First camera - Thinking of a DLSR?

JoeF1 · 28 Jan 2017 at 14:39

Hi guys,

Been looking for a decent camera now to start learning and getting much nicer shots. We are expecting in a few weeks so would like to get one before then to take better quality photos than i would with my S7 Edge.

I have a budget of around 250-350 and at the moment thinking of either a Nikon D3300 or a Canon 1300D.

I have no experience with DLSRs but have been warned off a bridge camera. What do you think of the the two cameras above? Also would you recommend any others? With the new baby the lower end of the budget the better

Cheers chaps.

JoeF1 · 30 Jan 2017 at 07:54

Anyone?

stuman · 30 Jan 2017 at 08:05

Why dslr?

I'm running a Fuji x-t1. They can be had for £350 second hand

Armageus · 30 Jan 2017 at 08:15

Personally I wouldn't bother with a DSLR to take baby photos - a phone camera is a lot more convenient to catch those "blink-and-you-miss" moments that are so common with kids.

Bear in mind that with a DSLR you likely will need something like a 35mm F1.8 lens, to offer decent indoor performance (kit lens is relatively poor in low light). Your S7 has a top end camera as far as phones go, so would honestly stick with that.

Greboth · 30 Jan 2017 at 11:56

As above if only for your new baby. However if you're thinking of it as a new hobby with the added benefit of better baby photos then a d-slr makes sense. I have no experience with the Canon but the Nikon D3300 is a good entry level d-slr.

JoeF1 · 30 Jan 2017 at 13:05

Greboth said:
As above if only for your new baby. However if you're thinking of it as a new hobby with the added benefit of better baby photos then a d-slr makes sense.

This is pretty much it. The baby photos are just an added benefit although having to buy a new lens for indoor quality does put me off that slightly with money being tight. I may stick with your advice and stick with the camera phone for baby shots and if i want to start doing landscapes i will make the plunge once all the baby purchases are done haha.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 30 Jan 2017 at 13:08

I would probably not get a 35MM/F1.8 for an APS-C camera - a 50MM lens will be cheaper and it gives you some distance between the camera and subject,which will be useful.

JoeF1 · 31 Jan 2017 at 07:52

Thanks for the advice guys.

Drollic · 31 Jan 2017 at 14:49

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I would probably not get a 35MM/F1.8 for an APS-C camera - a 50MM lens will be cheaper and it gives you some distance between the camera and subject,which will be useful.

This is true but it works the other way as well. If you're limited for space indoors or out and about a 50mm gives too much reach and you can't take the shot at all. At least with a 35mm you can crop in slightly. Obviously outdoors the 50mm is the better choice.

Armageus · 31 Jan 2017 at 14:58

Drollic said:
This is true but it works the other way as well. If you're limited for space indoors or out and about a 50mm gives too much reach and you can't take the shot at all. At least with a 35mm you can crop in slightly. Obviously outdoors the 50mm is the better choice.

Which was why I suggested a 35mm

I own a 50mm and I struggle with it in my house (although maybe my house is too small

) - everywhere else though the 50mm gets more use than my kit lens ever did.

ethan · 31 Jan 2017 at 18:22

Best of both worlds with the 35mm as I've found myself in a few tight places at times and you always have the benefit of doing street. I'm unsure as to why people are recommending the use of the phone for baby picks when the advantages of using something approaching a decent camera with a 35mm would best it every time

?

asim18 · 31 Jan 2017 at 18:41

ethan said:
I'm unsure as to why people are recommending the use of the phone for baby picks when the advantages of using something approaching a decent camera with a 35mm would best it every time ?

I'm thinking exactly the same thing. I have my nephews' birthdays coming up and I cannot imagine using a phone to capture "blink-and-you-miss moments" when I can have my finger on the trigger of a DSLR. I mean one of the selling points of DSLRs is the unbeatable OFF-Standby-Shoot times.

A competent photographer with his trigger finger on the shutter release of a DSLR cannot ever be beaten with a mobile phone camera lol. I cant imagine shooting my nephew's birthday on a phone.

