• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

recommend me a new (to me) DSLR (new / used) for under $2000

Z

ZippyDan

Platinum Member
Up until now I've only shot entry-level Nikon DSLRs and I'm ready to move up.

I tried out a Sony DSLR in a store somewhere, and I don't remember the model or the cost, but I was really taken with how it functioned.

That said, it may just be that the DSLR I'm using right now is already 5 years old or more, and technology has moved along significantly in terms of UI and sensors.

I'm open to suggestions for any make or model, as well as pros and cons of why I should choose one over the other. I'm also open to buying used to get more bang for my buck.
 
I think with any new camera purchase you have to consider the lens(es) you'll buy for it. Is your under $2000 total for lens + body? What lens do you want for it? Do you just plan to get it with the kit lens and only use that?

Most importantly - what do you want to take pictures of? The right camera for you is really the right camera for the use you intend for it. Unless you're just looking for the shiniest camera with the most modern features, in which case I think Sony is the one innovating the most right now.
 
What do you currently have for lenses?
The new Nikon D500 body is $2000. Reviews are glowing. And you can use your current Nikon glass with it. Nothing wrong with the D7200 either. It's older, but it's less money too.

Any plans for serious video work? Probably consider Canon if that's the case.
 
Might not be exactly what you are looking for, but I know a lot of people are switching over to mirrorless camera systems made by Fuji and Sony (among others). I shot entry level Canon DSLRs for a while and have used the larger pro-level bodies but ended up swapping to the Fuji system for now (X-T1, 23mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, and planning on adding a wide angle equivalent). The colors are very nice and the lenses are extremely high quality, very sharp and made of metal, and the smaller size is great for hauling up mountains and traveling. I also like the old school look and operation -- dials on top for ISO and shutter speed, most lenses have aperture selection rings. If you're looking for more typical DSLR operation, it might not be for you, but worth giving it a try.

fredmiranda forums have a lot of very nicely priced and good condition used equipment, but I have found that no one wants to sell to me as a relatively new member with 0 feedback, even though I provide eBay and heatware (around 160-0-0 combined) so I just buy used on Amazon.
 
I'm definitely more of an adventurer. I travel a lot. I backpack a lot. I hike a lot. Most of my shots are done on-the-run / point-and-shoot. I try to capture fleeting moments, and don't usually have a lot of time to set up a shot, or compose a shot in the traditional sense. For that reason, I tend to use "auto" a lot.

$2000 is probably my budget for the body and lens together. I don't usually switch out lenses much. For my Nikon I just use the kit lens and I have one prime lens which I rarely use for portraits and I always keep that at home because I never use it when I'm adventuring.

Being able to record video would definitely be a plus, but I'm looking to record memories, not necessarily to make TV programs.
 
Syborg1211 said:
I think with any new camera purchase you have to consider the lens(es) you'll buy for it. Is your under $2000 total for lens + body? What lens do you want for it? Do you just plan to get it with the kit lens and only use that?
Click to expand...

We should all just stop right here and wait for detailed answer.
 
I'm definitely more of an adventurer. I travel a lot. I backpack a lot. I hike a lot. Most of my shots are done on-the-run / point-and-shoot. I try to capture fleeting moments, and don't usually have a lot of time to set up a shot, or compose a shot in the traditional sense. For that reason, I tend to use "auto" a lot. Whenever I shoot manual I tend to be frustrated because I miss a lot of shots while fiddling with the right settings.

$2000 is probably my budget for the body and lens together. I don't usually switch out lenses much. For my Nikon I just use the kit lens and I have one prime lens which I rarely use for portraits and I always keep that at home because I never use it when I'm adventuring.

Being able to record video would definitely be a plus, but I'm looking to record memories, not necessarily to make TV programs.

Mirrorless is definitely something that interests me, though I'm not sure if it is worth it yet.
 
