Shopping for a new (to me) interchangeable lenses camera?

[RShea]

So been out of the serious photography for a number of years. DSLR and of course not the mirrorless bodies are all over the place. Budget is such that I probably want to start out with some used equipment. Last higher end camera I had was film SLR from the 80's. Back then I had (and still have) the 50mm lens that came with the body, a 80-200mm Sigma lens that has a mount that is not going to work most likely on any cameras offered in the digital market. Then I picked up a 35mm -maybe 70mm or 80? (have to dig it out and check really). That 2nd wide angle zoom lens was a Tamron AdaptAll that you could at that time purchase different mounts (seems like it is still a thing also). None of these were auto-focus as my body did not support that either.

Nikon DSLR- 3000 series (D3200 or D3300? seem to be regularly out there) vs a bit more money for the D5000 series body (again maybe D5100 or D5200)? Biggest differences between them? Seems that Nikon has been the leader in resolution with 24MP, and for the most part has pretty good lens offerings. These from what I see have had a bundled lens 18-55mm and then a large choice of both Nikon and 3rd party lenses that will work with it.

Canon - know a bit less about their models and line- Rebel series, Maybe the T5 used?? I see most of them are 18MP (But I also know that resolution is not the end all and be all for highest quality photos) but seems like Canon would be second choice?

Mirrorless- mostly see Sony out there as a front runner, and I suspect (but have not confirmed that it would be hard to start out with a budget of $250 to $300 with at least 1 lens... But there is other brands that I of course have heard of but no nothing about the line ups from Canon, Panasonic,

Then there is all the others- Pentax, Olympus, and others in DSLR and also mirrorless from some of those same companies.

Shutter counts in some of these are easy to determine right in the menu, others it takes a bit more work with a photo and then downloading and inspecting the Exif data etc. to see if a used camera has been heavily used or if in fact it could still have some life left and helpful in addition to the overall condition and wear of the camera.


I've searched on here and read through some of the threads (some a bit dated now too but helpful.)

Maybe a second lens at some point for a telephoto zoom. Sigma, Tamron, any others out there to be on the look out for?

[MakersTeleMark]

I had to check to see what year this post was and then I saw your budget.

Sell your film shit which is exploding now and get a mirrorless.

[RShea]

I had to check to see what year this post was and then I saw your budget.

Sell your film shit which is exploding now and get a mirrorless.

Well is it really worth much, I see film bodies selling for $50 or less many times with a lens also.

[MakersTeleMark]

What is it?

[RShea]

What is it?

1970's SLR - Rolleiflex SL35ME so the stock 50mm lens is Planar QBM (Quick Bayonet Mount) mount...

[smmokan]

I think you could probably come close to your budget with a Sony A6000 and either the 16-50mm power zoom lens, or the 18-55 "do it all" lens. A second lens for that body would be the 55-200mm or a prime.

Honestly, if you're sticking to $300'ish you're not going to find much that's going to get you very far, other than to allow you to figure out what you like, and provide an entry-drug experience to spend more money to get good equipment. These days, 99% of what's coming out is mirrorless, so if you can swing the cost I'd go that route.

[MakersTeleMark]

Should be able to get a few hundo with the nifty 50.

[RShea]

Should be able to get a few hundo with the nifty 50.

Searching Ebay closed and sold auctions are showing $40 (sold) to 200 (which looks like did not sell just an ended listing)

If I can get a Tamron Adaptall 2 for next camera body, then I'd have only some sort of telephoto 80 to 200 or 300 lens to fill out what I already have in the film camera.

I've spotted a what looks to be in pretty good condition Nikon D3200 with the stock 18-55mm lens (all accessories, bag, battery charger, and everything (but maybe a SD Card- which is no big deal as I have them...) for $200. I do not know the shot count though yet, and have not taken a really close look at the lens...

[alpinevibes]

Nikon DSLR- 3000 series (D3200 or D3300? seem to be regularly out there) vs a bit more money for the D5000 series body (again maybe D5100 or D5200)? Biggest differences between them? Seems that Nikon has been the leader in resolution with 24MP, and for the most part has pretty good lens offerings. These from what I see have had a bundled lens 18-55mm and then a large choice of both Nikon and 3rd party lenses that will work with it.

Maybe a second lens at some point for a telephoto zoom. Sigma, Tamron, any others out there to be on the look out for?

Not a huge difference between the D3000 and D5000 lines. D5000 versions had a minute advantage with dynamic range and overall image quality, a few extra features for time-lapse, a small increase in frames per second, and later versions had slightly better screens. Big picture, though: no big loss going with D3000 line. The earlier generations of all of these are dated cameras that will produce very similar, totally acceptable results. Newer versions have faster processors, slightly higher image quality and more video capability. But if you're shooting stills, there's not that much to lose with the 5-10y/o models.

