Buying my first DSLR for railroad photography

Mike,

You can't go wrong with any of the major manufacturers for an entry level dslr - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony....all good. I've always found DP Review to have good information when researching a new camera. This is their buyers guide page that segments cameras by budget: http://www.dpreview.com/buying...ext&ref=mainmenu

Once you get an idea of what you might consider, go out to a site like B&H Photo and on the product page look at user reviews. On the B&H site users will identify themselves as casual shooters, semi-pro, pro et al. I tend to look at the reviews from people who identify as semi-pro or pro only. If they like a product, they'll say so. If there are shortcomings, they'll bring those out too.

I have both Nikon and Fuji (mirroless) equipment and while the camera is important, if you have an inkling that you'd like to take your photography to the next level, what you buy for a lens will become more important. The faster the lens (f-stops 1.8, 20. 2.8 v kit lens that typically start at 4.0) the more creativity you can infuse by playing with depth of field, low light photography, etc.  A kit lens is great for about 80% of what you'll shoot, but if you want total control, eventually you'll want a faster lens. Whatever direction you go in, buy with the intent of expanding so that when the day comes, if it does, you'll be able to add on.

The other consideration these days is whether or not you want to use the same camera for video. I think this is where user reviews could be helpful because not all manufacturers are committed to video as a strenght of their cameras. 

Good luck!

Mooner,

Thanks for the tips. I have found B&H photo to be a great resource for looking at all different types of cameras and camcorders.

Right now the Sony mirrorless are really attractive. The only fear I have is that the camera only comes with a 16-50 mm lens and adding the longer lens is another 300 bucks onto the MSRP (~500 with just the stock lens). As a college student I don't know if I can afford that but I know the longer lens will help with different shots.

I just bought my 15 year old niece a Nikon D5200 kit.  She was able to learn very quick with it.

These are considered "old" and are selling for a fair price and 24.1 mp is more than you'll need.

Okay good to hear. Thanks for the info.

Canon EOS Digital Rebel, any version, is simply a fabulous camera for someone either a beginner or advanced amateur. Check out my website and see if you can pick out the photos I shot with my Digital Rebel 6 megapixel camera.

www.scaramouchephoto.com

I have been shooting a Sony A330 since 2010, and just recently moved up to an A58.  I love both cameras and find them easy to get good results even for a simpleton like me.  They have shown to be quite durable which is important to me, as I drag my camera around in a bag pratically EVERYWHERE I go in all kinds of weather.  I like the models with the flip down screen as it is great for shooting around common obstacles like chain link fences.  I have found the video on the A58 quite nice too. 

After trying different brands, we standardized on Canon cameras here at OGR. Several of us use the Canon Digital Rebel (various versions) and Jim Barrett has an EOS 70D. Most of the product photos, all the Collector's Gallery photos, Backshop photos and many others in our magazine were shot with Canon cameras.

However, having said that, the camera is NOT the key to good pictures. Good lighting and composition are what make good images. A good photographer could take a $100 el-cheapo camera and produce images that would be suitable for a cover image in OGR because he knows how to use lighting to control shadows and how to compose a good photo. By the same token, with bad lighting and composition, even an $8,000 Canon Canon EOS-1D C will produce crappy images.

Without knowing how much you're looking to layout for a camera and lens(es), it's hard to recommend a specific camera.  There are many "levels" of features, options and durability issues, so your best bet is to come up with an amount you are comfortable spending and then looking at the advantages and trade offs of moving in either direction.

One motivating factor in the selection of brands and /or cameras is whether or not you already own some equipment that will work with your new choice (and even if, you may op to start with a clean slate anyway).

In a nut shell - as a Canon guy, I'd say go with a Nikon!  Their sensors are made by Sony so they are typically on par with each other and each have much better dynamic range then Canon  (you can pull out much greater detail in the shadows without getting purple specs and noise).  Choosing between Nikon and Sony is a question of whether you want to go with a larger body or a smaller body.  Sony's have fewer lens options and shorter battery life but often image stabilization built into the camera (lenses should be cheaper).

