# My first DSLR



## Rajdeep Banik (Jul 28, 2013)

Hi, I am visiting the Digit forum after a long time. I will be buying a DSLR before diwali. After a lot of reading, I zoomed in the Nikon D5200. It will be my first DSLR and probably stay with me forever. So, my question is that is the 5200 good enough say for the next 10-20 years? How about reliability? Also, any other camera suggestions are welcome.... Thanks in advance.


----------



## raja manuel (Jul 28, 2013)

DSLR lenses are far more likely to be with you for 10-20 years than the body. Some people do continue to use old DSLRs and get excellent results from them, but I think it is too soon to evaluate DSLRs for a 20-year period, particularly in the entry-level models that made an appearance only during the turn of the century. Conventional wisdom says that the investment is only in the lenses and my experience doesn't disagree with it.


----------



## Rajdeep Banik (Jul 28, 2013)

Raja Manuel said:


> DSLR lenses are far more likely to be with you for 10-20 years than the body. Some people do continue to use old DSLRs and get excellent results from them, but I think it is too soon to evaluate DSLRs for a 20-year period, particularly in the entry-level models that made an appearance only during the turn of the century. Conventional wisdom says that the investment is only in the lenses and my experience doesn't disagree with it.


So, what do you suggest?


----------



## sujoyp (Jul 28, 2013)

before 15 years there was no digital cameras only roll camera...I can not say that after 10 years digital camera will exist or not.

I suggest getting a D7000 for long term..at least it will work for long time till its managed properly..

But Raja told u the actual truth...a lens of 1965 still works on this generation of nikon dslrs...soo lenses are much better investments..

another thing is dslr and lenses are prone to scratches, fungus, moisture etc...u have to keep them safe from these


----------



## Rajdeep Banik (Jul 28, 2013)

D7000 is out of budget! What I need to know is the reliability of DSLRs. In far future, will the camera work as it works today? I am asking this because in future I will be spending on lenses rather than on another body. Many people here are using DSLRs for a long time, does any of them shows any technical problem in a few years? Like shutter problem or sensor going bad?


----------



## sujoyp (Jul 28, 2013)

my fathers SLR which was bought in 1993 got fungus lately around in 2004-5 ...it still works but we cant find camera rolls and developers anymore

similarly my D3100 is 2.5 years old and works perfectly ... problem is that technology keeps on changing

A DSLR body cost far less then a lens.

just see how a D7000 which cost 57k last year is 42k now ...soo body price keeps on falling...but all the lenses cost nearly same for last 5 years..


----------



## nac (Jul 29, 2013)

I don't think electronic products would last that long.

It can give some trouble even when using less and it can work as good as a new one even after a heavy use. It just 'electronics' (Its just my view)

So... what's your budget.


----------



## Rajdeep Banik (Jul 30, 2013)

sujoyp said:


> just see how a D7000 which cost 57k last year is 42k now ....


D7000 @ 42K? In flipkart the cost of D7000 shows @ 48K (body only). My budget is around 40K, if I get D7000 for 42, I will go for it. BTW, which one is better? D5200 or D7000? D5200 has some cool features like 'selective colour' & 'remote control using an android phone'.


----------



## sujoyp (Jul 30, 2013)

@rajdeep ...when selecting a DSLR avoid cool features....they are just software gimmiks for newbies...DSLR is ment to be used with manual features...which u will be doing after 3-4 months ..and may forget all other gimmiks 

D7000 is on a semi pro segment which have better viewfinder, better body, inbody motor and dual dials ....these are much better things to consider.

NIKON D7000 BODY ONLY KIT WITHOUT LENS BRAND NEW IN BOX GENUINE CARRYING CASE | eBay

if u have any coupens u can get it cheaper


----------



## Rajdeep Banik (Jul 30, 2013)

Ok, 44K for body only. Hope it last upto Diwali. Need a lens too... Maybe a 50mm prime for learning?


----------



## raja manuel (Aug 1, 2013)

D7000 seems to be overkill for a first DSLR, especially considering you are heading in that direction because it should last forever which there is no guarantee of. For all you know we will be switching in a few years' time to synthetic biology sensors that rival the human eye. It would make more sense to buy a cheaper body and use the money to buy accessories that also contribute a great deal to quality of output.


