# Are 'baby' model camera bodies good for beginners?



## Light Artisan (Jan 15, 2011)

I always see people blindly recommend the 'baby' model bodies for beginners and don't understand why. I'm a Nikon shooter so pardon me for a moment while I venture down this path.

Say I come here as a beginner looking for my first camera, after all - I love photography.

What is a good camera for me?

9/10 the first response will be one of the following:
D3100, D5000, D3000, D40, D60

Then the wiser folks start recommending bodies with internal focus motors, top LCD's, dual command dials, etc. (D70, D80, D90 on up)

Cost isn't the reason, you can pick up a D80 for less than a D5000. Sure, the high ISO isn't as good but it's a great camera body.

You can pick up a D200 body for about the same as a D3000. Then recommend real glass, like an inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 and have full capabilities with older and new lenses combined. If they have some decent coin to lay down, hey - the 80-200 f/2.8 is a great lens for your kids playing sports, portraits, wildlife, your cousins wedding next month, etc.

Auto modes? Who cares? Aren't people getting a DSLR because they want more control of their photography?

So I ask again... why do people recommend these cameras?

Discuss.


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 15, 2011)

Probably because not most folk new to SLR type cameras understand exposure. I can hand my camera to most anyone I know and expect a puzzled expression in return.

The consumer level (?) cameras have scene modes that a learner can fall back on to reference for manual mode practice and still get use of their new camera.

I progressed from the D60. Granted I had SLR (film) experience but that was years ago.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 15, 2011)

Prices on the new lower-end Nikons are affordable. They come packaged with decent kit zooms, sometimes two-lens outfits, at prices people are willing to pay at places like Best Buy, Target, Ritz, B&H, Samy's, indeed all across the USA and Canada and Europe. Around holidays, there are discounts on the cameras, and the lenses. Prime lens sales are wayyyyyy down compared with zoom lens sales. Only the lowest-cost primes sell well. Nikon said a year ago that around 90% of its sales of cameras are the entry-level models. The biggest-selling prime they have is the new 35/1.8 AF-S G, which is a $199 lens. The majority of the Nikkor lens lineup that is **affordable** is new, and AF-S focusing, so it works on the Baby Nikons.

Women buy a LOT of d-slr cameras. Women show a decided preference for smaller, lighter camera bodies. The entry-level bodies are very small, very light. On-the-go moms and grandmas,and many men, appreciate a small,light, low-priced d-slr for what it is.

The complaints often come from the "Serious User" whose expectations cannot be met with an entry-level camera's feature set.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 15, 2011)

1- People recommend what they have.

2- people recommend what they can afford.

The entry level bodies are generally a low cost way to get into the whole dSLR thing.

They are capable enough, assuming you know how to use it.
I think that's where it comes from.  Buy something on the cheaper end to learn on, after you've learned whatever you will you'll know what to buy next.


----------



## Overread (Jan 15, 2011)

Also remember the entry level bodies tend to (at least canon ones do) have a few more auto modes - sports; landscape; macro; portrait; no flash - these are things that some people new to DSLRs (either moving up from point and shoots or just getting into photography) will want and use. Some will progress beyond them and others won't it depends on the person and what they want from their photography. 

Also many people (esp when moving into a totally new area of purchasing) like to buy something new that they know both works and has warranty rather than something second hand. I would also add that there is a level of confidence that new people can have in brand new machines/devices that  can be a little lacking if they buy second hand (my shots are all blurry I wonder if the camera was broken when the guy sold it to me etc....).


----------



## FranDaMan (Jan 15, 2011)

It's like with most hobbies.
You don't know if it's will be a long lasting hobby, so you don't wanna spend serious cash on it, afraid that you will be losing out when selling it later.
Buying second hand can be intimidating because you don't know where to look for the pitfalls.

And then later on when you see it is a longlasting hobby and you run into the limitations of your gear, you regret not buying the better stuff to begin with.

Been there, done that with every single hobby of mine


----------



## Drake (Jan 15, 2011)

I use a Canon 1000D/Rebel XS, which is almost identical to the Canon 400D I had used previously. I had to chose an entry level camera because I couldn't spend more money on photography. Even if I could, I think I would still get a rebel, maybe a 500D, and some better lens. And I don't want a used camera. When I get such equipment, I prefer to have it brand new, even if it means going for a lower model. 

It's also not because of the auto modes. I'd rather have them stripped out. But it's not a good enough reason to get a mid level camera, is it? 

Why exactly do you think I should go for a used 40D? I was fully aware of the differences between it and my 1000D, and still went for the baby canon.

