A new dslr and limited funds

What I have is likely not for the budget end, but still there might be some useful info for you.

Camera:
I use a Nikon D3. Yes it is expensive, but it is a great camera, it shoots fast and low light is still right there with brand new dSLR's up to ISO 3200 which is usually good enough to get the job done in combination with the right lenses.
Why I could do with a bit more resolution - the D3 is 12MP - the gain is not worth the extra bucks for me, nor is video capability which newer dSLR's offer.
Bottom line is that this camera has done a fabulous job over almost 6 years now.

Lenses:
I like quality lenses, I Like zooms and I like primes even better.
I use a 70-200 2.8 Nikon zoom and this heavy weight is just an excellent lens. I wouldn't buy any cheapo telelens, speed is just too important at the tele side. The newish 70-200 f4 would be an interesting alternative however in particular looking at its price.

The only other zoom I use a lot is my 16-35mm f4 as I'm a wide angle junkie. It is my default lens and I don't use any mid-range zoom anymore.
I prefer it over the 14-24mm 2.8 as it is much cheaper and has a more useful zoom range. The new 18-35mm 3.5-4.0 or something like that looks like a very interesting alternative as well.

Other lenses I love are:

28mm 1.8 - my absolute favorite, great optics, good price and I mucho prefer 28mm over 35 (too narrow in many situations) or 24mm (too wide for street shots.

60mm macro - good price, fits in the gap between 35 and 70mm between my zooms and give 1:1 excellent macro capability and great optics. A must and much more useful than the 50mm 1.4 or so.

85mm 1.8 - perfect optics at a bargain price; when it gets too dark for the 70-200 and 16-35 zooms this 85mm along with the 28mm do the job. Has to be really dark however...like in a blues club or so. A specialist lens, but great bargain and great optics.

The 50mm 1.4 I would not buy anymore, AF is a bit slow and 50mm is not a very useful range to me. I would rather get the new 50mm 1.8 these days as AF is faster and it cost less. Or go straight for the 60mm macro, much more useful overall.

Note that all above are the new AF-G lenses, those are new designs and visibly better than the old AF-D designs. I would not spend money on any AF-D lens anymore (with very few exceptions, maybe an old 85mm 1.8 AF-D at a super bargain price...).

1.4 prime lenses are way too expensive in my opinion, 1.8 primes get you very similar performance at much less dineros. Same goes for 2.8 zooms and 4.0 (as long as it is the 'expensive' 4.0 series).

Bottom line is that those lenses last and with will stay with you. 10, 15, even 20 years of use.

So what does this mean for Nikon right now?
And for dSLR's?

First of all dSLR's offer best bang for the buck in my opinion.
Those mirrorless cameras are all compromises somewhere.

Some have electronic viewfinders and shoot and focus fast and are a tad smaller than a dSLR (but you still need a bag) and cost much more dineros.
Some are ok priced, but lack viewfinders, speed or whatever, are smaller (but still need a bag).
It's always a trade some place.

I would never get a (main-)camera without a viewfinder by the way. Never mind electronic or optical, but viewfinder is a must. Try accurate focus and framing of moving stuff with a LCD camera held away from your face. Nope, no, just nope no and more no.

Another fact is that small bodies can be awkward to hold and smaller button are less user friendly and start getting in your way when taking pictures. It's of no use when your camera has all the functions but you never use them as it takes too long or too much fumbling with buttons to change the settings.
Bigger cameras with bigger buttons do much better here.

dSLR's are divided into Fullframe (FF) and crop-size sensors (DX for Nikon); Full frame is getting cheaper and cheaper and it is the largest engine that can be build in the dSLR chassis. Expect DX dSLRS to disappear one day...and with it DX lenses.
Won't happen overnight, but if you think in the time frame I do then it can be important when buying lenses.

The D600 is a great great FF camera and showing the trend. That's one camera I still see being used in 7-8years if bought now. However it is still quite expensive and likely not your budget.

So for the budget minded I would get a D3200. If it is budget budget add the kit lens. You won't use it in 10-15 years anymore but it is very cheap.
Any other lenses I would rather buy any of those I mentioned above than any other lens which you will use for less than a handful of years - and then spend more to replace it with something better.

Rather have a LESS complete lens system/zoom range at the beginning and work within its limits than having a HUGE zoom range using cheap lenses.
Working with limits makes you think more when taking images as well and is good for your learning process. "If I have the longest zoom and the widest wide angle I can take all pictures and hence good pictures' is the wrong approach. Lots of folks new in dSLR's fall for the long tele syndrome. Don't.
My setup goes to 200mm and that's enough (in fact I likely would be fine with a 135mm prime as my 70-200 zoom so often is on the 135mm range after a shot...sometimes the extra range to 200mm is really nice to have, but I certainly could do with 135).

