# DSLR Camera Recommendations



## cheflivengood (Aug 25, 2017)

Easy point and shoot
High Quality video
Want to use natural light as much as possible or has great low light quality
Wifi or easy connectivity for uploading 
Under $1k


----------



## WildBoar (Aug 25, 2017)

Under $1k for body only? Or with a specific lens? (Lenses are the stones of the camera world -- you need several to get the best out of your camera, and the cost of a couple/ few good ones will far exceed the cost of the camera body)


----------



## Timthebeaver (Aug 25, 2017)

I am guessing the "easy point and shoot" and "under 1k" comments suggests a lack of zeal regarding lugging a bag full of lenses/gear about?


----------



## cheflivengood (Aug 25, 2017)

WildBoar said:


> Under $1k for body only? Or with a specific lens? (Lenses are the stones of the camera world -- you need several to get the best out of your camera, and the cost of a couple/ few good ones will far exceed the cost of the camera body)



with a standard lens to start learning


----------



## cheflivengood (Aug 25, 2017)

WildBoar said:


> Under $1k for body only? Or with a specific lens? (Lenses are the stones of the camera world -- you need several to get the best out of your camera, and the cost of a couple/ few good ones will far exceed the cost of the camera body)





Timthebeaver said:


> I am guessing the "easy point and shoot" and "under 1k" comments suggests a lack of zeal regarding lugging a bag full of lenses/gear about?



maybe a tripod haha


----------



## Duckfat (Aug 25, 2017)

Sony a6000. You can pick one up for about $400 on sale. IIR they shoot 4K video. Add the Sony 35 1.8 OSS for about another $400.
The trouble with what you are after is the low light capability in relation to your cost point. Fast glass is heavy and expensive. Might want to consider a used Canon Rebel and a 35 f2IS. 

Dave


----------



## DaveInMesa (Aug 25, 2017)

Are you sure you want/need a DSLR? If you're looking for point-and-shoot, a DSLR can do that, but it's overkill. There are some higher-end point-and-shoot cameras that have excellent image quality, and allow for a lot of manual control. The lower-end ones still produce good images, but limit creative control.

But, unless you have a very specific need that is unusual, you really can't go wrong, these days, no matter what you pick. Lemons happen, of course, but every brand still in business makes excellent cameras, these days. Overall, Nikon has the edge in low light situations. Canon has the edge in speed. Pentax has the edge in weather-resistance. Olympus, Panasonic, and Fuji have their mirrorless designs, which makes them smaller. All of them have both good and bad (or less good) lenses. That's really where you need to focus (ha! see what I did there?). All of them include P(rogram) modes, aka point-and-shoot. I'm not really up-to-speed on video performance, because I don't care about video. 

The best advice if you're brand new to photography is to get to a real camera store. Chicago must have at least one still hanging on. How a camera feels in YOUR hands is more important than anything you can learn online. You will just like how some cameras operate more than others. Hands-on experience is key to your photographic happiness. Then, once you know what suits you, pick your lens. These days, the "kit" lenses are surprisingly good general use lenses, but you will want something else for low light. Without knowing the intended purpose, I can't recommend anything specific, but I can say that every maker offers a 50mm f1.8, or thereabouts, that is a KILLER deal in terms of low light and general price/performance.


----------



## laxdad (Aug 26, 2017)

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/2017-roundup-interchangeable-lens-cameras-500-900

Lots of good choices out there. I have the Sony a6000. Great picture quality. Interchangeable lenses, though not a true SLR is (no mirror/prism). More compact than true SLRs. Drawback is a smaller number of optional lenses designed for its compact size when compared to the larger Nikon and Canon SLRs.


----------



## laxdad (Aug 26, 2017)

If a family member or friend has a certain brand SLR, you may wish to consider buying the same brand so that you can borrow lenses. Nice lenses are expensive.


----------



## cheflivengood (Aug 27, 2017)

Im looking for something to use for mostly high end knife pictures, knife skill and demonstration videos, and even potentially a miniseries on knife making and the chefs who use them. I dont want to have to replace the camera for something better too soon if my skills get better faster.


----------



## icanhaschzbrgr (Aug 27, 2017)

cheflivengood said:


> Im looking for something to use for mostly high end knife pictures, knife skill and demonstration videos, and even potentially a miniseries on knife making and the chefs who use them. I dont want to have to replace the camera for something better too soon if my skills get better faster.



That's sounds like a lot of requirements 

I can hardly imagine doing all of the above without a tripod. And a decent tripod. That alone can easily eat 1/3-1/2 of your budget. Then you'll want to mess with light, so you'll want lightbox and light sources. For handheld videos stabilisation is a must (this is where Olympus shines with it's in body stabilisation). And something like 24-70/f2.8 zoom lens to cover most of your needs. 

I'm was a photography enthusiast for 7-8 years and wasted tons of money on gear. The only good advice I can give you: don't waste money on the camera body. Get a used body from B&H or Ebay. But invest into good lenses, good tripod etc. It's far easier to make nice shots with an old camera body and fast lens, rather than with newest most expensive body and slow kit lens.


----------



## cheflivengood (Aug 27, 2017)

icanhaschzbrgr said:


> That's sounds like a lot of requirements
> 
> I can hardly imagine doing all of the above without a tripod. And a decent tripod. That alone can easily eat 1/3-1/2 of your budget. Then you'll want to mess with light, so you'll want lightbox and light sources. For handheld videos stabilisation is a must (this is where Olympus shines with it's in body stabilisation). And something like 24-70/f2.8 zoom lens to cover most of your needs.
> 
> I'm was a photography enthusiast for 7-8 years and wasted tons of money on gear. The only good advice I can give you: don't waste money on the camera body. Get a used body from B&H or Ebay. But invest into good lenses, good tripod etc. It's far easier to make nice shots with an old camera body and fast lens, rather than with newest most expensive body and slow kit lens.



This is a bad rabbit hole then haha. Ill just get a new iphone I guess :tease:


----------



## cheflivengood (Aug 27, 2017)

Sony a6000 seems realistic for what I need in the beginning. So lets say a get a used body only, what lense should I get for shooting knives, food, while still being able to do other landscape type shots. Do I need a set lens that does not zoom, or a telephoto. I really have no idea how to talk about this stuff but I learn very quickly.


----------



## JBroida (Aug 27, 2017)

i think the sony systems will probably offer more for you at this point, but i would probably save up a bit more and expand the budget a bit for tripod, lenses, etc. I might also look at the a6500 for some new features that will make things easier for you in the long run (i.e. 5 axis stabilization from the a7II system)


----------



## panda (Aug 27, 2017)

I don't know squat about photography but dabbled a little in hs with film. In that sense if I were in your shoes id just start with an old nikon body and a manual focus 105mm f/2.5 lens. You don't need anything else, but tripod will come in handy.


----------



## Duckfat (Aug 28, 2017)

cheflivengood said:


> Do I need a set lens that does not zoom, or a telephoto.



Considering that you seem to want low light capability I would stick to a prime (fixed Focal Length) lens with a fixed aperture. Most zooms in your price range will have a variable aperture. The Sony 35 1.8 OSS is well in your budget. The newer Sonys are nice but bear in mind the price for an a6500 is $1000 more than the a6000 for a few minor features that in many situations you can work around with a nominal amount of skill or a tripod. With a used/sale a6000/35 1.8 you still have $200 left. Look at Benro or just an aluminum tripod. For your use weight is not a factor so there's no need to spend the big bucks on a pod. You will need a quality Ballhead and plate as well but because the a6000 is so small and light something like a Really Right stuff BH-25 will be more than enough. With a Tripod IS is not a factor, and remember many of the Sony Lenses like the 35 1.8 have built in Optical Stabilization (OSS).
If you can, get to a store where you can handle a few cameras. Spend plenty of time looking at the Lens Line up for each brand. Understand the difference between Mirrorless, DSLR and P&S before you start to spend. Photography is a hobby that makes knives look like a bargain!

Dave


----------



## Yet-Another-Dave (Aug 29, 2017)

I'm not seeing anything listed by the OP that suggests more than web images, if that's wrong never mind....