I am tired of all the marketing dudes trying to convince me that I need the features used by pros. No, I don't. I am perfectly fine with my entry level DSLR. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 15, 2011)

Ahh, but the more capable bodies aren't necessarily more expensive. If you read my post I give examples of this - and (at least for Nikon) the D80/D90/D7000 do have an Auto mode, at least 2 of them (D7000 has many more). I would imagine Canon is very similar, if not more so.

So cost and ease of use aren't really valid arguments.

Size, perhaps... however I've seen rather petite men and women using gripped D300 bodies without issue.

I do agree with the statement 'People recommend what they have', I see it and also do this often. In fact I make a conscience effort not to recommend things I don't have simply because I haven't used them and don't know first hand how they perform.


----------



## Ken Rockwell Fan (Jan 15, 2011)

I don't recomend the D3100, D5000, D3000, D40 or D60 at all to anyone who is new. I always tell new people to find a used body with a internal autofocus motor with a low shutter count if possible. The newer the better of course. Usually after you teach budget minded people about the benefits of the Nikon "nifty" 50mm f/1.8 for $120 they jump all over the idea. People looking to buy new is a different story.


----------



## Drake (Jan 15, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> Ahh, but the more capable bodies aren't necessarily more expensive. If you read my post I give examples of this - and (at least for Nikon) the D80/D90/D7000 do have an Auto mode, at least 2 of them (D7000 has many more). I would imagine Canon is very similar, if not more so.


So in my example, I got my 1000D for about $500. I needed it brand new both because I prefer new equipment. How was I supposed to get a new D90 for this price? And I don't really consider the archaic D80 better than my 1000D in terms of IQ.

If the lack of AF motor in baby nikons is a disadvantage, who says you have to move up one level just to get this one feature? I got the 1000D instead of a D3000, both because of the AF motor and the inferior CCD from D80 in the D3000, and am perfectly fine with my camera.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 15, 2011)

I agree, if someone insists on new you're more limited in what you can recommend. It's not that they would get a bad camera, this isn't about that. But there are arguably more capable cameras for close to the same (sometimes less) money.


----------



## Overread (Jan 15, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> Ahh, but the more capable bodies aren't necessarily more expensive. If you read my post I give examples of this - and (at least for Nikon) the D80/D90/D7000 do have an Auto mode, at least 2 of them (D7000 has many more). I would imagine Canon is very similar, if not more so.



Far as I know once you leave the rebels you're limited to program and full auto as the only mostly auto modes on the camera (60D might or might not have changed this as its a new market position but I don't know). 

The thing is whilst you consider the lack of sports; landscape; portrait etc.. modes not to be a problem to a total novice or someone moving up from a point and shoot the lack of those modes that they are expecting could be seen as a detrimental component of the camera body for them.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Jan 15, 2011)

I say go with the D90, personally. Based on how much you shoot and your level of familiarity with DSLRs already, it's probably best to take that step up.


----------



## flightless_beaker (Jan 15, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> Auto modes? Who cares? Aren't people getting a DSLR because they want more control of their photography?



Eh. I wouldn't go that far. I used to work at Best Buy and I'd talk to a lot of people who had SLRs and would be shooting auto. A lot of people don't go in the other modes because they get incredibly overwhelmed. Heck, I've lost sales to SLRs because people would look at them and freak out. A lot of the consumer market are really towards soccer moms and dads who just want better pictures of their kids than what a compact camera and super zoom camera can do. They don't want to be bothered with how to functionally work the camera and learn all the features.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 15, 2011)

Some great answers so I'm just going to support some of those comments by repeating them because I like to hear myself talk.

I'm kidding... I do have something to add and a bit of a spin, but I also want to reinforce some comments (like Derrel's and O||||||O's).

As Josh mentioned... People do have a habit of recommending based upon their _own_ budget. I think it's a defense mechanism in a lot of cases. They cannot afford more, and so they have to say to themselves that what they have is good enough, so they have to violently defend their choice by telling you it's the right one.

But us guys who have more expensive gear sometimes do the same thing. I see people all the time on here say things like "Don't spend money on a body until you buy this $2000 lens." Also foolishness. 

The only real answer to the question of "what camera should I buy" is "You should buy the most capable camera that you can afford for the kind of photography you like or expect to do." 

Artisan... you nailed it. People always assume the only or best option is new... but sometimes you can just spend that same money on a _better_ (more capable) body that's used.

Capability boils down to some of the other things you glanced off of... internal focusing motor, higher ISO capabilities, higher frame-rate, more on-body physical controls, etc.

The one thing I tell people is _never_ buy a camera without an internal focus motor if you can avoid it. Simple fact is that you cut off your options (or seriously increase your costs) when going for new lenses. 

I haven't checked in a while... but a good example was the 100-300 4/5.6 lens... for a camera with a focusing motor, it was like $135. CHEAP. For a camera without one... $300 or so. Why? Because it has to have an on-board focusing motor. Now sometimes the lenses are different (such as the 80-200 2.8 for $900 and the 80-200 2.8 VR1 for $1500... the latter of these two is technically a better lens in some respects) but the point is you don't even have the OPTION to go with the cheaper one here because you don't have that focusing motor.

There are many examples like this.

So, yeah... never. Never buy one without a focus motor. You're just burning yourself later. It's just a bad idea.

As Derrel mentioned, sometimes people will comment that they would like a smaller body. This is one of the very few cases I've heard for buying a "baby body" that I can somewhat understand. There is a MAJOR weight difference between a D60 and a D300 (for example). And the D60 IS a fair bit smaller. That said... it's not so much smaller that you're going to be ramming it into your pocket, so you have to keep some perspective. If you're Elven, then a D60 may be for you... if you're anything close to standard human size, even a D3-sized camera is something you WILL get used to handling.

Another part of the problem here is that I'm not giving you a concrete answer.  I'm not saying "Buy a D300!"  I think one of the reasons why this gets dragged out so much is people think that there is a SPECIFIC and obvious answer tailor-made exactly to them, and that someone is going to be able to tell them what that answer is... and generally with not a lot of info.  Unfortunately, that's not really possible.  In fact, in my experience... any one that tells you "BUY XXXXX!" is not giving you a useful answer and should be discounted.  Unless they give you a range of possible options based upon quite a bit of data about your budget, what you shoot, your preferences, etc. they are just wasting your time.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 15, 2011)

^ that. 

Well thought out and written. I feel guilty putting such a short response, but to me there's not much else to say.

Thoughts?


----------



## KmH (Jan 15, 2011)

The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who  have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.

Otherwise TPF would have *A LOT* more members.


----------



## Drake (Jan 15, 2011)

KmH said:


> The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who  have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.


And don't you think they are wrong, choosing equipment that is not right for them?

I still think entry level DSLRs are the perfect choice for amateurs. I've been interested in photography for a couple years. I am not a pro. I don't make any money this way. I can't spend thousands of dollars on photo equipment. But I love shooting and try to build a useful collection of gear over time. What's wrong with an entry level Rebel? Well, it's not built like a tank, doesn't feature a gazillion of AF points or shoot 10 fps. But it still has a good enough sensor and dedicated buttons for all the most important functions. I really don't see why I should spend my money on a better body, instead of getting some better lens or perhaps a good flash unit.


----------



## orb9220 (Jan 15, 2011)

Drake said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who  have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.
> ...




As to KmH brings up a valid point about intent of the new owner. When approached and asking or telling me they are considering upgrading from the P&S arena. All I have to do is ask them a half a dozen questions. About are they willing to spend time and discipline to learn photography? Are they aware they will be spending more monies in lenses,flash,tripod,ect... and that the body is not the most expensive part to photography. 

Or are they just wanting better camera to capture family & friends events or actually want to learn photography. And have the inclination to go out multiple times during the week or take their camera everywhere with them to Practice and learn photography.

Generally I end up 7 out of 10 times recommending the more capable 12x-18x Optical zoom Bridge camera first. 

As to Drake statements. Yep another crux of the matter. Is the assumption of If it fits my needs. It therefore should for all starting out users. Is flawed as not all intents or needs are known. Even the person starting out doesn't know what path they will be traveling down. And it is all just guessing.

Personally I would have appreciated not be aimed to the D40 first to save a few bucks. As became frustrated in 6 months with no in body motor or dedicated controls & features that all can appreciate. Instead I had wasted funds & time on what I should have gotten in the first place a more capable camera. And would have saved money in the long run as good buy cheaper quality glass that would AF on my cam. And able to use my SB-600 wireless and ended up selling and forced to buy a SB-800 and use the SU-4 mode as no flash commander in camera. Also the bigger viewfinder & LCD and dedicated controls did was lower my frustration and added to my enjoyment for learning and getting the shot.
.


----------



## KmH (Jan 15, 2011)

Drake said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.
> ...


No I don't think they are wrong buying entry-level dSLR equipment. In fact, it's one of the camera makers major design considerations for their entry-level lineups, catering to the point and shoot dSLR owner.

They still have the capability of using interchangable lenses and many take advantage of that option, even though they still have no intention of gaining an understanding of how the camera works.

There is nothing wrong with an entry-level Rebel or "baby" Nikon, as long as the owner doesn't mind being constrained by their technical limitations.


----------



## Drake (Jan 15, 2011)

KmH said:


> There is nothing wrong with an entry-level Rebel or "baby" Nikon, as long as the owner doesn't mind being constrained by their technical limitations.


Yeah, and about that technical limitations. How would a nikon D80 be less limiting than a 1000D? New entry level cameras have better IQ and pretty much all the features of the few years old lower-mid level cameras.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 15, 2011)

Most people don't consider buying used, that's all.  If you're buying all brand-new gear, the d80 and d200 aren't available to you, and AF-S lenses are just about all you can find.

I try to point as many prospective new owners to bodies like the d80 as I can, it's cheaper then a d3000 with more features.


----------



## djacobox372 (Jan 15, 2011)

Drake said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing wrong with an entry-level Rebel or "baby" Nikon, as long as the owner doesn't mind being constrained by their technical limitations.
> ...



Hard comparing nikon to canon. The nikon autofocus motor issue makes it a much bigger deal in the nikon line; it's a major feature lacking from all their entry level cameras, which makes the older mid-range more desirable.  

The D80 vs. D3000 is the most relevant current example--they have the same sensor, the d80 just has more features and an af motor for around $100 less. 

Since Nikon has started putting CMOS sensors in their entry level line (all except the d3000), there's less of a reason to go with the older mid-range.  Although people still do come on these boards looking to buy a d40 or d60, and i try to sway them towards the af-motor bodies when I can.


----------



## flightless_beaker (Jan 16, 2011)

Drake said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The vast majority of entry-level dSLR's are purchased by people who  have zero desire to learn the technical details of photography, and rely almost exclusively on the various auto modes.
> ...



Thing is upgrading to an entry level DSLR even though they have no intent on using the SLR to its potential still is the right equipment. Consumer soccer moms buy SLRs because they give a better picture than their p&s counterparts. A lot of customers also had bought SLRs from me because they want the interchangable lenses so they can actually get their kid playing baseball. So a Rebel would be the right equipment for them, even though they are staying in auto. Whereas that's blasphemy to me, all they want is a glorified point and shoot that takes better quality pictures. 

I have to agree 100% with your statements. If you are an amateur, you can still take fantastic photos with a Rebel and just upgrade gear over time. That's why I like to recommend Canon to people looking to do that. They can buy a Rebel XS, buy higher quality glass and flashes then just upgrade the body when they're ready. Another thing I like is they still use the same image processors and similar sensors.


----------



## ausemmao (Jan 16, 2011)

Saying this as a recent entrant to the SLR world but one not entirely unfamiliar with it on entry:

Opportunity cost. Someone just starting out is not going to want to buy used because generally buying used means you haven't got the warranty support a new camera would have. That peace of mind is certainly worth something, especially after the sticker shock an SLR body can create. New also means you have that 7-28 days to return the body if it really disagrees with you - something again used cannot provide.

When it comes to controls, i'd tried friends' 50D and 500D. The difference in access to controls especially the dual control wheels vs single was nice. It wasn't a massive difference from holding the exposure button to get the single wheel to shift mode - like shiftclicking on a computer. There weren't many things that were just plain not possible on one but doable on the other.

Then I got to looking at the D3100, 5000 90 and 7000. The whole older lenses thing is a bit of a red herring. A beginner is not likely to buy used lenses for largely the same issues as buying the body. And given all of Nikon's new lenses have been AF-S for a while, it's becoming less and less of an issue with time. Even Canon's lenses despite their bodies having motors have most (all?) of their production lenses having in lens motors. 
Image quality wise and this was by far the most important for me, the D3100 was only bettered by the 7000, a body nearly 3 times the cost. A cost differential that's allowing me to build a decent lens collection, with a nice 17-50, looking around for a 90mm macro/portrait lens and a decent zoom (though I'm waiting to see if nikon release a 70-200f/4 like Canon's - the 2.8 is beyond my means).

That aforementioned price difference gets you a lot of nice things - better low light, the in body motor, nicer ergonomics, sturdier body, some weathersealing, good burst rates. Of those only 2 _actually_ affect the images you can capture (the frame rate and the low light, though low light can be compensated for by nice lenses), the ergonomics just make it harder to get to things rather than outright preventing something, and sturdiness and weathersealing - how many new SLR owners abuse their cameras, bearing in mind the lenses can't take the same kind of punisment unless they're costing as much or more than the body), and how many of you would take your pro bodies out in the rain unprotected? The extra stuff the outlay gets you is nice if you already know what you want. If you don't, the value is in my eyes questionable. Which is why I got the D3100 now, got a nice 17-50mm, will get a 90mm, and a 70-200 (or 55-200 if it doesn't show soon).

Then at the end of the year I'll know what I want and where the kit _really_ limited me if at all and will be happy buying a used D7000 off the people upgrading to D400/D800/D4


----------



## KmH (Jan 16, 2011)

> Even Canon's lenses despite their bodies having motors have most (all?) of their production lenses having in lens motors.



None of Canon's camera bodies have a focus motor in them, and haven't since 1987, the introduction of the EOS (Electro-Optical System) having the EF-mount.


----------



## ausemmao (Jan 16, 2011)

KmH said:


> > Even Canon's lenses despite their bodies having motors have most (all?) of their production lenses having in lens motors.
> 
> 
> None of Canon's camera bodies have a focus motor in them, and haven't since 1987, the introduction of the EOS (Electro-Optical System) having the EF-mount.




No idea how I got that confused. Thanks for correcting me


----------



## Fujito (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't know the Nikon bodies, but I do recommend beginners getting the equivalent of a Canon Rebel.

When one gets better they will want to upgrade. They can then get a nice full frame sensor camera, which costs thousands. So it's good to buy cheap now and learn, then spend more later for a very nice one.


----------



## carmanj (Jan 21, 2011)

What Nikon would be the equivalent of a Canon Rebel. I have the same issue. My 20 year old son, who is not real responsible is taking a photography class at a local  community college this semester. I bought him a new Nikon powershot 6000, but have since learned the class requires a SLR Camera. I now have to charge another camera for him. So, I assume the Nikon D90 is the one?  I have a Nikon D300 and I'm not lending it to him. thanks for your help.


----------



## ghache (Jan 21, 2011)

i wouldnt never recommend a low end bodys to anyone who really wants to get into photography. Thats what people recommended me to buy when i first started and now what. 2 years later, i am at my 3rd bodys with too much time lost and money spent on changing bodys.

I always recommend people to buy the best thing they can afford. I always tell them that if they wanna buy used, they will get more for the money they havbe. On the long run they save money, time and they dont find themself limited by a low end body because YES low end bodys are limiting (if you plan on really putting effort and time in photography)
And the learning curve from a d40 and a d300 is not that different. Aperture, iso, shutter speed and all that craps stays the same.


----------



## carmanj (Jan 21, 2011)

Thank you so much. D40.. excellent.


----------



## MichiganFarts (Jan 21, 2011)

I would just like to say the D3100 looks cooler than the D80.  Coolness factor hasn't been mentioned yet.  If you don't look cool while you're shooting, why bother spending extra money for an slr?


----------



## carmanj (Jan 21, 2011)

OK, I did not realize. the D40 is disconntinued. So I am back to square one.  do you recommend a D90. 
By the way, is this one the least expensive of the Nikon's.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 22, 2011)

My god people...

Everyone just piles on to get their points in... Most of them not worth a rat turd... Threads like this should get locked the second they are created.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 22, 2011)

Pot meet kettle... wow.



manaheim said:


> My god people...
> 
> Everyone just piles on to get their points in... Most of them not worth a rat turd... Threads like this should get locked the second they are created.


 

Ever think it's responses like yours that make a thread suck? 

It's a good discussion, you're not required to participate. I've enjoyed reading the various opinions shared in this thread - if you haven't, back button is free to use.


----------



## PASM (Jan 22, 2011)

ok..so, just to recap..can we run through the options again please


----------



## manaheim (Jan 22, 2011)

Light Artisan said:


> Pot meet kettle... wow.



Really? I seem to recall you saying my comments were well thought out and valuable?  Would you rate others as highly?  How about the guy who suggested you buy canon because they look cooler?  Or maybe the guy who suggested you just buy what he has? Or...?


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 22, 2011)

It was a great, well thought out post!

What I don't understand is why you went to 'their' level and complained about useless posts, only to make one.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 23, 2011)

My post was no more useless than someone honking a horn at a bad driver.

If you think such behavior is useless, then so be it.

I, for one, think if you don't startle the guy who just cut you off enough that they will at least MAYBE ask themselves why that just occurred, that it will never occur to them that what they just did was a bad idea.


----------



## Light Artisan (Jan 23, 2011)

true, true... done that a 'few' times.


----------