Armageus · 31 Jan 2017 at 18:57

asim18 said:
I'm thinking exactly the same thing. I have my nephews' birthdays coming up and I cannot imagine using a phone to capture "blink-and-you-miss moments" when I can have my finger on the trigger of a DSLR. I mean one of the selling points of DSLRs is the unbeatable OFF-Standby-Shoot times.

A competent photographer with his trigger finger on the shutter release of a DSLR cannot ever be beaten with a mobile phone camera lol. I cant imagine shooting my nephew's birthday on a phone.

But that's an actual "event" you can plan around. I'm talking about random moments anywhere, whether that's at the dinner table, at bed time, or anywhere else where something funny, cute or memorable could happen. Personally I don't walk around the house with my dslr, it's stowed in its bag and not within arm's reach.

ethan · 31 Jan 2017 at 19:46

It's just an opinion based on personal experience Armageus but I have to confess I belong to the school of thought that thinks the worst thing that ever happened to photography is the mobile phone. I understand what you are saying regarding accessibility but situations with myself are such I always have at hand access to a camera ranging from a RX100 to Fuji XE2 or Fuji XT2 within reach. The only time I havent got a camera on me is unfortunately when I go to the gym. You could use the S7 for family pics where the subject is not moving but I usually find this is not the case for most things or emergencies.

D.P. · 31 Jan 2017 at 20:24

A phone sometimes works well enough to get an OK photo of a child for Facebook, but in most circumstances is useless or the results simply not acceptable for future memories. Also a big difference between indoors and outdoors, outdoors a phone does OK for a slow moving baby, indoors and even a static baby is hard to do well.

A DSLr and a phone together work out very well as a combo. I keep a DSLR in the living room so its handy if the baby is doing something unusually cute, for run of the mill sending a snap to the grandparents then a phone is typically within the pocket.

I'm actually going to recommend the kit lens with the DSLR, but budget a 3rd party flashy. Kids move around so fast that you don;t want something with razor thin DOF unless you are happy with a high failure rate, and regardless of the aperture available you just wont get the light indoors in the evening, even at f/14 ISO 64000 you will end up with subject blur.
Moreover, with the moving child and the need for quick work before the aby stop doing whatever it was that was cute enough to deserve a photo , you really don't want to be limited by a prime lens. Zoom lens will be so much more flexible and give you more keepers. No need to choose between the 35mm or 50mm, when you have 18-55 or more at your disposal.

For most peoples houses with low white painted ceilings, simply bounce the flash and get well balanced natural looking photos with the subject sharp and fully in focus with minimal fuss and low cost. One of the more premium zoom lens like 26-80mm f/4.0 would be a little nicer but aren't essential.

D.P. · 31 Jan 2017 at 20:25

Armageus said:
But that's an actual "event" you can plan around. I'm talking about random moments anywhere, whether that's at the dinner table, at bed time, or anywhere else where something funny, cute or memorable could happen. Personally I don't walk around the house with my dslr, it's stowed in its bag and not within arm's reach.

Leave the DSLR in the living room/play area on a shelf and it will be quickly accessible most of the time. Sure not always, but then you can use the phone as an emergency. As a dedicated camera for taking baby photos, a phone just doesn't cut it.

Gungnir · 1 Feb 2017 at 23:03

I can't think of anything more precious and fleeting as capturing images of your newborn child.

Those suggesting sticking with phone pics........

A session with a decent baby photographer is more than your budget for camera and lens so even if you don't stick with the hobby a decent camera is worth the investment.

30-35mm is fine for babies. Secondhand Sigma 30mm is excellent for this. Just keep everything important at roughly the same distance from lens to avoid melon head syndrome. Your initial images are likely to be baby wrapped up with all protrudents tucked safely away. Minor distortion will be easily sorted in any of the editing programs including the one you'll get free with camera.

Pester all the forums for tips. Start practicing now. Add the camera to your household insurance policy... Everything you own will soon be covered in milky puke.