I think for most web uses almost any sensor will be good enough, so your body choice should be guided by features and which lenses it holds. I saw some really high-end stuff mentioned, e.g. RRS, which are outstanding but not necessary, especially to get started. For the photos you mention I think a "normal" to "short telephoto" lens would be best for most your uses. It will give the least perspective distortion and good working distance for product shots of knives and for demonstration videos. (With 35mm film cameras, this would be 50-85mm range. Now days those numbers have to scale with your sensor size.) For close ups a macro lens would be even better, but could be a later addition if you ever felt the need. (Heck, for those spine taper shots people post a "Tilt / Shift" "perspective control" lens would be really nice. But if you go all in and want one of those, that high-end stuff, like RRS, wouldn't be seeming expensive anymore.  )

One thing to consider, and ignored by your DSLR request and most of the comments, are MILC, "Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras", type cameras. (That's the manufacturers preferred acronym, I sorta' prefer EVIL, for "Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens", but I'm weird.) They start closer to P&S cameras in size & cost, but allow you to have multiple lenses for optimizing different situations / tasks. The high end bodies come with similar bells and whistles and price tags to the DSLR bodies.

I'm most familiar with Micro 4:3 size MILC, mostly by Olympus & Panasonic, with Leica dipping toes into the segment. There are other similar products in slightly different sensor sizes from other manufacturers too. I've been very happy with a closeout discontinued Oly body I got over 4 years ago (because it shared lenses with my daughter's Panasonic.) So, it's probably 6-7 years "obsolete" and I still have to shrink photos to post or email them. (The video features may be lacking, I'm not really a video guy.) The lens selection is outstanding with different quality & price levels for any task I've ever been interested in.

In DSLR, I more familiar with Canon than other brands, but there are many quality choices. You probably pay a premium for Canon or Nikon, but with them you can literally get any accessory you'd ever want. (Pay for, is a different problem.) Sony gets great reviews. Pentax has a loyal fan base and is often recommended as having anything a serious hobbyist could want at a better than Canon or Nikon price. Of course, the entry Canon & Nikon bodies are fairly capable and would allow you to use the exotic lenses if you ever needed them without breaking the bank up front. Starting with a "kit" lens might surprise you too. Most people find them good enough, even though you might want to upgrade if you find them lacking in some way.


----------



## mille162 (Nov 16, 2017)

Photography is (most of) my living. I use a Canon 5dmkiv with about $15,000 in lenses and half as much in lighting. 99% of the time Im shooting on destination locations and its half work/half vacation. My go to travel camera is the iphone 7+.

Seriously, highly regarded photo magazines have ranked it the best point and shoot camera, beating many semi-professional cameras!

It has ability to do manual controls, shoot raw, and a ton of Apps for camera function.

Buying a $1k pro model, or one with professional features is like trying to buy a complete set of quality kitchen knives for $100...your making so many compromises in each knife type in order to get that low price that youd been better off with one single knife (i.e. trying to get all those camera features in one low price package).

At the end of the day, it comes down to experience and skill rather than the gear you have...which again makes the iphone better. The live setting and hdr performance rivals professional rigs!

For low light sensitivity (like shooting in a nightclub), the new Samsung Galaxy S8 has the best performance, but overall camera use, Id still go with the iphone.

BTW, recently upgraded to new 8+ and the camera performance only got better!

If youre intent on a traditional camera body, dont discount a 3-4 yo model. A Canon 5D mkii with the 50mm prime lens can be had for around $600. A used 70-200mm f4 Canon lens with the L glass can be had for $300 used. You wont get the video solution until you upgrade to the 5dmkiii, but that models price is starting to come down in used market, or go with a crop sensor Canon 7dmki for $500 and get video!

Best advice though: YOUTUBE videos! Search how to shoot... and lotsa practice!

Be sure to post some of your work once you get setup


----------



## cheflivengood (Nov 16, 2017)

mille162 said:


> Photography is (most of) my living. I use a Canon 5dmkiv with about $15,000 in lenses and half as much in lighting. 99% of the time Im shooting on destination locations and its half work/half vacation. My go to travel camera is the iphone 7+.
> 
> Seriously, highly regarded photo magazines have ranked it the best point and shoot camera, beating many semi-professional cameras!
> 
> ...



I believe it. Someone recently showed me some portraits with the new 8+ and it was really great quality! I ended up getting a panasonic fz1000 point and shoot:


4K QFHD 30p video with hybrid 8MP post capture
Large 1-inch 20.1MP MOS sensor for amazing defocus control
Bright Leica DC Lens 25-400mm F2.8-4.0
Super-fast LUMIX DFD focusing technology
Integrated smartphone WiFi for remote imaging control


----------



## jessf (Nov 16, 2017)

Sony a6000 with a batis 25mm is a good combo for food and landscapes.