Last edited:
ZippyDan said:
I'm definitely more of an adventurer. I travel a lot. I backpack a lot. I hike a lot. Most of my shots are done on-the-run / point-and-shoot. I try to capture fleeting moments, and don't usually have a lot of time to set up a shot, or compose a shot in the traditional sense. For that reason, I tend to use "auto" a lot. Whenever I shoot manual I tend to be frustrated because I miss a lot of shots while fiddling with the right settings.

$2000 is probably my budget for the body and lens together. I don't usually switch out lenses much. For my Nikon I just use the kit lens and I have one prime lens which I rarely use for portraits and I always keep that at home because I never use it when I'm adventuring.

Being able to record video would definitely be a plus, but I'm looking to record memories, not necessarily to make TV programs.

Mirrorless is definitely something that interests me, though I'm not sure if it is worth it yet.
Click to expand...

The Nikon D750 (which might be updated soon) is probably your best bet if you are looking for a combination of a great sensor and auto mode. All semi-professional/professional bodies lack an auto mode.

In my opinion, you're just wasting your time with a better camera. The lenses are the main determination of the image quality. The kit lens can't touch high end glass.

The problem with mirrorless is poor battery life. If you back pack, you'll have to swap out a lot of batteries.
 
turtile said:
The Nikon D750 (which might be updated soon) is probably your best bet if you are looking for a combination of a great sensor and auto mode. All semi-professional/professional bodies lack an auto mode.

In my opinion, you're just wasting your time with a better camera. The lenses are the main determination of the image quality. The kit lens can't touch high end glass.

The problem with mirrorless is poor battery life. If you back pack, you'll have to swap out a lot of batteries.
Click to expand...

Maybe I take fewer pics than most people or something, but I have found the battery life to be no problem at all. No battery swapping even over one 6 hour and another 12 hour hike last weekend, and that was with the cheap Wasabi batteries ($23 for two batteries + charger on Amazon). I don't even think it dropped below full bars.
 
ZippyDan said:
I'm definitely more of an adventurer. I travel a lot. I backpack a lot. I hike a lot. Most of my shots are done on-the-run / point-and-shoot. I try to capture fleeting moments, and don't usually have a lot of time to set up a shot, or compose a shot in the traditional sense. For that reason, I tend to use "auto" a lot. Whenever I shoot manual I tend to be frustrated because I miss a lot of shots while fiddling with the right settings.

$2000 is probably my budget for the body and lens together. I don't usually switch out lenses much. For my Nikon I just use the kit lens and I have one prime lens which I rarely use for portraits and I always keep that at home because I never use it when I'm adventuring.

Being able to record video would definitely be a plus, but I'm looking to record memories, not necessarily to make TV programs.

Mirrorless is definitely something that interests me, though I'm not sure if it is worth it yet.
Click to expand...

- travel/backpack/hike = smaller and lighter might be a larger concern
- Shooting in AUTO a lot and spending $2000 does not compute
- If video matters, that's going to be hard to recommend any DSLR as their video typically sucks ( both quality and focus )

Everything you're saying is screaming "Mirrorless" - they're smaller and lighter. They have better video (typically). I'm not sure you need to spend $2000.

I'd be tempted to throw out suggestions like the Sony RX 100 for it's compactness and overall photo quality. It also has solid video.

I'd also recommend looking at the Panasonic GH4 - getting large, but the photo quality is likely a *smidge* better, you can upgrade lenses as you see fit and the video quality is top notch.

Something like the A7 series is also a possibility, but they get large-ish depending on the lens(es) you want.

Spending $2000 on a camera you're going to leave in AUTO most of the time doesn't make a lot of sense because you're not going to get the (many of the) benefits the more high end cameras will give you.

I'd circle back to the RX100.
Or, if you really want better quality and can stand a little heft, consider the A7 but spend a few hours on youtube getting out of AUTO. "It isn't hard" - the mirrorless systems make seeing your exposure changes in real time a breeze. The only thing left to tackle at that point is the focusing system.
 
I know how to shoot outside of auto, but even with a simple point-and-shoot camera, sometimes I miss the shots I really want.
 
I agree with Mike and think you should consider some noninterchangeable lens cameras. The kit lenses are usually pretty good picture quality, but have painfully small/"slow" apertures. