I'm a completely new photographer and i am deciding on what my first camera should be. My budget is around £600, roughly $788. I was considering between Nikon D3300, D5300, D5500, however, if I was wondering if i should get the D3300 with kit lens and 2 other lenses (probably something like a 55-200mm and a 50mm f/1.8) or the other cameras with only the kit lens, bearing in the mind i still have to buy sd card and other camera equipment
My aunt Terri has been into Photography all my life. I'm now 36 years old and wanted to get into Photography to take cool pictures of my kids lives.
She immediately went to the Canon Rebel as a good entry level camera. While I would have agreed with her I did a lot of research as I tend to do.
I finally came to the conclusion that the Sony a6000 was a REALLY good option.
I coach baseball and softball and tball. Kids and adult leagues.
The rebel felt big and it is slightly dated and yes I'm completely new to the photography scene so I know that its not a Nikon or Canon!!
But I couldn't help it. The mirrorless design is catching on and the lenses have adapters you can buy. I have 3 now.
This thing is awesome and it takes awesome HD pics @ 11 fps which (for me) is great. I get very clear high speed pictures. Overall the initial investment was $1200 which included a bag, camera body, and 2 lenses. That was also a sale because the body itself is $999 and the extra lens is $300 for the basic long range Sony Lens. I'm still new so I don't have the "mm" or model but I know the purpose for each lens. (forgive the lack of lingo)
I know the R series Sony Cameras are also going to Mirrorless but unfortunately I prefer PC and gaming as my hobby because those are $3K plus.
If you have a bestbuy nearby go check that Sony out. The a6300 which is 4K also looks awesome.
I had one but make sure it one that fits best for you. You don't want a camera that doesn't work for you. Recommend D5000+ because of HD 1080p Photo
Unless you want to shoot video, 1080p makes no difference, and all of the above cameras can shoot 1080p (though at different FPS). 24 megapixels is what counts in terms of pixel resolution. All of those cameras have that as well (24.2 to be specific). The D3300 had the great advantage of being pretty good, while being cheap. The D5500 on the other hand would probably be something you would keep for longer. It has a pretty darn good 39 point AF system for the price range, and vastly superior high ISO performance. I would get the body only and a 35mm F/1.8 G lens (the DX version, used if you want to save more money). I think you'll like the picture quality more than the kit lens, and I actually love primes. I have a 300mm F/4 prime and a 28mm F/1.8 prime and haven't a problem with either. Sure, you can't zoom out or in for that matter. Cool people can just adapt to this and it really does make you think about you're framing before you shoot. Zooms make me lazy!
Edit: I am not personal a huge sony camera fan. I understand the appeal, but the menu systems drive me nuts, and the idea that you have to pay to get a time lapse app on your camera is just....well it seems pretty dumb to me. You just bought a $600+ camera, and they really need an extra $2.99 from you (don't remember the actual cost, but I think it was actually more than that)?. Besides the size and often the FPS capability on lower price point cameras, mirrorless cameras have little benefit. I am not against them, but just because they are newer on the scene doesn't really mean they instantly produce better images. A lot of people buy them purely because the salesman or friend talks up how this "new technology" will make photos better. Bah. Nothing about a mirrorless camera that makes it take better photos. You do that.