In defense of entry-level DSLRs

Sections New Your

Photography

#CAMERAS

Paco Palazon

12 years ago

Entry-level, consumer, or whatever you may call them DSLRs are often so looked-down on that I thought I'd write a little in defense of them (which really means, in defense of people who buy and use them, like myself :P). It seems to me that if you use a disposable camera or a crappy cell phone you might be regarded as a great artist and if you use the most expensive full-frame or medium format digital camera you may be regarded as a guy who knows that quality has a price and who is serious about photography. But entry-level DSLRs... nay.

I'm not a huge fan of gear talking but sometimes I like to read some reviews on the internet, mostly to kill some time. As I own and use a canon rebel t3 / 1100D / Kiss something in Japan I just had a look to see what "experts" said about it.

This is more or less the message that you get:

" The T3 is a great option for your child's entry into the world of DSLR photography - which leads to a great way to spend family time together - sharing your passion with your kids. Your kids learn a useful life skill while spending quality time with you.

If you budget allows, I highly recommend stepping up to at least [...]" (from the-digital-picture.com)

How stupid and condescendant can that be?! But I've read this kind of things (not always so explicit...) so many times.

Well, I own and use that camera (although I also use disposable cameras, cell "dumb" phone, and film SLR; ain't I a great artist...) and I'm very happy with it. I've learned that about 100% of the time, if I'm not happy with my picture, it has about nothing to do with the camera not being good enough.

If I had a lot of money... I'd spend it on travelling to take more pictures (you don't need to travel to take pictures, but I've realized I take many more while travelling...). But sure, if I had a shitload more of money I'd gladly buy the newest full frame with finest most expensive lenses to go with it.

Excuse this little rant of mine... :)

Anna Golitsyna

12 years ago

In defense of full frames, sort of:

Well, my first dSLR was Rebel as well and my favorite lens was a used 50mm 1.8 II. Quite enough for the usual portrait work with studio lighting (well, unless you want just irises to be sharp). I upgraded to a full frame, 5d Mark II, mainly for two reasons: I wanted to crop if needed and I wanted to take good pictures in less than ideal light. When I used it for the first time and I saw paint peeling off a boat across the harbor, on my monitor back home - I wept, literally. From happiness, of course. Never regretted the upgrade but still use the Rebel occasionally.

And if you ever shoot birds, you'll appreciate the finest equipment available to give you that bird's eye and feather sharpness...

Marc Brousseau

12 years ago

as a wise men once said the best camera is the one in your hand and the person behind it.

Don't let anyone sway you away from entry level DSLR, they are more camera than most users will ever know how to use to their full potentials. Heck I used my Canon Digital Rebel (first rebel dslr) for 4 years before upgrading and still bring it out once in a while. I've taken great photo's with it, once I learned its limits.

here is one of a great grey looking to take off my fur hat one winter back in 2005, he nearly got it too.

http://1x.com/photo/305787/all:user:266432

listen to your own advice Paco, the T3 is even more camera than my old rebel and I'm sure in your capable hand it will deliver you many years of joy and us many more photos to enjoy.

Will the next $3k plus body give you more leeway, sure but as you said that is also a nice trip some were in the world to explore with your T3 :-)

Paco Palazon

12 years ago

In defense of full frames

I knew this would come as a reply :)

My post was not meant to say that high-end gear is not worth it. There's a lot of praise about full-frame and "L glass" (or whatever equivalents in other brands). And I'm sure it's justified (no, it's not ironic).

In a nutshell: I'm sure high-end gear is as good as they say it is.

I'm just also sure that "low-end" gear is far better than they say it is.

My rebel has 12 megapixels (way more than my monitor can display), each of them recording information in 14-bits raw (way more than my monitor can display) and it goes up to ISO6400, which is crappy, sure, but ISO3200 is totally workable with denoising software.

I just wanted to say one thing: this camera (as I'm sure many others in that price range) is great for taking pictures. It's not "great value for the price", it's not "great for your kid", it's not "great as a first camera for a beginner" (that says quite explicitely: you'll need another one soon).