----------



## LifeByA1000Cuts (Nov 16, 2017)

Been a while since I bothered with photography, and it shows 

Just one point to make: "standard lens"/"normal lens" is a term that can cause a lot of confusion, since it is the exact opposite of what normally comes standard in a camera kit


----------



## MAS4T0 (Nov 17, 2017)

I tried to get into photography a couple of years ago but I found that when manual focussing I'd get headaches from looking at things while they out of focus as I was finding the focus.

Is this something anyone else has experienced?

If so, is it something that stops after a while/ doesn't happen when you have the skills to focus quickly or is it always going to happen and you need to put up with it?


----------



## jessf (Nov 17, 2017)

MAS4T0 said:


> I tried to get into photography a couple of years ago but I found that when manual focussing I'd get headaches from looking at things while they out of focus as I was finding the focus.
> 
> Is this something anyone else has experienced?
> 
> If so, is it something that stops after a while/ doesn't happen when you have the skills to focus quickly or is it always going to happen and you need to put up with it?



Not specifically no. The autofocus on the new mirrorless cameras can be amazingly fast so the trappings of manual focus are saved for older, less expensive lenses or people who enjoy the challenge. Ive only used manual focus mode to capture landscape and architecture but even that was unnecessary.


----------



## MAS4T0 (Nov 17, 2017)

jessf said:


> Not specifically no. The autofocus on the new mirrorless cameras can be amazingly fast so the trappings of manual focus are saved for older, less expensive lenses or people who enjoy the challenge. Ive only used manual focus mode to capture landscape and architecture but even that was unnecessary.



Thanks for the advice.

I went straight to a D-SLR, having only used point and shoots previously. I felt well over my head, and never even got the hang of selecting the right ISO. I figured that it was going to be a much bigger time commitment than I'd realised, so shelved the whole thing.

Do you think that mirrorless would be a better option for if I give it another go?


----------



## WildBoar (Nov 17, 2017)

Mirrorless just means the sensor is exposed the whole time, and instead of looking through a viewfinder you typically look at the display screen (i.e., a rendering of the image). you can still have them will all the same range of setting/ features as the top 'mirror' dSLRs.


----------



## MAS4T0 (Nov 17, 2017)

WildBoar said:


> Mirrorless just means the sensor is exposed the whole time, and instead of looking through a viewfinder you typically look at the display screen (i.e., a rendering of the image). you can still have them will all the same range of setting/ features as the top 'mirror' dSLRs.



Ah, I wasn't sure if they tended to be more consumer focussed. Thanks for the clarification.

Any recommendations for which segment to look at if wanting the best pictures without needing to manually adjust settings?

Is it stupid to use a pro-level D-SLR on full-auto?


----------



## mille162 (Nov 18, 2017)

MAS4T0 said:


> Thanks for the advice.
> 
> I went straight to a D-SLR, having only used point and shoots previously. I felt well over my head, and never even got the hang of selecting the right ISO. I figured that it was going to be a much bigger time commitment than I'd realised, so shelved the whole thing.
> 
> Do you think that mirrorless would be a better option for if I give it another go?



Mirrorless is often easier for beginners as the screen "live view" is giving you the adjusted image you'll be capturing (actual image being saved with your settings), you can fine tune your camera settings to get the image effect you want. 

Overall, one isn't better or easier than the other. Unless you're a pro shooting in very specific scenarios, you won't know the difference in performance. Most DSLR's can shoot in "live view" and you see the interpreted screen, but depending on the model, it may show you the actual image (what the sensor sees) or the adjusted image (what the sensor is saving).

DSLR's are faster at capturing (press the button and capture the image), better range of performance from the sensor (more due the level of the camera), and better quality. Sony changed that with the A7 and A9 models, but when held side by side and tested by me and a few other pro friends, we were split between which was the better choice. Overall, both capture amazing photos, but there's little differences that make one shine over the other...

Mirrorless: QUIET! no actual shutter moving, no click when you capture the image. Great if you need to shoot animals, in a quiet auditorium, etc. Bad for shooting models as they're trained to hear the click and know to go to the next post. Live view shows great interpretation of the image being captured, but the little LCD screen isn't all that accurate and if you go off that only, you're still off on your images. Video capture is still lacking. SMALL and LIGHT, this is a really big deal when you're holding big lens. my 5d w/batteries and 70-200 lens is 6lbs 13 oz...try holding that up to your eye for an hour at a time! Plus, many places you need a permit to shoot or pro rigs aren't permitted (national parks, ball games, concerts...), a mirrorless can pass for a consumer camera.

