Oh, and I'd recommend an entry level Canon EOS, just because.

 

I highly recommend the Cannon EoS Rebel cameras (I've got a T3i that I love) I'm still a total photography noob (really need to take a proper photo class) but IMHO the camera takes very good photos in the Auto setting

I chose my camera because the online reviews were very good and it was relatively inexpensive for a DSLR (I paid about $550-$600 for it a year ago) the only downside is the weight, unlike the lightweight point and shoot cameras DSLRs are hefty to carry around.

all my doll pictures were taken with a T3i so if you check out my flickr you can see the camera in action

 

I have a Canon Rebel. I am really happy with it. As far as a "professional grade" camera, I would never personally spend that kind of money. I'm not a professional photographer, I never will be. I want my thousands of dollars for other things. (Like sewing machines)

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

 

Thanks I think it's a good camera to grow with too, and there's some really nice lenses you can add later (I've heard good review of the Macro 2.4 (I think?) lens) and from what I've heard Canon cameras are fairly tough too

if you do decide to buy a Cannon EOS Rebel T3i, Target and Walmart carry them, so if you're unhappy with the camera you have to 2-4 weeks to return it. (I got mine at Target so I could use my Red card to get 5% off)

 

"Pro", latest, cheapest: choose any two.

If you want pro build and "cheap" (<$1000), last year's model will fit the bill, Canon 60D.
If you want latest and cheap, Canon T5i will be your thing.
If you want you pro and latest, get a Canon 70D or shell out for a full frame camera for more $.

Your choice.

For the record, I wouldn't worry about "outgrowing the camera"--more likely you'll outgrow the lens anyway.

 

I still think a cheaper camera, like most people are recommending, is your best bet. As a beginner, you will take a LOOOOONG time to outgrow it. I had my 350D for five years as my first DSLR camera and only replaced it when it was playing up and it would have cost more to repair than was worth it. I then got the 60D because it is the best camera for the price and I don't need all the bells and whistles of something like the 70D (like better video. I don't need a cut-down video camera but a good, no nonsense workhorse of a still camera). Yes, image quality is better with the 60D versus the 350D, and it copes better with a wider range of less than ideal situations, but I am pretty sure all of that would have been lost on me five years ago.

And resolution on all of these is more than you will need for anything, unless you are considering printing out billboard-sized versions of your photographs.

 

there are site now where you can rent a camera (borrowlenses.com for one) I haven't used one yet, but I've heard good reviews

and if you do go to a store (like Target or Walmart) do not buy their insurance policy! they will try very very hard to get you to buy it but resist. It's almost impossible to get them to repair/replace cameras or other electronics (just google Target or Walmart extended warranty to find out more)

most Canon cameras come with a 1 year warranty against most damages/failures

 

You could buy from a store with relatively friendly return policies. It's not good to do that regularly, since raises the costs to the retailer and therefore must be passed to the rest of us. But it is good to be cautious for your first "real" camera, so I think it should be ok for you in this case.

I don't know your location, but in the USA Canon will sell you refurbished items with the same 1 year warranty they provide with new items. Great if money is a concern.

That said, SLRs generally don't displease new owners unless:

• The owner had unrealistic expectations. No, the more expensive camera will NOT automagically make your pictures better. This user is actually looking for a high-performance compact camera.
• The SLR turns out to be too heavy or bulky for the owner's preference. This one you won't discover right away unfortunately. This user may be satisfied with a smaller mirrorless camera.
• The camera is truly defective. An exchange will solve that problem, which any reputable retailer will allow within their return period.

Any modern SLR you pick up will likely be the fastest camera you have ever used. You press the shutter and it just shoots immediately. The optical viewfinder means the camera doesn't burn battery just being on, so the batteries lasts for days/weeks rather than just a few hours.

I use both Canon SLR and Olympus mirrorless systems. The SLR is for times when weight doesn't matter; the mirrorless is for times that it does.

 

Eh, rentals are well over $100/week just for a Rebel class camera, and that's without a lens. Honestly, it's cheaper to buy a used or refurbished camera and resell it if you decide you don't like it. You'd also get a lot more time to use it than a week, which is barely any time at all to "learn it".

EDIT: And yes, I do mean for Canada. I checked Henry's and Lensrentals Canada.

 

Our local public library has cameras for use and two green screen rooms. I about fell over when I realized that. They have staff to help you set up but you can't take the cameras home. Still it's a way to play with cameras and dolls at the same time with professional lighting even! If your local library doesn't do anything like that they might know one that does.

 

Renting is not worth it. The learning curve with a DSLR is significant enough, that even if you rented for a week you wouldn't be able to accurately assess whether or not the camera was the one for you. You really only find yourself wanting when you find a shot you want to take that your camera's technology can't accommodate (e.g. not long enough lens, not fast enough shutter speed, doesn't focus quickly enough for a fast-moving target, etc.) or when you use something better for a while and get used to certain higher-end features.

If you're committed to getting a DSLR, your best bet is to buy in a few rungs up from the entry level and get something like a T5i or D5x00 series. These cameras satisfy your requirements for "all of the best and latest technology" but are still bodies below the $1000 price point. They will have the latest in terms of image quality and low-noise high-ISO performance, and will have plenty of room to grow as you learn. Models up from this typically have more special features, but there are very diminishing returns on image quality per dollar spent until you get up to the full-frame cameras in the $2500 body range. Beyond the T5i/D5300 range, the higher-end crop-sensor bodies mostly just offer better build quality, faster shutter speeds and frame buffering, and more sophisticated auto-focus sensor systems (largely for shooting sports and other fast-moving subjects). For shooting dolls, a $1600 crop body is not going to get you a better final image than an $800 body. The extra money is better spent on getting a higher quality lens.

Speaking of lenses, it's the glass that often separates the really great photos from the truly stunning. Having 24 megapixels is only useful if your lens can actually resolve sharply enough to make use of it all. Just as with the camera body, I recommend not buying entry level. Many of the crop-bodies come in bundles with an 18-55mm 'kit' lens. The 18-55mm lenses (both Canon and Nikon) are optically decent, but they have horrible build quality and small maximum apertures (typically f/3.5-5.5 variable or worse). The best use for these lenses is for figuring out what focal length range you might want to buy prime lenses in. If you want those stunning, tight depth-of-field shots you see on Flickr, you need a better lens than entry level. Canon's go-to standard zooms are the 17-55mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/4L. Nikon's are the 17-35mm f/2.8 and 24-120mm f/4. All of these are over $1000 lenses, but to be perfectly honest with you, this is what it takes to put together a decent DSLR. Your lens should cost more than your body. Good prime lenses are generally cheaper than good zoom lenses, but you have to know what focal lengths you will need. For 1/4 and 1/3 scale dolls, everything from 24mm to 70mm is highly useful. If you think you want to go the prime route, a 35mm f/2.0 is a good first choice. Also, Nikon has a 40mm f/2.8 macro that is excellent. Macro lenses are nice for doll work, because they are optimized for short camera-to-subject distances. Canon's shortest macro is the 50mm f/2.5 which is an excellent lens, and the 60/2.8 is even better, but these may be a bit too long to start with as your only lens ( something in the 28-35 range is better ).

My recommendation would be to not buy a variable max aperture zoom lens as your main lens. The focal length ranges they offer make them look tempting, but they are made for travel photograph primarily, where the convenience of a big zoom range in one lens trumps image quality, light gathering ability and shallow depth-of-field needs. These lenses are noted by having a range like f/3.5-5.5 or f/3.5-4.5. Many are great as vacation and walkaround lenses, but for artistic doll photos, you want the largest fixed max aperture zoom lens you can afford, or a set of prime lenses that cover your needs.

Nearly every doll photo in my Flickr stream was shot at f/4 or wider, to isolate the subject. While you might think "well, the kit lens can go to f/3.5 or f/4 so that ought to do" the truth is that with any low-quality lens, you need to stop down a bit to get decent sharpness across the frame, and lack of other image defects like color fringing and vignetting. The kit lenses take sharp photos at f/5.6 and f/8, but if you want a tack-sharp photo at f/2.8, you need a very good quality lens to pull that off. Cheaper lenses also typically have poor bokeh (background blur) quality.

 

FWIW, while camera bodies generally are not worth renting, lenses are. Good lenses are expensive and they don't depreciate or get outdated as quickly as bodies. It's not uncommon to upgrade your body more than once while keeping the same lenses. There are places like borrowlenses.com and lensrentals.com at have large selections of lenses available for short-term rental. Handling a lens in a shop will give you an idea of build quality, but you can't tell if it's right for you until you shoot with it in your actual use scenario and then look at the results.

Also, for shooting dolls and other still life subjects without a tripod, I really, really like having image stabilization. I really can't extol its virtues enough. I had very nice Canon 50mm and 60mm lenses, optically superior to my 17-55/2.8 in a controlled studio setting, but the 17-55mm is always my go-to lens for outdoor and impromptu doll photos because of its 2-stop image stabilization. The stabilization, in practice, means you can take keeper shots at ISO 100 that would need ISO 400-800 with a regular lens. Even with today's better high-ISO performing cameras, the noise difference between ISO 100 and 400 is still big. It's truly amazing tech, and even more so on the newest lenses that can stabilize smooth enough to gain 3-4 stops.

Also, FWIW, I shoot with the 60D right now. I love it. I may have been happy with a T series if it had not been for the fact that I was used to having the top LCD on all my previous cameras (both digital and film). I couldn't live without that now, it's where I've gotten used to looking for my at-a-glance confirmation of settings.