I shot a D50, circa 2005, the predecessor to the D3000-D5000 offspring, for many years. It's it's still alive and kicking; a great camera at the time and it survived incredible abuse. I also had a D7000 and D7100 for a few years, which had similar core features to the D3000/D5000. The 18-55VR lens is fine, but finding an 18-105VR would be good. 18/-140/18-200/18-300VR's are good lenses, but more expensive and kinda big on those smaller bodies. I shot the Nikon 18-70, Sigma 18-50 2.8, Tamron 17-70, Nikon 55-200, 70-300 and a few others and they were a nice step up (image quality and range) from the kit lens if you can find a deal.

Looks like you can get a D3100 with kit lens for near $100 used, D3200 for $120-150 used. Add in the 55-200 for $200-250.

Cheap D3100 setup: https://www.ebay.com/itm/265600512345

Bit of a risk with the crack, but some good gaffer tape and you're set for a great price. That Tokina 11-17 is a cool lens - I took one to South America way back when: https://www.ebay.com/itm/115336052890

[RShea]

Not a huge difference between the D3000 and D5000 lines. D5000 versions had a minute advantage with dynamic range and overall image quality, a few extra features for time-lapse, a small increase in frames per second, and later versions had slightly better screens. Big picture, though: no big loss going with D3000 line. The earlier generations of all of these are dated cameras that will produce very similar, totally acceptable results. Newer versions have faster processors, slightly higher image quality and more video capability. But if you're shooting stills, there's not that much to lose with the 5-10y/o models.

I shot a D50, circa 2005, the predecessor to the D3000-D5000 offspring, for many years. It's it's still alive and kicking; a great camera at the time and it survived incredible abuse. I also had a D7000 and D7100 for a few years, which had similar core features to the D3000/D5000. The 18-55VR lens is fine, but finding an 18-105VR would be good. 18/-140/18-200/18-300VR's are good lenses, but more expensive and kinda big on those smaller bodies. I shot the Nikon 18-70, Sigma 18-50 2.8, Tamron 17-70, Nikon 55-200, 70-300 and a few others and they were a nice step up (image quality and range) from the kit lens if you can find a deal.

Looks like you can get a D3100 with kit lens for near $100 used, D3200 for $120-150 used. Add in the 55-200 for $200-250.

Cheap D3100 setup: https://www.ebay.com/itm/265600512345

Bit of a risk with the crack, but some good gaffer tape and you're set for a great price. That Tokina 11-17 is a cool lens - I took one to South America way back when: https://www.ebay.com/itm/115336052890

Thanks for the comments and discussion points. One of the biggest reasons I can see for going up to the D5x00 series is (at least a few of the ones I looked at in D5100 and D5200) if I am reading it right they have a screen that can swing out, swivel, and flipped even and be used for different shooting angles (and selfie but that is not that important to me for a camera like this)... But your right that not really ALL that much difference in the D3x00 and D5x00 for most of the specifications except for the earlier versions (D3100 was only 14 mp sensor resolution, D5100 was 16 mp resolution, so first few versions of each were not 24 mp resolution of the newer and later higher model numbered- D5x00 a bit faster fps in video mode also I believe.

Here is a comparison site for side by side: https://cameradecision.com/compare/N...vs-Nikon-D5200

On my existing old SLR as I stated I had the Tamron wide angle 35mm to very low telephoto and it worked pretty nicely other than the lowest F-stop was not anywhere near the stock 50mm stock lens that had a 1.8f (I believe the Tamron was like 3.5f or there about... (I'll have to pull all that gear out this weekend I guess...)

[MakersTeleMark]

I am really struggling to understand why you are going the route you are. Would you recommend a Windows 95 rig to a client? That is exactly where you are heading.

[RShea]

I am really struggling to understand why you are going the route you are. Would you recommend a Windows 95 rig to a client? That is exactly where you are heading.

To use your analogy- Windows 95 systems were 25 years ago. And that would be the earliest versions of DSLR- like a digital version even before a Nikon D1 body (and probably before any mirrorless 35mm cameras- but not exactly sure when the first digital mirrorless body came out but less than 15 years ago)... I'm looking for more like a Win 7 system at this point - 10 years or so back. What really is the difference between a Nikon D3500 and a D3300 or D3200 series camera, or a D5600 and a D5200 series... at least in a used (but not Abused- broken, cracked, or otherwise not working) camera body and lens.

[Sandbox]

I know this thread is a couple of months old but I have a Nikon d5000 with 2 lenses I’m looking to sell fairly cheap. 18/55 and 55/200 I believe. Haven’t used in a couple of years but no issues. Send me a PM if interested


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[54-46]

Try holding a D5X00. I have a D7100 and found the D5300 small and not well balanced.

FWIW, have size 9-10 Hestra gloves so not giant hands


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Pinned]

Not a professional by any means, just someone that shoots some marketing photos from time to time. As a relative novice who has borrowed a bunch of cameras from pro photog friends...having the latest and greatest doesn't matter at all. My own camera is a Sony A6300 and I hate it. I've borrowed and shot a handful of older full frame Sony and Canon bodies now and I'd prefer to have one of those even if it meant it was an older camera. MP really doesn't matter for most of us using these casually.