----------



## quagmire (Aug 1, 2013)

^I'm hearing this for the first time. Please explain more.


----------



## sujoyp (Aug 2, 2013)

what I suggested is based on nikon D200 usage...people still love and use D200 released in 2005...they still buy D300 and D90 released in 2007...I can comfortably say that D7000 will last for next 10 years.

to start with just get 18-55 kit lens.....a 50mm lens will be too difficult to start with.


----------



## pranav0091 (Aug 2, 2013)

I'd ask OP to settle with D3100/D5100 or the 1100D/550D.

Re-iterating what everyone here has pointed out already. You will outgrow your DSLR even if you are a casual photographer. Else, you wouldnt need to spend any more money than the ones I have suggested here. get any of those with the kit 18-55 lens.
I have found them to go as cheap as 21k (1100D + 18-55 ), 26k (1100D + 18-55 + 55-250). The others will also cost similarly. That 26k offer is an absolute steal if you consider the fact that the lenses themselves cost ~7k + 11k = 18k


----------



## Rajdeep Banik (Aug 2, 2013)

Will buy the D7000 for sure, but what about the lens? I won't be left with a lot of money after buying the body! So, a good lens for 5-6K?My friend has a 18-55 kit lens on a Canon 1100. He said that after sometime this lens is rarely used as one becomes specific towards certain topics. He likes street photography & so he suggested me the 50mm prime.Since I will be buying the 'body' only, so I can choose some specific lens which I will use all the time!?!?!


----------



## raja manuel (Aug 2, 2013)

pranav0091 said:


> I'd ask OP to settle with D3100/D5100 or the 1100D/550D.
> 
> Re-iterating what everyone here has pointed out already. You will outgrow your DSLR even if you are a casual photographer. Else, you wouldnt need to spend any more money than the ones I have suggested here. get any of those with the kit 18-55 lens.
> I have found them to go as cheap as 21k (1100D + 18-55 ), 26k (1100D + 18-55 + 55-250). The others will also cost similarly. That 26k offer is an absolute steal if you consider the fact that the lenses themselves cost ~7k + 11k = 18k



11K? Is that all for the 55-250?


----------



## sujoyp (Aug 2, 2013)

@rajdeep ....but are u sure u just want to do portraits and street photography  ....50mm is too restrective ....its not at all wide and you will find it difficult to use for landscapes or groupphotos..

Its true that people get bored of 18-55 coz they become selective in there genere ...but since you have no idea what u like start with 18-55 ...I retired my 18-55 after 2 years and replaced it with a lens costing 3 times more tamron 17-50 f2.8  ....

start with ABC of photography ...dont jump on making words rights from start   since u have planned for at least 10 years , you have lots of time to get selective lenses .


----------



## pranav0091 (Aug 2, 2013)

Rajdeep Banik said:


> Will buy the D7000 for sure, but what about the lens? I won't be left with a lot of money after buying the body! So, a good lens for 5-6K?My friend has a 18-55 kit lens on a Canon 1100. He said that after sometime this lens is rarely used as one becomes specific towards certain topics. He likes street photography & so he suggested me the 50mm prime.Since I will be buying the 'body' only, so I can choose some specific lens which I will use all the time!?!?!



Please do NOT underestimate the importance of a lens buddy. Get a decent enough lens. The 18-55 is the bare minimum, but a very potent lens nevertheless. I'd recommend it over the 50mm prime for a beginner. The 50 mm prime is a very different kind of lens. It calls for patience and doesnt do low light all that well, not to mention the hassle of framing a shot in tight corners or family meetings. Also keep in ind that the 18-55 (canon atleast) is a pretty capable pseudo-macro lens. In all for a beginner I'd vote for the 18-55 over the 50mm prime anyday. The chances are just too hight that you will be severely disappointed if you take the jump straight to a prime.



Raja Manuel said:


> 11K? Is that all for the 55-250?