Otherwise - I'd say most brands and features /capabilities are similar, other then small vs large:

You put a battery in, set to Program (hope not), Auto (hope not), Manual (the only way to go!) and then select your aperture, your shutter and ISO.  The "perks" are what add up - frames per second, megapixel count, high ISO performance, number of focus points, the spread of focus points in the viewfinder, whether you spin a dial, push buttons or navigate through an extensive menu, ect.

With out knowing your price point - I'd suggest a Nikon D7200 and perhaps a 24-120 mm f/4 lens.  That's a crop sensor (a camera with a sensor that is smaller than a full frame camera)  That reduction in size does not afford the better high(er) ISO performance of full frame cameras but is cheaper to make and allows the use of lower priced lenses.  An f/4 lens (and the range of your choosing) is cheaper and lighter then say, an f/2.8 though an f/2.8 (a "faster lens) will let more light in allowing more flexibility in low light - and a nicer "bokeh" - softness around the edges (think portraits or a photo of a flower or animal where all is blurred but the subject).  'Course, that aspect can be done in your editing software if desired.  A "faster" lens will also typically focus faster (since there's more light getting in).

As far as "not being cheap" - a camera will lose its value relatively fast as new models with better features are introduced.  A lens often maintains its value.  The lens will determine the sharpness of the image.  The camera will determine the quality of the image and ease of capture.  Being general here, of course.

Here's my issue with Canon  - great cameras, but if I were starting fresh and spending similar amounts:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/7...for-canon-low-iso-dr

This is only an issue when underexposing or pushing the exposure in dark shadows (like a black steam engine on a sunny day... or shooting into the Sun, ect).

Here's a great resource to, at the very least, compare specs side by side - pick a camera and brand that offers you the greatest number of features you feel are most important at a given price range:

http://snapsort.com/compare

Like Rich said - the most important part of taking a great shot is the photographer (y'know, you never compliment the pot used to cook the turkey, you compliment the chef!)  But a good camera will allow you to take the kind of photos you want to take with few restrictions.

Incidentally - I've been shooting with Canon for well over 10 years.  And my current camera was a "relative bargain" purchased direct from Canon at a large discount reconditioned.  Used is an option, as well.  After all, it'll be used after you have it for a few days, lol.

/Mitch

I wouldn't spend a lot of money in a top-end SLR as a first camera of the genre.  The entry-level cameras (Canon Rebel, Nikon 3x00 series, etc.) have sufficient capabilities for capturing a train scene with good lighting and composition. 

Budget for a good tripod and tripod head (your most essential accessory).  Budget for lighting and learn how to use it effectively (the web has plenty of lighting tutorials plus DIY lighting gear suggestions to save money).  Some of the most effective lighting is really simple ... this scene was lit with a flashlight ("light painting"):

For layout photos, the shorter the lens focal length, the more depth of field for sharpness in layout closeups, which means that small sensor cameras (M4/3 from Panasonic or Olympus)  are worthy for consideration.  The reviews of Panasonic camera models praise the video.

To save $$$, check out keh.com for used gear with excellent return policies ... even the bargain gear has exceeded my expectation.

John

Sigh . . . . . Some good advice here. Just sort it out. I vowed I would not respond to these threads anymore because all of the "experts" come out of the woodwork. Before you know it there are tech specs and  . . . . . If you do some reading on the net and look at the work of some good amateur photographers you'll be fine. If you're just starting out in the DSLR world you might do very well by avoiding purchase of very expensive DSLR's that do more than you need and avoid buying the least expensive of a good line. Ultimately, the work you do will determine your needs.

1) Good camera BUT . . . . the glass is critical. If you buy a good DSLR, avoid the budget lenses. It is like listening to the finest recording ever made through tinny speakers. The camera can only record what the "glass" allows.

2) Get one good lens at a time if you are on a budget. I would recommend a mid range zoom. Price the camera body and a GOOD lens as opposed to a "KIT" which gives you one or two or three zoom lenses that are not so good.

3) Canon lenses are fabulous IF you are on the higher end of the line. I feel they are slightly less than Nikon. Mid range lenses are more economical and will give you great results.

4) AVOID the pixel wars. More pixels are NOT necessarily better. It is still the glass and the quality of the sensor. You can do great work with 6 megapixels. Twelve is fine unless you are blowing it up for Times Square.

5) Get an excellent tripod for model photography. The HEAD of the tripod is very important. Check out the different heads. Some are UNWIELDY and are a pain in the arse.

6) As RM said, lighting is the key to photography (assuming your compositions are good). The amount, direction, and color of the light will determine where you go.

7) You MUST have good processing software and KNOW how to use it. I have seen countless photographers offer classes in BS. READ before you buy the software. What comes with the camera may suffice.

8) If you want to learn to be a good photographer, GO OUT and shoot with a good photographer. I took my first class with a National Geographic photographer and we have since become good friends. I shoot with him and several other fellows who shoot for National Geographic. I was a terrible photographer before I took the class.

9) If you will do a lot of model photography, invest in some good lights. READ and study before you buy.

Sigh . . . . 

Hi Eliot,

Thanks for the fantastic post. I appreciate it. As a newbie, trust me, I find it very difficult to make a decision when I have people saying Yes and No at the same time.

For everyone who is reading this, my budget is  $700 and below. That may be a bad decision to buy something at that price point, but I feel that I can't afford more and I want to at least get a camera that can let me "learn the ropes".

Eliot, best buy and many places always sell the Canon T5i with two lens that seem generic (a 55mm and a 200 mm). Would it be better to buy a used body and then buy one brand new mid-ranged lens? Many people I've spoken too have said that it is better to buy a used body and spend more on the lens.

Thanks again!

On the QVC shopping channel they had a Cannon 18 megapixel camera with to great lenses which I use for $499.00 dollars. This is a great camera and if you do not like it you can send it back with in 30 days. 

As a wedding photographer from the past, you cannot go wrong with the offerings by Canon or Nikon.  However, most kit lenses are not quite the best offerings for close up photography.  Also weight being a consideration, the new mirrorless breeds out there have come a long way in sensor algorithms to produce extremely fine detail.  Moreover with IBIS (in body image stabilization), these cameras can produce stunning results.  I have a full size DSLR by Nikon, but more often than not, I grab my Olympus and macro lens.  Weight is so much nicer around the neck.  My DSLR I thought would pull me to the ground on more than one occasion.  If you purchase from Olympus, they do have two lens combination deals at times.  Also, they have a rewards program that reduces the costs of other items.  Here is a great little camera:  http://www.getolympus.com/us/e...d/e-m10-mark-ii.html. 

The cost of DSLRs and all digital cameras has come way down in the last 10 years.    Your $700 should get you a good starter level DSLR.    And for most of us amatures, a starter level will be plenty.    I bought a canon rebel T5 2 summers ago and it is a 16 MP camera.     When they first came out 2-3 MP was considered good.    So don't shy away from the idea.

I have bought 2 cameras from Beach Camera in NY.   I shopped their site and found "kits" that were good deals I thought.    For the DSLR, mine included a telephoto.    I would not have bothered buying the telephoto lens separately, the price with the kit was so cheap, I jumped.

My advice, get the newest model from the brand you like.    I do like the canon but others are good.   Use the reviews on DPREVIEW to evaluate.   You don't need to read the whole review.   You can scroll down to the "conclusion" and get the pros and cons.    But the key with B&H and Beach is to look for a package with the newest model you can afford.    When I looked, the first one I found was a T3.    I went to DPReview and found that was a 5  year old at least model and that Canon had released a T5.    I went back to the Beach web site and searchred for a T5.    I found a kit for it.   Now it was about $100 more for the newer model, but it was a 4-5 year newer model.   I wanted image stabilization and a few other features it had.    I did not look at the video capabilities.    It can do it, I just have not used it much.

OGR Webmaster posted:

..., the camera is NOT the key to good pictures. Good lighting and composition are what make good images. A good photographer could take a $100 el-cheapo camera and produce images that would be suitable for a cover image in OGR because he knows how to use lighting to control shadows and how to compose a good photo. By the same token, with bad lighting and composition, even an $8,000 Canon Canon EOS-1D C will produce crappy images.

This is the TRUTH, no matter what the camera people claim!!  A fancy camera will get you nothing if you don't know how to take good photos.  So it's best to get a cheaper camera and learn to take photos first.

