I’m totally new to photography and want to get my first camera. I’ll mainly be using it for nature photography while hiking and traveling.
My only focus is on photos of the highest possible quality.
My budget is around $600, and I’ll also need essential accessories, but don’t know what I’d need, like a lens?
Not open to refurbished, as I’m buying in Vietnam.
Thanks for taking the time! Appreciated.
After a rather deep research for a beginner, I’m deciding between R10 and Fujifilm x-m5. Any comments on that?
Unless you found a good deal on the R10, it’s twice your budget ($1200-1300). While it improves upon the R50, those improvements don’t justify the R10 over other options for the same price:
or
I’m not familiar with Fujifilm cameras, but if you apply the logic in my first comment and look up various reviews, you’ll get a sense for it. This also looks above the budget ($800 w/o lens).
Remember: your money is better spent on good lenses than fancier bodies. If you are wanting to look at different bodies, you don’t need to limit it to mirrorless. The main benefits of mirrorless that you see now is a smaller sized body. One limitation I hit without it is not getting to see what I’m shooting as easily while framing astrophotography (I see after the shot and adjust, but it has only been a limitation in that one instance).
Got it. So after a heavy consideration I’ve decided to spend my money on R50 (the cheapest reliable option considering that I can’t trust any used cameras in where I live), and the rest on one most versatile and high quality lens, for about the same price as the camera or maybe a bit cheaper. Can you recommend one or two top options in this case?
I’d shoot with the stock lens for a bit before you decide (maybe a month? 5+ sessions of whatever you mainly feel like shooting). Get a feel for the camera and what you like shooting or things you want, but can’t do. If they have a decent return policy, you may be able to swap out after trying it if you find you don’t like that model. I doubt it, but that’s just a guess.
Take note of what you like or struggle with, then return to that original list of lenses I posted to see if any of those could fill a gap. There were some smaller lenses and a couple larger ones for ~$500-600 that are good choices. If the money is burning a hole in your pocket, look to set aside up to $1300 while you work with the base setup in anticipation. It’s very easy to get trapped in spending money on equipment before you actually need it. Learning how to use the basics outside of auto settings, framing shots, and your style is more important at first than equipment.
That said, it’s probably worth it to get at least 1 extra battery or a power bank and an extra memory card within those first few shoots. Probably ~$100 total at most. See if you are running close to using all of the battery or filling the card in those sessions.
Session 1, start out with using auto settings (flash off), try out A or AV (aperture priority, the marking varies by camera) and read around about the basics of photography to get a feel for what settings do. Aperture looks like f/#.# (f/4.8 or f 4.8). Larger numbers typically mean more things are going to be in focus and smaller typically means less things will be in focus. There’s more to it than that, but it’s a good place to start understanding the setting.
Awesome advice, thank you so much.
One more thing: I’ve noticed you’ve recommended lenses without Image Stabilization, isn’t that very important to get for R50? since it lacks IBIS
The only ones missing IS are the 50mm and 28mm prime lenses, right? You may be able to find a higher end version of each of those with IS, but I included them as budget alternatives to the 35mm, which does have IS. Those two are only for if you don’t like the lens that comes on the camera and want something short other than the 35mm.
Whether it’s important to have IS really depends on the conditions you are shooting in and it’s not usually a priority of short, prime lenses. I guess it’s possible you could run into those, but it’s more likely in low light scenarios with slow shutter speeds. If you are shooting in those conditions, you probably want a tripod, so you wouldn’t need the image stabilization. It’s usually more important on larger lenses.
Good to be thinking about these things when you get to buying one though.
Something I didn’t mention before, you don’t have to stick to canon lenses, you just may need an adapter. Sticking to canon made it easier for me to find lenses that would fit the R50.
I’m talking about that great Sigma lens that is Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary. I feel like I’d love to have it but since it and the camera don’t have the Image Stabilization, it might be an obstacle, what do you think?
I’m not sure how much I’d be shooting in the dark, but probably quite a bit. Is it a big deal overall in your view?
I think both of those lenses are fine, but if the price isn’t very different, I’d probably pick the one with IS so I have the option.
If you are really worried about needing IS, I suggest reading this article from B&H. B&H is also a good online retailer. 99% of the time I shoot in low light, I use a tripod, so image stabilization isn’t necessary and can be detrimental. Have I tried shooting at low shutter speeds with longer lenses in the dark? Yes, but I always bring a tripod in the evening or for indoor portraits now. It’s not likely you’ll be able to hold the camera anywhere near steady enough in those situations, so you’ll either want to mount it or set it down and set a timer.
Like I said, it’s easy to get caught up in feeling the need to buy bigger and better equipment, but if you haven’t touched it, you don’t really know what you need. You need to get your hands on a camera and go shoot first. If you know someone you can borrow one from or if you can rent one for very cheap, it could be worth trying that first.
End of the day, we are considering an entry-level camera for a budget of $600. There are always exceptions that will allow you to go outside that budget and get more/better features, but if you buy big and don’t use it, that’s just more money spent for no gain.
My first camera was a Canon 70D at $1300. That’s a high entry point, but I feel like it was a great purchase at the time. I made that decision after handling a DSLRs for 10 years because my dad always had them. One of those was a Canon 10D handed down to me that I shot on until buying the 70D, the other was a Canon 5D mark III. I was lucky to have access to those, but they were too much camera for me at first.
Before you go spending a whole bunch, commit to a budget that you will not abandon no matter what shiny thing you see (there are infinite shiny things, I know) and get your hands on something you can shoot with. You’re overthinking things at this stage.
Canon R50 is good at $600. Canon R10 is better at $1000. Sony A6100 is good at $800. Sony A6400 is better at $1000. Fujifilm X-T30 II is good for $1000.
You can find even better (though older) cameras (particularly DSLRs) for sale second-hand from people looking to upgrade. Don’t expect lenses this route because people tend to keep them, but a friend of mine just sold a Canon 5D mark III body for only $300. That’s a lot of camera for the price.
Don’t worry about lenses just yet, get your hands on a camera and shoot with the stock kit to see what you actually need. You may even be happy with the stock kit for now. Experts will push and push and push better equipment, but that’s because they are working at a higher level and marginal gains or quality of life improvements are worth it when your work is photography. When you are starting as a hobbyist, as a beginner, those things are mostly distractions.
Reasonable advice all around!
Out of curiosity, do you personally think Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN Contemporary is worth five times the price of the stock lens? I mean: does the quality improve proportionally?
Would the pictures generally also be about 5x better than the kit RF-S 18-45mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM?