Budget DSLR or Mirrorless Camera

[Will1335]

I am looking for a cheap beginner camera preferriy under/around the $400 mark. I am mainly looking at used gear off of eBay. I've mainly been looking at the Nikon D3300, D3400, Canon SL1, and the Sony a6000, or a5100. I'm not really sure if a Mirrorless would be better for a first camera, or should I just stick with the cheaper DSLR's? Also what if a camera comes with 2 lenses for a similar price to a (better) different camera with only 1 lense?

 

[bjornl]

I have recently also been looking at the Nikon d5200 used and it comes in at a similar price to the Nikon d3300 and d3400. Which one should I choose?

I prefer the d5200. It has a better menu system and a more advanced focus system.

Not sure if this would be a good idea, but I was thinking of buying either a d90 or d5100 body for around $200 and then investing the rest into a lens.

Those are very different cameras. There is not too much difference between the d5100 and the d5200 you were looking at earlier. DPreview of the d5200 will compare it to the d5100.

The d90 is a little bit of a different animal. It has a better viewfinder, better controls (dual controls like the high end cameras) but is quite an old body. The d90 was in it's day quite the amazing camera. It is the camera that caused me to jump from Canon to Nikon (an expensive, non-trivial move). Some of my all time favorite images were taken with my d90. But the sensor is a little old. It has a little less dynamic range(DR), this becomes more and more of an issue as you raise the ISO. It more ISO noise (as you raise the ISO). It also only has 12mp (which is ok for 80-90% of your shots). In very good lighting (or with an add-on flash (NOT the nasty pop-up)) ISO noise is not as big a deal since you won't need to go very high.

For me (and I am not you). If I were to start over, I would take the d90 because of the dual controls, pentaprism viewfinder and because I know I prefer it's ergonomics to the d5x00 series. For me, the dual controls proved critical. It got me to shoot manual. Shooting mostly manual is what taught me more about photography than the cameras that I had before. That and sticking to it for a couple of years and taking 10-12,000 photos with the d90 in all sorts of conditions and all sorts of lighting.

As for lenses, I'll repeat the wisdom many photographers shared with me. Don't buy it all at once. Buy one lens at a time. Learn that lens inside and out before you consider adding to your collection. The kit lens (with it's zoom) is a great learning tool. You learn about framing and composition. The very different look your images take when you zoom with your feet instead of a dial. Which focal lengths you like the most and so on.

Nikon has some great kit lenses. The older 16-85vr goes from almost wide angle to short telephoto. The difference between 16 and 18mm is greater than the 105 to 140mm. Also you can crop to bring a subject in, you can't crop to go wider.
There is the up-market 16-80, which is a bit over priced but very nice and weather sealed (won't matter now, but might if you upgrade someday).
The sigma 17-70 is probably a little better than the Nikon 16-85 (although I would never had sold my 16-85 until the 16-80 came out). The sigma has just slightly better close focus ability.
The Sigma and Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lenses are both optically amazing for a low price. An f/2.8 lens takes in twice as much light as a f/4 and 4 times as much as an f/5.6. This means lower ISO needed for all shots (which a flash has limited range).
The Nikon 18-105 is an excellent value and due to it's age, is now dirt cheap. It is not super wide. But it covers a useful range. It might not look like it, but when you look at angle of view instead of MM, the 16-85 actually has slightly better range.
Better is the Nikon 18-140mm. This is the straight upgrade to the 18-105. It has better optics and better range. Because it is bundled as the included kit lens on so many Nikon bodies, used ones can often be had for a reasonable price.

All that said, if I were not limited to your questions... I'd start with a Nikon d7000 or d7100. Weather sealed when you use a weather sealed lens. And I know myself well enough that when I get the 'itch' I'll head out even if the weather is nasty. It makes photos incredibly likely to suck because you can't "make light" and so when lighting is diffuse (like in a rain storm) contrast is much worse as are the colors.

Some examples, nothing you can't do with a few months of dedicated practice.

With a d90 and very late at night. The oil rig was being moved, and so I went out to the closest point of land. Climbed down and got my feet a little wet at 2am.
With a d90 and a Nikon 16-85. A close up of a frozen droplet of water with my house as the hidden subject. Hand-held.

An example of finding an interesting image in poor weather. With a Nikon d700. To get the shot, I was laying in a puddle of water for 15minutes or so. Hand held. I had my tripod, but I cold not reliably get the camera low enough. I have since bought a more flexible use tripod.

Another poor weather shot (of sorts).
Taken at 2:30am in front of my house after the first snow of the season. The only source of light a a 40watt bulb on the patio and a pair of 40-60watt bulbs over the kitchen table. There was a light ambient reflection off the snow.
Not super sharp as it was hand held and I was wearing only sweatpants, a t-shirt and some slippers. ('cus I am stupid)

It had just started to rain. You can see the hint of mist building in the web. I have a macro flash set, but I had just moved and could not find it. I also couldn't find my macro lens. So I grabbed a quality lens, some extension tubes for magnification and my tripod and headed out. Taken with a Nikon d750 and a 70-200 f/2.8 on a tripod.

Sometimes you can make the weather itself the motif, even in pre-dawn light. Taken with a Nikon d700 and a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. At just before dawn. No additional lighting. Hand-held.