I want to discourage the belief that "if you're serious about photography, you should spend a couple of k$ at least". That's a message that Mr Canon, Mr Nikon or any other seller want to encourage, sure, but I don't understand why so many people who are independent repeat it more or less explicitly.

Paco Palazon

12 years ago

And if you ever shoot birds, you'll appreciate the finest equipment available to give you that bird's eye and feather sharpness...

Yes, some genres are more demanding than others in terms of image quality. Street photography is of course less demanding than bird photography for instance.

We could also discuss the importance of gear vs the "expertise" of the user. A total beginner or a great genius will probably get the same results with about any piece of gear, while an "average" photographer with some experience but not yet a genius might see more of a difference between low end and high end gear.

Many things could be said...

But I didn't mean to write a complete study on the importance of gear. I just wanted to say that, at least new low-end dslr kits (don't know about others) are very good. And you can get published in 1x with them :P Unless you're shooting exotic birds, maybe :)

Paco Palazon

12 years ago

here is one of a great grey looking to take off my fur hat one winter back in 2005, he nearly got it too.

http://1x.com/photo/305787/all:user:266432

That's a great picture. I hope your hat is still in shape ;)

listen to your own advice Paco, the T3 is even more camera than my old rebel and I'm sure in your capable hand it will deliver you many years of joy and us many more photos to enjoy.

You're too kind. I sure will continue to use the T3.

But I wanted to experience that big bright viewfinder and shallow DoF that people praise in full-frame world... so I got a minolta x300 for free and a 50mm f/1.7 for 25 euros :P Just teasing...

Gianni Giatilis

12 years ago

In defense of common sense, I would not underestimate the qualities of a good full frame camera, but...

I used many top of the range cameras in the past (I was lucky enough not having to pay for them as they were provided by the agencies I was working for), I know what they can do and what their value for money is.

The game is in the marketing of those products.

In Photography, like in every market, we have the top of the range products and as those, FF cameras they are often extremely overpriced.

The marketing teams of the manufacturers know there is a small (relatively speaking) ) target group for those top cameras so they push the prices up. If you are a Nikon or Canon customer very rarely you will change brand if you already have a few lenses and other accessories and the brands take advantage of this.

At the same time, in the entry level the competition is fierce, as the one who gets the customer is more likely to win him for a very long time... or forever. This pushes the "entry level" consumer cameras to extremely low prices for what they offer. This game is also offering some middle solutions and ranges where the prices are more balanced.

Now these are the rules of the marketing game and everyone (customer), is playing according to his needs, budget, philosophy, impulse, show off... I can go on writing criteria but in the end the fact is (Paco is right about it) the indisputable better value for money of those small frame, miraculous "entry level" DSLRs.

Check all the best review sites and in their sensor rating the differences comparing them with the FFs are in the spectrum of 10-15 %. The prices are 4x to 10x.

Gianni

Phyllis Clarke CREW

12 years ago — Moderator

Paco,

There is a balanced review I think of your camera here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1100d/19

Since you own the camera you will be able to say how balanced it is. However, they do not say it is for children. That is an absurd review unless of course you are multi millionaire.

The price of your camera here is about $450.00 including a lens, memory card, and a case. The reviews from customers at B and H are four and a half stars..VERY good. You get a lot for your money. The most important thing is that the above review from dpreview indicates that there is good image quality.

So, I would say you have a very good deal.

There is an issue of noise with the camera. However, I had a D200 for 8 years I think it was and I could not shoot above 400 without extreme noise..Yours will go to about 1000 doing fine...that is a big change from when I bought my camera. If you are not printing large what is wrong with 12mega px. Nothing.

We all have different priorities when we buy a camera. based on our life situation. My decision was based a camera that would function in low light with little noise, and was well built - strong made to last. So I ended up with more mega pixels than are necessary unless you are making massive prints.

I will bet that Nikon will reverse this trend because the files are unmanageable without a very powerful computer. The image quality is lovely, the noise low, it mows the lawn, does the laundry...but it has too many megapixels. :))

Anna also mentioned light and I agree with that. And yes I can crop one third of the picture now and sill have a big picture..but feels really odd to me. I have not done this yet, but I am I bet I will at some point. ..just because I can. It is strange though because when I look through the viewfinder I am not thinking..oh forget composition - take it all and throw the rest away.

BTW if money were no object I would buy a Porsche 911, live in Ravello and drive up and down the Amalfi coast singing Italian love songs with the windows open....

Phyllis

Paco Palazon

12 years ago

The marketing teams of the manufacturers know there is a small (relatively speaking) ) target group for those top cameras so they push the prices up.

[...]

This makes perfect sense to me... yet I had never thought about it that way. Thanks, Gianni!

I was wondering if it was a smart thing to start this topic or not, but now I'm glad :)

Paco,

There is a balanced review I think of your camera here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1100d/19

I just quickly read the last paragraph and it seems quite reasonable, yes. I'm not obsessed with reviews either... as I said, I do read them from time to time, but mostly when I have nothing better to do, or don't want to accept that I DO HAVE something to do... :)

I totally understand people buying high-end gear. I never intended to say that it was stupid or wasted money (it would be stupid in my case, of course, because I'd have to borrow money just to get a FF body... but as you said Phyllis we all have different priorities based on our life situation).

Most importantly, I didn't want to make a thread about FF being good, bad, overpriced, justly priced or whatever. Just wanted to state that "cheap" cameras can also be good. Same goes for lenses. I've been told directly in the face from someone very kind BTW, that my kit lens (well, he didn't say YOUR kit lens, he said "entry-level kit lenses") was a paperweight... Well, I'm glad I can take nice pictures with my paperweight :P (although I don't use it much because I prefer a wider focal length... but that's another story).

Morton

12 years ago

BTW if money were no object I would buy a Porsche 911, live in Ravello and drive up and down the Amalfi coast singing Italian love songs with the windows open....

Phyllis

I would do the same, yes, Ravello is a fantastic place and a short step away from Bella Capri.

Phyllis Clarke CREW

12 years ago — Moderator

Paco..

I was agreeing with you.

Inexpensive cameras can do the job.

I am finding that the lens is more important. I have a more expensive camera now but I find that if I use one of my slow lenses with it...the picture looks the same as with the much less expensive camera...maybe in low light more noise on the less expensive one But with good light really no big difference.

But on the less expensive camera with a good lens..tack sharp, beautiful color, overall...better ...pictures.

The glass matters it would seem.

But overall I still would go to Ravello.:)

Phyl

Paco Palazon

12 years ago

But overall I still would go to Ravello.:)

We'll all meet there, then :)

Gianni Giatilis

12 years ago

But overall I still would go to Ravello.:)

Phyl

Me too Phyllis, and the 911, if money was not an issue... but we can always dream of Naxos LOL :)

Paula Smith

12 years ago

Paco - I am very glad you started this topic. As an amateur and person on a very tight budget I use my iphone and a small Canon sx 160 which is a point and shoot with some manual control and a zoom. If I had $$ I would love to step up and see what I might gain from different lenses but as you correctly stated, a better camera will not turn me into a photographer. I might not be a photographer but I find joy in seeing what I can do with what I have and I am so glad I found 1x where you can learn from real photographers and see the thoughts and opinions of so many and on both sides of an issue.

Robert PRO

12 years ago

Entry level DSLR vs pro DSLR? You cannot compare!

I am using both entry and pro. I love my pro gear and a pro lens on a entry level DSLR take out much more picture quality. It is also not about pixels. Its about the photographer behind the camera.

For me it is a tool and in plenty of occasions where I have been photographing with fellow friends who are using entry level gear it has come quickly to a point where an entry level camera reaches its limits very fast and pro gear still working fine.

At the end it’s a matter of taste and what you want and what fits your financial capabilities.