Yes. I saw the canon version for 11.something only a few days ago online.
CANON EFS 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS MK II Lens BRAND NEW NEW IN BOX WITH 2 YR CANON | eBay


----------



## nac (Aug 3, 2013)

Raja Manuel said:


> 11K? Is that all for the 55-250?



Yes, about a month ago, I saw a deal for 9.xk.


----------



## raja manuel (Aug 3, 2013)

That's really cheap compared to the 17-18K on Flipkart and JJ Mehta.


----------



## Rajdeep Banik (Aug 3, 2013)

pranav0091 said:


> Please do NOT underestimate the importance of a lens buddy. Get a decent enough lens. The 18-55 is the bare minimum, but a very potent lens nevertheless. I'd recommend it over the 50mm prime for a beginner. The 50 mm prime is a very different kind of lens. It calls for patience and doesn't do low light all that well, not to mention the hassle of framing a shot in tight corners or family meetings. Also keep in ind that the 18-55 (canon atleast) is a pretty capable pseudo-macro lens. In all for a beginner I'd vote for the 18-55 over the 50mm prime anyday. The chances are just too hight that you will be severely disappointed if you take the jump straight to a prime.


Ok, will buy the 18-55 if nothing else comes up, but I am more interested in macro and micro photography. I tried taking photos with my PnS through my microscope, but the results were not so good  So, anyone here ever done micro-photography?


----------



## sujoyp (Aug 3, 2013)

yup I have done macro photography....in dslr world you need a macro lens for that...the most popular macro lens is tamron 90mm 2.8 costing 22k ....you can get a used one for 15-16k


----------



## pranav0091 (Aug 3, 2013)

Rajdeep Banik said:


> Ok, will buy the 18-55 if nothing else comes up, but I am more interested in macro and micro photography. I tried taking photos with my PnS through my microscope, but the results were not so good  So, anyone here ever done micro-photography?



Okay. But I'd like you to know this. Typical macro lenses have focal lengths around 90mm like Sujoy mentioned. That SEVERELY limits its paracticality for anything else. You will be able to get some pretty good protrait photos if you ask your subject to stand at just the right distance. To give you an idea of how it'll be think of your PnS PERMANENTLY set to 5x zoom and walking around with it taking photos. How much will you like your PnS if you cant change its zoom to anything except 5x ? Thats roughly how using a 90mm Macro would feel like.

Thats also the reason why I harp so much for the 18-55 IS variants. The canon one (and so I guess even the Nikon one) can focus as close as [25 cm - length of lens in cm] centimeters. It isnt macro, but its pretty good for a beginner. And surely vastly more versatile than a 90mm macro. I'm not dissuading you from buying a macro, but ~20k is a serious investment and you should be aware of what you are jumping into. If macro is so important to you that you are willing to buy a lens thats pretty much useless anywhere else, then sure, you'll love the dedicated macros.

ANother option would be the 18-200mm lenses. Good ones cost ~27k (I guess) and they are very versatile. They cover a decent zoom range (near wideangle to near telephoto) and though they can be bested by dedicated lens at either of the 18mm and 200mm ends, they are probably your best bet for your particular use-case. Get a D3100 + Sigma 18-200 if you think thats fine. That should be ~50k I guess.


----------



## sujoyp (Aug 3, 2013)

yes like pranav said you start with a 18-55 lens 1st...start the practice...try to make use of it in different conditions...understand why do people use 50mm for portraits and why do you need 90mm-150mm for macro shots....go slowly...there is lot to learn

a 90mm micro lens can also be good for butterflies and some portraits ...but its again restrictive.

I have a 55-200 zoom lens which I find very flexible for most of the things...


----------



## Rajdeep Banik (Aug 4, 2013)

Ok, will get a 18-55mm lens with the D7000. Thank you guys for clearing my doubts.
And one more question, in D7000, the autofocus motor is in the body, while in other models, it needs to be on the lens itself. Does that means I can get a cheaper 18-55 lens without the AF motor & the camera will do it for me? Is this kind of lens available?


----------



## sujoyp (Aug 4, 2013)

no there is no 18-55 without AF motor....the good thing is u will save a lot while getting 50mm or other non AFS lenses .


----------