The full frame sensor makes a huge difference. Good controls make a big difference - you do not want to be digging in menus to adjust simple stuff. A well balanced body makes a big difference (some of the newer cameras are just too small). And, of course, the glass - but Nikon or Canon are both good bets as you can use everything from older 35mm glass to newer stuff and it's easy to find for cheap.

Sure, my Sony has some nice features like 4k video and WiFi transferring but between the crop sensor, annoying controls, and poor battery life I really don't like using it. A Canon 5D MkII is like $350 for the body these days.

[Supermoon]

If you’re looking at using old glass, I think the Nikons have it. So much good/cheap stuff out there from the film days.

Nikon makes a mirror less camera that looks and feels like an old film camera - the ZFc. If you want simple controls old give that one a look.

For me, I’m probably switching from Nikon to Sony in the next year because I am doing significantly more film work that photo these days and Sony is far and away the better option for that. Going to be hard to get used to needing multiple batteries every shoot. Nikon is so good with battery life.

[east or bust]

Not a professional by any means, just someone that shoots some marketing photos from time to time. As a relative novice who has borrowed a bunch of cameras from pro photog friends...having the latest and greatest doesn't matter at all. My own camera is a Sony A6300 and I hate it. I've borrowed and shot a handful of older full frame Sony and Canon bodies now and I'd prefer to have one of those even if it meant it was an older camera. MP really doesn't matter for most of us using these casually.

The full frame sensor makes a huge difference. Good controls make a big difference - you do not want to be digging in menus to adjust simple stuff. A well balanced body makes a big difference (some of the newer cameras are just too small). And, of course, the glass - but Nikon or Canon are both good bets as you can use everything from older 35mm glass to newer stuff and it's easy to find for cheap.

Sure, my Sony has some nice features like 4k video and WiFi transferring but between the crop sensor, annoying controls, and poor battery life I really don't like using it. A Canon 5D MkII is like $350 for the body these days.

This may not be your cup of tea, definitely a bit of a niche, but have you looked into older "pro" level full size cameras? 3ish years ago I picked up a mint condition Canon 1D MIV for $600 and it's become my go to. The colors/dynamic range blow my other two cameras (6D and Sony RX100 V) out of the water. Downsides? It's a tank. Taking it anywhere off the beaten path is a bit of an undertaking, but the results are worth it IMO. A large part of why I ended up with it was the shutter speed, which up until a few years ago was pretty damn respectable for an old camera. If you're shooting a lot of still scenes this probably is much less important and an older 5D would probably be a better bet.

Price wise you can find either of them pretty cheap, though if you don't have any glass you'd have to add that into the budget. Good L series glass seems to hold its value decently (I'm sure the same is true for Nikon) and is more important than the body IMO.

I've never used a Nikon camera, it's gotta be somewhat similar to the Canon interface. The Sony is terrible. I know where everything is and still can't get to it quick enough. It's a big enough deal for me that I'd never consider a more expensive Sony camera. Sony is like Tesla, they came out of the gate first wrt to mirrorless technology and now the big players have caught up. No reason to ditch a solid control interface for marginal/no gain in performance. Disregard all of that if you're shooting viddy.

[Pinned]

This may not be your cup of tea, definitely a bit of a niche, but have you looked into older "pro" level full size cameras? 3ish years ago I picked up a mint condition Canon 1D MIV for $600 and it's become my go to. The colors/dynamic range blow my other two cameras (6D and Sony RX100 V) out of the water. Downsides? It's a tank. Taking it anywhere off the beaten path is a bit of an undertaking, but the results are worth it IMO. A large part of why I ended up with it was the shutter speed, which up until a few years ago was pretty damn respectable for an old camera. If you're shooting a lot of still scenes this probably is much less important and an older 5D would probably be a better bet.

Price wise you can find either of them pretty cheap, though if you don't have any glass you'd have to add that into the budget. Good L series glass seems to hold its value decently (I'm sure the same is true for Nikon) and is more important than the body IMO.

I've never used a Nikon camera, it's gotta be somewhat similar to the Canon interface. The Sony is terrible. I know where everything is and still can't get to it quick enough. It's a big enough deal for me that I'd never consider a more expensive Sony camera. Sony is like Tesla, they came out of the gate first wrt to mirrorless technology and now the big players have caught up. No reason to ditch a solid control interface for marginal/no gain in performance. Disregard all of that if you're shooting viddy.

I've been looking at either a 5D MkII or MkIII, but I am curious about the 1D X or 1DS MkIII for the durability. I mainly shoot while riding bikes, so the bigger form factor is potentially a lot to haul around but also maybe worth it. Not looking to spend a ton when I move away from the Sony though...but if anyone wants an A6300 I'd be glad to sell it.

[RShea]

I have not followed up on this thread recently due to many things going on in life in the last month, but see some replies more recently. I did pick up a used Sony A6000 locally over the summer and the stock 16-50mm lens.

Some day when things settle down and all, I may be interested in a 75-250mm or there about (70-300mm maybe)...