DSLR: more options for camera body, more options for camera lenses. Better overall performance, but more likely to get frustrated if you don't know what you're doing. The beginner models (sub $1000) are hard to use as the individual controls are hidden in menu's and don't have actual buttons/dials on the body for adjusting. Their range of performance isn't the best either.

My recommendation. Pick a budget, then go buy the last model or two models ago and play with it. See how you take to it. It's a very quick learning curve, and once you know what you're doing, you'll either love it or hate it. If you hate it, you can sell it for what you paid for it. If you love it, you can sell it for what you paid for it and buy a newer/better model. 

With any camera body that has a removable lens, the glass is more important than the body. This is where you spend your $. The Sony's can use a Metabones adapter and use other brands glass, but other wise once you buy a Canon lens, you're stuck with Canon bodies...same for Nikon, or whatever brand you go with. Go play with the different bodies and look at the features each has, layout of the buttons and controls, see what feels better in your hands.


----------



## mille162 (Nov 18, 2017)

MAS4T0 said:


> Ah, I wasn't sure if they tended to be more consumer focussed. Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> Any recommendations for which segment to look at if wanting the best pictures without needing to manually adjust settings?
> 
> Is it stupid to use a pro-level D-SLR on full-auto?



If you're new to this, or unsure of what you're doing, take any of the cameras, put in auto mode and take a picture. Play it and look at the settings. See what you would want to change in the picture (too bright, too much motion, too much in focus, etc). Then go to the manual setting and start with those settings and make small changes. Take another pic. See the change and the direction you went in.

If I'm shooting public events or something not very "composed", I'll often just be lazy and leave it in automode, lol.

Basic manual primer.
-Start off in manual at 250 ISO, 250 shutter speed, F8, White balance to Kelvin 5000 (roughly daylight temp).
-take a pic
-look at pic and decide what you want to change. Fix what's wrong with it first, then adjust the other settings to compensate your changes. 

*Higher ISO means a brighter image, but means more "grain" and less detail when blown up. Shooting at beach at noon, ISO 125. Shooting at night to capture stars, ISO 32,000. Picture looks all white and blown out, lower the ISO. The higher the ISO, the brighter the image is.

*Everything blurry from motion, increase film speed. At your preferred ISO but picture too dark, lower film speed to let the shutter stay open longer and let more light in. You can usually shot handheld down to 80, but below that you need a tripod. The higher the speed, the better at capturing things in motion (without the motion blur). You want to capture the second a ball hits the swinging bat, you'll need to be at 500+. Want to capture the whole batters swing with that smooth motion blur, shoot slower at 4-60. The lower the speed the longer the shutter is open and the brighter the image is.

*Want the subject in focus but the background blurry? Lower the Fstop from F8 to F3 (or as low as your lens goes). Still not enough, back up and zoom in more on the subject. Not enough of the background in focus? Raise the Fstop. The lower the Fstop, the less is in focus, but the brighter the image.

*Shooting in the winter and picture too blue and cold looking? Raise Kelvin to 7000 and see the difference and how warm and golden it now is. At the beach and it's too yellow? Lower Kelvin to 4000 and see how much cooler the image appears.

*Got your settings you like but image is still too dark? Add a flash or external light source. Most people get frustrated because they think they have the settings they want and then have a black image. It's because there's just not enough light. Add a flash, or raise the ISO and suddenly the picture is bright again.

*Shoot in RAW setting. Use Lightroom program from Adobe to process. You can use a sliding scale to "develop" your images and see how they would have looked it you had your exposure (shutter speed) set higher or lower. Adjust your white balance and change the temperature. 

"Best Pictures" is a relative term to what you consider best. I may prefer a picture shot more artistically with the subject in focus and the background falling off quickly into a black blurr. You may prefer a more analytical picture with the entire room well lit and in focus. Neither are wrong, it's what you want. In auto mode, you're most likely to get the well lit room and everything in focus. You'll need to manually adjust almost any camera to fine-tune and get the image you want, just practice and get comfortable with those settings.


----------



## MAS4T0 (Nov 18, 2017)

@mille162

Thank you so much for the advice! It's very generous of you to take the time to go into so much detail.

I'm going to save this so that I can reference it in future.


----------