Alonso Dominguez

12 years ago

And what about an entry-level DSLR with a "pro" glass?? I'm in fact pushing the limits of mine as I shoot concerts occasionally, (2 times a month more or less) I wouldn't say that the kit lens is a paperweight, I have friends who use it on the street with good results but they aren't great though and in very low light situations they are very limited.

So, there I am, going 2 times a month to dark basements in London with a Canon Rebel/650D and a 24-70mm F2.8 L attached to it, weird? I don't think so, I have to push the ISO and then clean in PP but it's giving great results anyway. Gig photography is just 30% (at most) of the photography I do and for the other kinds I'm finding my mirror-less and its extraordinary primes the best tool, they give outstanding results, they are really affordable and are very lightweight.

And regarding to the FF "step-up"... I was kinda surprised when reading in some forums about the "next mirror-less generation", in my case I'm talking about the Fuji X-line. The surprise came when I found that most of the people were asking for FF whilst, from my point of view, being these Fujis very good machines, I would expect other improvements that help me more to take pictures (and at a reasonable price) instead that just a bigger sensor that will double the price of the body just for "megapixel-sake"...

Zan Zhang

12 years ago

I am sorry that I am joining the discussion so late. But I would like to contribute to the discussion from some different points of view:

1. We all work within limit, no matter how advanced our tools are, and artists often make good use of the limit. Entry level cameras do have more limit than high-end one, but that may not necessarily be a bad thing. Some simply examples: Many people choose black and white, instead of colors, to create images and they can be very powerful. Again, some people deliberately use noise or diffused images to create special feelings. Although nowadays people do these on purpose, but these are actually started from limit of the tools. When we have a tool in hand, we just need to learn its characteristics or "personality", inlcuding limit, and think about how to make use of them. We often can turn bad things into good things.

2. Limit can push us to be creative; at least we can find ways around them. If we do not have a wide angle lens, we can shoot several pictures and stitch them. If our camera's dynamic range is not wide enough, we can use bracketing to take a few shots with different exposures and combine them with software. If our lens does not yield nice bokeh, again, we can use software to soften the background (although the result may not be the same, but can be interest as well). When we are creative, we can increase the power of existing tools greatly and even use them to beat the next generation of technoolgy.

3. The world is infinitely large, and there are infinite numbers of objects/events for us to admire and capture. An entry-level camera may not be effective in low light condition, but there are enough other beautiful or meaningful scenes to be captured (infinity minus something we cannot do is still equal to infinity). When I was young, I could not afford to buy oil colors, I just used pencils to draw and the joy was as great as using colors. We can be a specialist for something that our tool can help to deliver. And this is why we should never feel sorry that we cannot afford the expensive equipment. The idea is that we do not have to do what everyone else is doing. We also need to let go something (even something good and beautiful) and be happy with what we can do for now and be good at it. In this aspect, we do not have limit except our own creativity.

At the end of the day, we are proud of our works, not our equipments (we are not camera makers). For artists, there are no "entry-level" or "advanced" tools, but tools that we feel comfortable with and that have characteristics. We do hear a lot of marketing noises, and many people are misled by them and forget where we are from and where we are going. We just need to be confident about ourselves, find joy in doing what we do for the moment, and igore the noises in the street.

Luci CJ

11 years ago

While I sometimes regret buying my first Nikon D3100 three years ago, as I've lost a lot of money with its purchase (and even more with some DX lenses), I don't regret having used it extensively, in order to learn as much as I could about photography.

Not that I'd have any fancy camera nowadays (a D90... I'm on a relatively tight budget, I admit), but this configuration is quite okay for anything but sports and shooting people in low-light.

I've had photos published and sold both on Shutterstock and Dreamstime, taken with the D90, the D3100 and an older D70, which I do not own anymore, so they cannot be so crappy cameras, I presume. You may need more time and more shots to get the perfect one right than with a D7100 or a D700, but in adequate lighting conditions they still deliver.

Deleted User

11 years ago

You may need more time and more shots to get the perfect one right than with a D7100 or a D700, but in adequate lighting conditions they still deliver.

Geeze!! I must be doing something wrong then...

Luci CJ

11 years ago

Geeze!! I must be doing something wrong then...

I don't think it is wrong to invest in gear.. only that it is not necessarily the camera body which helps you achieve the best results.

However, I'd rather invest in lenses than in camera bodies, which come and go.In terms of anything but ergonomics, today's entry-level DSLR's overpass by far the professional cameras of 7 or 8 years ago.

But a good lens is still a good lens (I'd recommend a camera with built-in focus motor, precisely in order to take advantage of all lenses on the market).

From what I've experienced, if you have plenty of time and a collaborative model, you can achieve a beautiful photo with great bokeh even with a vintage M42 lens, costing $100 (just love my 135mm Revuenon f/2.8).... if you need to get that perfect shot in a blink of an eye, at the stadium for instance, a 70-200 costing 30 times as much becomes a must.

Deleted User

11 years ago

I was joking about not getting it quickly with my D7000. My best camera body cost me $75 on ebay. It's a Nikon FE 2. And I agree with you about lenses being far more important.

Marc Petzold

11 years ago

Well, i'd add to this conversation, Gear does (almost) not matter,

for my own experience, i've caught some decent shots with my smartphone,

and it was good enough for me (not for 1x.com so called standarts here)

Personally, i've much more fun trying (especially if the cam supports raw) to

get the most out of a cheap digicam or beginner's slr, otherwise than some folks

posing with their highend equipment, but only producing digital garbage with this,

exaggerated said.

I believe the best cam, DSLR, DSLM, whatever is the one by your side, to capture

that precious life moment, it doesn't matter which model and/or brand it is.

i often notice that i am too lazy to take my D7000 out, because it's heavy for

myself, together with the lens, some batteries and camera bag. Instead, i am using more my older D60, or any mirrorless DSLM or compact cam i've here

in my collection, and having fun grabbing shots occasionally.

Damn clyde, that FE2 is a living legend, congrats to your bargain! :-)

I've some old minolta glas, and can't wait for my MC/MD to NEX adapter,

so i can use this old lenses on my Sony DSLM.

Marc Petzold

11 years ago

No rant, but what i simply can't stand with the Canon Brand: their over-aggressive

(Print)Marketing and online ads, and also their sensors are way behind Nikon since the D3 back in 2007 in terms of color depth, dynamic range, etc...check out

the results with DxOMark online.

I've also sadly noticed that Scott Kelby (!) changed from the better tech Nikon to

Canon, because for sponsorship terms....huh.

Tom Benedict

11 years ago

i often notice that i am too lazy to take my D7000 out, because it's heavy for

myself, together with the lens, some batteries and camera bag. Instead, i am using more my older D60, or any mirrorless DSLM or compact cam i've here

in my collection, and having fun grabbing shots occasionally.

I'm glad you mentioned weight. A good bit of the photography I do uses a camera suspended from a kite line. It's possible to lift a heavier camera by using a larger kite, but then everything else scales up: line, winding force, etc. I know at least one person flying a full-frame metal-bodied DSLR this way. For me, entry-level DSLRs with their composite bodies and lighter weight components are a darned good choice.

Tom

Marc Petzold

11 years ago

Hi Tom,

because of weight, and to travel light, i sometimes even use my Olympus 8080 Zoom, which still does give me decent results up to ISO 100, i shoot it mostly handheld, and with RAW Format.

Therefore, i really like simple Equipment, and see how much i could get of it,

it does make fun, too. ;-)

Marc

Gabriel Tompkins

11 years ago

Not that I'd have any fancy camera nowadays (a D90... I'm on a relatively tight budget, I admit), but this configuration is quite okay for anything but sports and shooting people in low-light.

There's no need to feel bashful about the D90. :) I love that camera and the RAW files it produces. It's plenty capable and even after 5+ years I still haven't come up with a strong enough reason to replace it. Yes, it does struggle beyond ISO 1600, but for my subjects of interest this isn't important since I'm almost always shooting at base ISO. For high ISO shooters I completely understand the desire for full frame.

As others have already mentioned, I feel it's the lenses that play a far more crucial role and have the biggest overall impact on our photography. It's through them where we learn to see and previsualize the world in so many different ways to expand our creative potential as photographers. The "pro" glass is fantastic, but even modern day kit lenses are surprisingly good compared to even 10 or 20 years ago (aside from build quality perhaps). I still use the 18-105mm kit lens today and probably used it for 50% of all my images. As you already know, high end expensive cameras and lenses aren't required to create quality photographs.

Marc Petzold

11 years ago

Just right...remember, it's not the megapixels, fancy latest sensor tech, etc..it's the person behind the DSLR/camera, which matters most.

Just to break a lance for old manual focus lenses - the haptics are quite better

with old glass and metal bodied lenses, and i love to have the aperture control

directly onto the lens - not via fancy wheel onto the DSLR body...it's simply not

the same feeling.

I've had the 18-105mm VR Nikkor back into it's heydays when my D90 was popular, but for example i like much more the Tamron 17-50/2.8, sad but true, also with a plastique body and no aperture ring, but F2.8 constant aperture - and better results both onto the D90 and my D7000 Body.

And then there's the E-Mount "Playground" with various MF lenses & adaptors here....it just makes fun to use old prime mf lenses.

Last, but not least - you're just right, a "highend" DSLR/DSLM is not required to make HQ pictures....

Dave Lee

4 years ago

I have the latest entry-level Nikon D3500 camera and i don't need to change the camera but new lenses make all the difference https://www.nikonbundle.com/nikon-d3500-bundle/

Woad Visage PRO

3 months ago

Anna Golitsyna

In defense of full frames, sort of:

And if you ever shoot birds, you'll appreciate the finest equipment available to give you that bird's eye and feather sharpness...

Hi I just saw your post of twelve years ago. Just thought I'd say that, although my main camera is a Canon 80D APC-DSLR (itself nine years old) I still use a Canon 1200D APC-DSLR sometimes and it is brill. (NB: The 1200D is what canon badge as the "T5 Rebel" in North America). And, to put further coincidence into the mix, my only full-frame camera is a Canon 5D FF-DSLR - yes MK II!

If you read this I agree with your great choices. Cheerio.

Mal Smart PRO

2 months ago

Woad Visage PRO

Anna Golitsyna

In defense of full frames, sort of:

And if you ever shoot birds, you'll appreciate the finest equipment available to give you that bird's eye and feather sharpness...

If you read this I agree with your great choices. Cheerio.

I didn't even know that my camera needed defending!..😁

Woad Visage PRO

2 months ago

Hi, thanks for your reply.

I think all older cameras need defending - too many people are being told to buy the latest, greatest, Look at all the gear reviews on You Tube!

Cheers, take care.

Sergej Maršnjak PRO

16 days ago

If you are in wildlife photography with big telephoto lenses, the camera body's price becomes completely irrelevant. Because, if you buy a couple of lenses for 3000-15000 euros, it doesn't make sense thinking if you should spend 500-1000 euros for an entry level DSLR, or 2000-4000 for a better one.

But on the other hand, the price matters, if you are in a casual photography with smaller (kit) lenses.

Al Pakulat PRO

15 days ago

Hi Sergej,

Match the lens quality to the camera sensor quality for best IQ.

Sergej Maršnjak PRO

15 days ago

Al, of course, I have a top grade camera body with matching lenses.

I am just saying in general, as for example, you can mount best full-frame compatible lenses on any body of the same manufacturer and mount, even the cheaper ones. But it would not make sense to do that in reality. So, an entry-level DSLR in a combination with like 600mm F4 lens, is mostly pointless.

So, "defending entry-level" cameras means, that they can only be used for casual photography, not for the wildlife or other extreme situations (portrait with F1.4, macro, ...)

Edited: 15 days ago by Sergej Maršnjak