I'll add my vote to getting a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.  My personal pick is a micro four thirds.  I have a Panasonic, picked up a previous year's model for 50% off.  If you do the same you can get the camera kit and a lens or two for your budget.  And the great thing about a mirrorless camera is you can buy adaptors that allow you to use just about any lens made in the last 50 years on it, howbeit in manual mode.  Going this route I was able to use all of my Canon FL/FD glass.  As for shooting with it, I've had "pros" borrow it to take my photo when traveling and they always comment on how nice it feels and how they like the setup.  And I've shot HD video with it, and it never fails to impress.  After seeing the video people keep asking, "You shot this with that camera?"  If you do a search on these forums, you should find a thread where someone else asked this question, and I posted some photos using my GF-5 and FD 50mm in low light.  If I were to buy another camera today, these would be the things I look for:

Micro four thirds format - more than one brand build for this standard, and I already have some glass.

Kit has lens I don't already have - don't discount kit lenses, like stated they are perfect for starting out and most of your shooting needs.

Has a hot shoe - body flashes aren't a good light source.

Has remote shutter release - allow for a programmable shutter trigger to allow for time lapse, I want to shoot more night skys.

Has in body image stabilization - helps with shooting with adapted glass when you can't use a tripod.

Has good video reviews - as a father, sometime you've got to take video of the kiddos.

Once you have a camera selected, be sure to buy at least one, if not more, extra batteries.  I have 3 total for my camera.  Also get a nice wide comfortable strap, the included straps are almost always too skinny and not long enough.  I put the strap from my Canon AE-1 on my GF-5.

Most commenters here have captured it well. A couple things that became important to me: 

Select a brand and camera body for which you can get accessories and upgrades - external flashes, upgraded lenses and so on make all the difference. But not all lenses fit on every camera body. 

Have at least two rechargeable batteries, one to use and the other one ready for when the first dies during a shoot. 

I have a Nikon D7000. Love it. This is after a whole bunch of Nikon cameras, DSLRS.

I just bought a Nikon 18-140 lens for this camera. I will take 99 percent of my railphotos with

this combo.

I highly recommend this camera and lens combo, for your first DSLR. Your photos will have

the detail and color you wish.

You  can buy this Camera at Adorama in New York refrubrished for $409.95

You can buy the 18/140 refrub for $209.00

What you also will need is good proccessing software, at Adorama Photoshop Elements

is on sale for $69.00, thirty bucks off.

Right now, this is all you need. No fast lenses, just this camera and lens.

The reason I like this camera for a beginner, as well is this old man, is that you can change

most of the basic settings without taking the camera down from your eye, or menu diving

while holding the camera at waste level. There are newer and more "better" versions of this

camera, the D7100 and the D7200, but believe me, this one will do you for years to come.

If it takes you a while to learn, if you buy this setup, just remember two basic things.

Use the P or program setup on the camera for a time, while you learn, and for goodness

sake, KEEP YOUR BACK TO THE SUN, for basic shots. That gives you good light on your

subjects. Early in the day and late in the day give best results.

Good Luck. Ed.

PS, if you want to see what this combo can do send me your email.

Mike,

Just watched a couple of your videos and I thought they were great. Thanks for posting the YouTube channel link. Now that I've seen the videos, I'm thinking I could use some advice v giving it! Have fun picking out your new gear.

I saw those Strasburg Videos, too and they are Great! I did not realize you were the fella who shoot those nifty videos.  So you are not new to good photography.

I still will say that you can do no better than the D7000, for the money you want to spend.

The lens, the 18/140, has vr, and is very sharp. You can always buy more later!

If you are doing videos, you already know you need good software.

Now, as to the D7000. This camera will focus all Nikon autofocus lenses. And, it will also

let you use most of the great manual focus lenses and meter with them. Some really good

MF glass, and fast glass can be bought at very good prices.

Ed

PennsyPride94 posted:

I'm looking to buying my first DSLR to make my photos and videos look crisper, clearer, and more professional overall.

Most of the people I've asked this question to either say all Canon or all Nikon even though they've never used any other brand their entire life

I have used several brands.  When I began taking railroad photos in the 1960's, I used my uncle's Kodak Pony 135 35-mm camera which was all manual. After gaining interest, I bought a used Rollieflex 120 size 2-1/4 by 2-1/4 inch twin lens reflex and a hand-held Weston light meter.  At about the same time I bought a Speed Graphic 4x5, with a focal plane shutter.  The Rollei and the Speed Graphic were liberated from my possession in a burglary, but I was in college and could not buy new equipment, so I got a used Crown Graphic 4x5, as they did not steal all my sheet film holders.  After I was out of college, I bought a new 35-mm Minolta SLR with through the lens match-needle metering, and bought fixed focal length lenses of 35-mm, 50-mm, 125-mm, 200-mm and 300-mm (and a good quality tripod).  I had taken photography classes in college, and used the knowledge to take the best railroad photos of my life, on Kodachrome and on Illford HP3, using the Minolta equipment.  But then came six children, and there was not a lot of railroad photography for a good many years.

So, after the last one was in college, I thought I'd like to try digital railroad photography, and, after considering the conventional wisdom, chose a Canon digital Rebel over the Nikon equivalent, due to the slightly more friendly Canon organization.  Later I sold it and bought a Canon 7D.  I use only two zoom lenses: 35-100 mm and 100-300 mm, with either UV or Polarizing filters.  Sometimes I hand hold the camera, and other times I use a monopod or a good tripod with a quick release head.  To be honest, during those years of raising kids and taking only family snapshots, I kind of lost my mojo, so to speak, for being able to see and compose photographs.  I put a few up on the Forum a while back, but they were far from my best work.  I'm retired, but very active, and I have to schedule photography.  I work best when alone and was never afraid to find a great location and wait for a train, even if it meant only one photograph for the whole day.  Maybe I can get my photographic juices flowing again.  I am not afraid of snakes or of climbing up onto elevated locations, and am always on the lookout for potential locations whenever I am near a railroad.  I use an iPhone application called Sun Surveyor to help me plan photography.  There's nothing more disappointing than to have a great shot composed, but to find that the lighting is poor at that time of day (or of year).  I'm a weak user of the Adobe imaging applications, but am getting better.

Planned projects for 2016:

• BNSF Clovis Subdivision grassy, high plains scenery.  There are windmills, tanks, cattle, and you can include big western scenery.
• The curve at Texico, NM
• Photos of trains with signs in the scene.
• Dark sky photos ahead of approaching bad weather.
• BNSF Panhandle Subdivision at small road bridges in Oklahoma, both from above and from the ground.  Some of these county road bridges are made from old turntables.
• BNSF at Alva, OK, and Attica, KS, on the way to the Santa Fe Historical Society convention in Wichita.
• BNSF with existing pole line between Slaton and Lubbock.

As a guy who has used several formats, I would suggest that you

1. buy the best available Canon digital Rebel -- or its Nikon equivalent -- and make a lifetime commitment to your brand, so that you can buy accessories and lenses that remain useful if you upgrade later to a camera body with more advanced features.  Either brand is top of the line, but you will do yourself a favor by making a commitment to one or the other.  Do your homework before buying lenses; they are not all full frame when used with the more advanced bodies  Only buy your camera brand, trust me, spend the money.  Learn to use the features of your SLR, at all times of day and night.  The only way to learn this is to actually do it.  The camera is the tool, and you need to develop skill at using it.  Your imagination and knowledge are what makes a photograph; your camera skill is what you use to accomplish it.
2. If you buy a tripod, spend some money and get one that is really sturdy and is easy and quick to set up and take down.  
3. Buy the good flash accessories made by your camera manufacturer and you will have automatic operation and not have to compensate for anything.
4. Use Sun Surveyor to learn how to make the sun your friend, and to know and recognize the blue hour.  This application will also help you plan before you go out into the field so that you do not waste your time where the lighting or shadows are your enemy.

Thanks guys! I have more knowledge in videography than in photography.

Sun Surveyor works well for video.  A professional doing a safety video for BNSF last year used two Canon 7D SLR's to do the video footage -- not, as I might have expected, a professional grade video camera.  Yes, the video is that good.

Great tips Tom. I will keep them all in mind.

While I like the D7000 for the amount of money you have to spend, I don't know

if it would be the first choice for video. I love mine for stills. So you should do

some research, find a few cameras you can get for what you want to spend,

and check out this site

Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

They post full reviews on both the still and video capabilities of DSLRS.

Ed

Check eBay. There is a d7000 on eBay right now with two nice Nikon lenses at 515 for the whole package.  

My son recently traded in his advanced amateur Canon for the Fuji X10T. He wanted to go mirrorless and comparison photos showed that Fuji was as good or better than the Canon.  The biggest benefit was the lighter weight of the Fuji. He is carrying it a lot more than the Canon.  He is getting older and weight is becoming more important.  Just an FYI.....

I'm only 21, so I don't think the weight issue will be relevant for a long time, but I will definitely keep it in mind. Thanks for the help!

Lots of good information here so far, figure I'll add some thoughts.  

First, I would separate the purchases of a still camera and a video camera.  While a good quality DLSR will also take good video, if you are looking for a cost effective solution I would buy a small, HD video camera, and a separate DLSR for still photos.  

Next thing I would do is compare the cost of the lenses you are likely to want to purchase in the future and make sure that whatever brand you go with offers the glass you want.  Also think about availability of other accessories for the camera as well as replacement parts if you plan to keep it for a while.  I tend to prefer Canon and Nikon to any other brands due to the availability of lenses and accessories.  

For the hobbyist or even most professionals,  the quality of glass is a non issue, and for this reason I recommend Nikon over Canon.  In general Canon does make better quality lenses, but Nikon's are less expensive.  For 99% of people the difference in quality will not be noticed.  As for the camera body, there is, again, no difference for most users, it will come down to which one you like the control placement on better.

 Also, unless you are planning on routinely making poster size or larger prints there is no need for more than 10 megapixel resolution, so don't get caught up in all the hype about the number of pixels.  Even the best quality photo printers are not going to do better than 300 PPI, and about 180PPI is more realistic (about 2.6 Megapixel for an 8x10 print.) For 99% of photos I take for work I shoot at 6 Megapixel which leaves plenty of extra information for cropping as needed when printing 4x6 prints.  

My recommendation is to purchase an older camera body and save your budget for lenses and accessories such as a good tripod.  You can also save quite a bit on lenses by buying a camera body that has an internal motor drive for auto-focus as it will allow you to use older lenses that do not have built in motors.  Old cameras and old glass are just as good as the new stuff 99% of the time and will save you a lot of cash.  For the money I recommend a Nikon D90 (< $275) or D200 (< $200) right now.  For $300-500 you can get set up really well to start out just by not buying any more camera then you already need.  

As others have mentioned, knowing what you're doing with the equipment is much more important than the quality of the equipment.  There are plenty of good sources on the net and good books out there that can help with learning how to make the most of your equipment, but I would like to share what I personally found the single best book on the subject:  Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.  This book has more useful information on photography than any other 3 books I've read combined, and I see it as a must read for anyone getting started.  Peterson's book Learning To See Creatively is also very good at explaining how and why to compose photographs in ways that are visually appealing.  

For what it's worth I make my living with my camera and use a Nikon D90 as my primary camera.  My company has several dozen other Nikon cameras in use at this time.  We use many D50, D70, D80, D90, D200, D300, and DX1 cameras.  I recommend all of these models as good choices except the D70, which is getting dated and has a couple of design faults that are not worth dealing with for most folks (Mode knob tends to fail, Memory card reader tends to fail).  

JGL

DSLR cameras are TERRIBLE for shooting model train videos.

Because the image sensor is relatively large, they have very limited depth of field, especially when working in close to the subject. Many video producers love that because they can have their subject in focus and the background quite soft. When shooting model trains, we want EVERYTHING in focus!

Most definitely do NOT plan on shooting model trains video with a DSLR.

www.KEH.com    end of discussion

OGR Webmaster posted:

DSLR cameras are TERRIBLE for shooting model train videos.

Because the image sensor is relatively large, they have very limited depth of field, especially when working in close to the subject. Many video producers love that because they can have their subject in focus and the background quite soft. When shooting model trains, we want EVERYTHING in focus!

Most definitely do NOT plan on shooting model trains video with a DSLR.