If you get a D3200 for example:
A 18-35mm f3.3-4.5 AF-G would give you a nice 'standard zoom' on this DX body (and a wide angle in the future, when FX is getting into the cheaper models).
A 60mm 2.8 AF-G micro will get you a nifty little 90mm tele with close up capability on the DX (and still useful in the FX future).
A 28mm 1.8 AF-G gives you a 45mm 'standard' low light lens of DX (and even more useful on FX later).
A 85mm 1.8 AF-G gives you a great low light tele of 135mm on DX (and will still be of good use in FX country).

The only problem with a DX setup is the wide angle side - you would need a dedicated DX lens if you want to go wider than those 28mm you get from that 18-35mm.

Bottom line: get a cheap entry level body, those are already very good cameras - buy medium price range lenses, think really long term here.
Forget about mirrorless cameras, they are either too expensive or less capable (and in most cases still too big, they are not pocket size either).

Apply same for Canon (or Sony, which use electronic viewfinders in their dSLR-like cameras, the alpha series, not talking about the NEX series).
++

• What I tell my friends is that if they just want a nicer camera for family and friends and on holiday maybe the NEX.

Agree

• If you prefer a versatile camera it will have to be a SLR

Agree. Not only because of the lenses however, other things are more important, viewfinder, usability, etc. Plus bang for buck.

And remeber you can get second hands or refurbished cameras too.
A refurbished D600 can be had for about 1500-1600$, now that's one great camera for that kind of money!
Compare with a Olympus OM-D (which is a very good mirrorless camera) for 900$ or a Fuji XE1 for 800$.
Or a D3200 for 400$ or even less if refurbished.
+++

Thanks so much for your kind contributions. So very appreciated. I will certainly take on board every comment and let you know what I end up getting.

I think it is over the top to consider those lenses suggested on a $500 (?) body. They are maybe ok for a serious amateur with a D600. The 18-35 becomes a 28-50mm very restrictive. Both the 28 and 85mm are nice but they are more people who know more about photography than for their first SLR. Maybe like many general people, they prefer a single superzoom even if it is not that optically better. I know a person and he wouldn't even consider anything else. I guess he prefers SLR because that's the baseline in most people's minds and uses his camera for casual shots only. The 60mm well it is a macro lens unless they are gonna use it. And if they are not they are doubling up with the 85mm.

The 28mm is $900, the 85mm is $500, the macro might be $600. The 18-35 is maybe a good $600.
If one was in DX format. You could get a Tamron 17-50 which is a 2.8 even faster and you may want then a 35mm 1.8 for $200.

I don't get the idea, of always full frame. I went full frame with the D600 but I think I made the wrong decision b/c I don't take pictures of dark stuff often. Even DX cameras are always improving. Heavens people dealt with film cameras and any digital SLR camera even back in 2004 was better in the grain. This is 2013 now.

I think that for a first SLR, just take baby steps and get the kit lens which is often discounted compared to if you bought that lens separately. Get other stuff when you are sure. The last thing you want is that you buy it, don't use it much and sell it and lose 33%.

More people are getting away from SLRs these days. SLR will be more versatile and you can do things you cannot do with others. But .. it depends what you are doing. You want to be more discreet taking photo's the ones like the NEX might be better in shopping malls, markets, restaurants, even inside buses, trains, on the streets at random people. Some have used the expensive Leica rangefinders, they are not your wildlife, sport or wedding camera but they do what they are good for.

If you are wanting to do photography exhibitions for the right subjects, you could use the NEX or even the Canon G series camera and do it or go into photography club competitions. Soem of the guys I know at my club, have a NEX, the Fuji's, one older guys has a Leica III film camera and might recently got a Sony RX100.

The bulk gets to people, maybe that is one reason they don't like them too much, even thou they might be more versatile, quicker to use etc... At the end of the day you're carrying it.

• More people are getting away from SLRs these days.

This is actually wrong. The dSLR market is actually growing faster than the mirrorless compact market. You consume much more marketing nor the latter indeed but the facts are the opposite.

And as for selling with 30% loss, that's exactly what I would want to avoid. That 600$ 17-35 lens sure restricts you as its zoom range as its not as wide as otOf course ifers, but if you are into photography that lens can stay with you for more than decade.

Of course if you want a one lens set up it won't be ideal but obviously my comment was not meant for such one lens set ups.

If you don't want a one lens set up and think long term getting a D3200 with the 18-35mm now and next year a 85mm OR 60mm and in 6-7 years a FF body for less than 1000$ will be more cost efficient than getting DX lenses now.

Of course if you shoot only static stuff at bright light and no blogd ups you won't need any lenses with extra performance but that dépends on your style. Travel photography itself can be quite challenging however as it does cover a very wide range of shooting genres - if you choose to shoot them.