While I agree with the conclusion, I find my self in just mild disagreement on the cause.  Yes, DSLRs have larger sensors.  Yes They also appear to have less depth of field.  However the cause is not the sensor, or at least, not just the sensor.  The problem has much more to do with the aperture, and the geometry between the aperture and sensor.  A smaller sensor allows for a smaller aperture to fill the entire frame with the same amount of light relative to the size of the aperture needed to fill a full frame sensor.  This means the aperture can be closed tighter and still provide enough light to the smaller sensor.  The aperture, however, is what is actually controlling the depth of field, not the size of the sensor.  If you have enough light you could drop your f stop to 22 and get stunning depth of field out of a DSLR, but having enough light to do that is difficult, and the standard lenses in kits won't allow for it anyway.  You'll have to find one with a manually adjustable aperture.  With the sensors that exist today, that can take reasonably clear images even at insanely high ISO settings, there is some room to close up the aperture a bit and recover some depth of field, however I stand by that this is not a cost effective solution today.  Instead purchase a dedicated video camera for video, and a used DSLR for photographs.  Your wallet will thank you, and your end product will be better for it.  

JGL

Use your funds to purchase the best lens you can.  The body in the long run will be secondary. I started with the Nikon 90 (film) and I still use my 2.8 prime lens I used with that body with the Nikon 90S, FM100, Fuji S2 (first digital), Fuji S3, Fuji S5, Nikon 700 and the Nikon 800. When I started in the early 70s, zooms were inferior to prime lens; however, now most good quality zooms approach primes with the best example of the Nikon 14-24 zoom that has proven to be as good as the 14 prime. Do not worry about Nikon or Cannon - Either one will do well.  What was not mentioned above was the full frame sensor (FX - size of the 35mm film) or the smaller sensor (DX).  The DX type lenses are less expensive; however, they will not be able to be fully utilized with FX sized cameras.  If I were starting over (not occurring with all my lenses), I would seriously look at the Sony or Fuji mirror less cameras.  The Fuji TX 2 Pro with its water resistant lenses and body has almost made me give my Nikon cameras to my son-in-law. Note this is from a guy that carries a Cannon G15 to work and has an underwater housing for the G 15. To me the most important item to have is the ability to shoot RAW images instead of just jpegs. Post processing of RAW images in Adobe Lightroom have to potential to greatly improve the dynamic range of your images.  Examples may be found here. https://clarityphotos.smugmug.com/Trains

PennsyPride94 posted:

Hey everyone,

As everyone knows I post photos and video now and then of the railroads I visit. (Mostly Strasburg since its close to home).

I'm looking to buying my first DSLR to make my photos and videos look crisper, clearer, and more professional overall.

My question is for the experienced photographers out there: What "entry level" DSLR would you recommend me buying as a beginner to "get my feet wet with"?

Most of the people I've asked this question to either say all Canon or all Nikon even though they've never used any other brand their entire life (kind of biased to me) and so with all due respect I'm looking for an unbiased opinion that shows the pros and cons of both. I know next to nothing about what to look for specifically in cameras to suit my need so if anyone of you could elaborate on that I would appreciate it.

I also realize that an "entry level" DSLR is something hard to characterize since they really don't run cheap and I've heard you never want to buy cheap first.

Thanks for all the help!

I went to the Canon USA website and browsed their section of refurbished (brand new just rebuilt and comes in new packaging) dslr's. Paid $269 for a SL1 Camera body and 2 Image stabilization "quiet motor" lenses last December. Comes with a year warranty and it takes great train photos, great family photos (even in low light) with or without the flash ISO is higher. I did not want to spend $1000-2000 got my feet wet for cheap. If it craps out I will buy a new body or a new lenses.. If you go this route you need to sign up for the Canon USA email updates and browse it weekly for deals and refurbished deals on their website.

Always an interesting discussion when these photography threads surface.  

Bottom line... Lots of great options out there today, and many at great prices.  The technology treadmill doesn't move much faster than with computers and digital camera bodies.  Almost dizzying.  So don't get too bogged down in the gory details here.  Just go out and have fun with whatever you buy.  This ain't rocket science.  The experts will have you stuck in perpetual analysis paralysis forever!!! 