I got my 28mm 1.8 for 750$ here in Bangkok btw, where do you shop, those prices seem on the high side?

• I don't get the idea, of always full frame.

Not for now, but you will have to get used to the thought that dSLR's in the future will be full frame. Prices are coming down so FF bodies get cheaper. And it is one of the points where a dSLR can set themselves apart from smaller cameras. And any improvement in image technology goes into them as well, not only in smaller sensors.

But what I'm saying really is that one day not that much in the future you might see all those under 1000$DFF bodies, you might want a new body by then...and look at all the DX lenses you bought...
And by then you certainly will not get much for those lenses anymore.

Long faces on the forums when the D300 disappeared, exactly because of that reason. All the 17-55mm 2.8 lenses collecting dust in the second hand shelves tell you about it...

But once more, if cheap and good for a few years is good enough for you, go for it.
My answer is more for a long term thinking enthusiast on a lower budget but still wanting home lenses.

I would rather spend any extra money on lenses than on getting a 5200 - never mind a 7200 - notes a 3200.

Those prices were off the B&H USA website. The $900 28mm lens was off a reviewer webpage, could that be the introduction price but now I see it's $700US. Mind you if you are in Australia or New Zealand our figures can be 25-30% more than them .... A D600 new goes for $3,000NZ body alone which is about $2,700US.

I think that getting a kit lens is still maybe the way to go if they don't know how much further they want to take their hobby of theirs. The kit lens might be $100 more than just the body, they could also get a D3100 or is that the D3000 for a cheaper price still. We still see them here in NZ at least. If they are certain with the later lenses, then get them then. This is afterall for somone's first SLR. Are they certain it's really for them.

But anyway, current lenses are getting larger and larger, priceir and pricier. The current 50mm 1.8G goes for now $200 or $250US, I am sure in the hayday the AF-D version went for under $100US. Maybe it is how you draw the line. Like you say you can keep a nice lens for 10yrs but surely within that time lenses will get updated but you can still use them. So one could ask why get the current lenses, why not get the previous model. A classic example are the expensive zooms lenses. The current 24-70 goes for $1,900US, the previous 28-70 when new was $1,600 and the even previous 35-70mm probably even less. I got a used copy of that lens 35-70 for $200US.

Edited by: Rayonline

The problem with the 'previous' model is that they are often visibly inferior in terms of image quality, at least if you go back to the AF-D lenses. Not surprising as many of those wered designed 20 years ago and manufacturing technology has much changed since then.
Prices sure went up a lot, but I think all prices did over the past 20 years.

Yes, there are certain old lenses which still perform very well today, but by far not all. Some 'steps' like from the 28-70 to the 24-70 are not very large and indeed a good second hand copy of the older lens will do the same job.
In other cases it is the opposite, I had the old 18-35 AF-D, not recommend, it is particularly bad in the corners and you don't have to go and search the extreme corners to see the difference. Same goes for the 20mm 2.8. The 85 1.8 D on the other hand it even on digital a great performer.

One of the reasons why not to get too much old lenses is that at one point they might not fully compatible anymore and quite often a good second hand is often only a little cheaper than a new lens.

In particular because it is somebody's first dSLR I do recommend going for a entry level body and spend any extra money on lenses.
For the same reason I rather recommend getting a single quality lens first instead of getting 3 of the cheapest zooms as quick as possible.
N

I guess it depends how much one puts into photography then. Many people might think it's crazy to spend thousands for photography. Some do and some don't. For a hobby.

The AF-D can sitll be bought today and they were for the last 10yrs. I still have the 18-35 but I stop it down to f/11 for scenic photographs.

The worst case scenario is what happens if a person buys a $750 new 18-35mm lens and decides it wasn't quite right for them. Wouldn't it be safer to spend $100 for a single kit lens together and then decide later ....

$750 is pretty expensive when you could pick up a $900-1100 lens for a 2.8 version. The previous version. Prices are certainly right up there ...

Nobody knows what is 'safer' for them in advance. A kit lens and whatever lens you buy in the future will simply cost more than one lens that lasts.

If you buy a body and a lens and then it is in the corner and you don't use it anymore then the kit lens is sure letter. If you get into photography the kit lens will go sooner or later.

I would not want the 17-35mm 2.8. It costs more and it is visibly soft in the outer image parts full open and no a wide angle that part of the image matters. So you have to step it down to 5.6 - and still say more than for a new 18-35 AF-G...

At the end it is all down to the money indeed. If you have 500$ to spendit is cheapest body and kit lens.
If you spend 1000$ then get cheapest body and spend rest on one good lens - not on a kit lens and one or two more cheap lenses.
That is my approach.
Others can do whatever they want, its their choice and money.