David

My opinion is the technology is so advanced that for the most part any modern camera body is good. Megapixels hardly matter unless you are shooting for road side billboards. Beyond making sure it can do what you want - i.e. 4k video, live view on the screen, etc there isn't a lot of difference among brands.  In the end, the camera body is a light tight box. The lens is what gets you the image (well that and the camera sensor...). I'll second, third, fourth the advice to spend your money on a good lens or good lenses.  The body tech will continue to evolve, and the glass in whatever lens you buy will still be good.  Some of the sharpest lenses available in any brand were originally for film, made decades ago and can be used on the DSLRs of today.  A good lens is a good investment.  An expensive camera body is usually not. Also a top of the line camera body paired with a junk comes-in-a-kit lens is defeating any advantage of having a top of the line camera body.  I also suggest visiting a physical shop and getting some of the cameras in your hand.  Some are too small / too big to hold comfortably depending on the size of your hand.  Some have dedicated buttons that make it easier to get to features you use often.  I'd definitely look into dedicated buttons for the features you use as always having to go through a menu is tedious at best and results and in missed shots despite even the best planning.

JGL recommended a Nikon D90 or D200.  I have both.  Love both for what they are. The D200 has weather resistance, dedicated buttons for many features, and includes an internal motor for focusing older lenses.  The D200 can not shoot video.  The D90 is lighter, does better in low light situations, has live view and can shoot video.  Both are excellent in my opinion.

OGR Webmaster posted:

... However, having said that, the camera is NOT the key to good pictures. Good lighting and composition are what make good images. A good photographer could take a $100 el-cheapo camera and produce images that would be suitable for a cover image in OGR because he knows how to use lighting to control shadows and how to compose a good photo. By the same token, with bad lighting and composition, even an $8,000 Canon Canon EOS-1D C will produce crappy images.

An excellent point !

There is also something to be said for smaller cameras that are more conveniently portable for casual use. I missed a lot of potentially good shots with my old 35mm SLR because it was just too bulky to carry around most of the time. The smaller newer digital cameras have astounding features and are more useful in situations where discretion in camera use is advisable.

The cameras mentioned are all pretty good, Fuji gives a lot of bang for the buck. That said, I personally prefer Nikon cameras, but my cousin's wife, who is a very well known, high end professional photographer, uses Canon (because she has an endorsement deal with them, but she said it all boils down to what you find you like. I agree totally with others, don't buy an expensive camera with one of the bargain lenses you get in a kit, generally the native lenses from the maker are better IME. Thinks like automatic lens stabilization helps a lot. In terms of the camera body, most of them have similar features, and you may find, as I found, that I prefer using mostly manual controls for F stop and shutterspeed to allow me to frame the picture.

Like some other posters, don't be afraid to buy used equipment, especially if you are on a budget. If you can get a slightly older camera with good lenses versus a new one with kit lenses, go for the older ones, same with the lenses. While new lenses come out all the time, and cameras offer new features, you can do very, very well with used equipment, especially if you buy it from places like Adorama and the like, you can often get a really good deal. 

The one thing I totally agree with, the biggest thing you can do is learn how to do photography the right way, there are tons of videos out there, and if you are a college student you might find that there might be a photography club, and the fine arts department might even offer lessons and such. Sometimes camera stores offer lessons to those who buy equipment there for a nominal charge, that is another great way.....learn to take photos right, how to balance light, how to compose depth of field and so forth, and you will be amazed what you can do..and the nice thing is with the camera you buy, you likely will find it will keep on working down the road, even if you buy it used, over time you may see that killer lens you want (when I was seriously into photography, one of the holy grails were Zeiss lenses), and you will be able to use it, generally many lenses work with a variety of bodies from that manufacturer. 

I am counterintuitive. I went with Sony. I have an A77. Great camera. Went with an all purpose zoom (18-250mm). Great features. I especially like the Geo-Tagging capabilities. Save time keeping track of where photos are taken out in the field. One thing I would recommend is to not go cheap. Buy the best you can afford no matter which make you decide upon.

I have been quite happy with my rig. Takes great photos, has a lot of great features, does a good job with videos. I would also recommend seeing what you can get on the used market. No need to pay the high entry price for new stuff.

Nikon or a Canon?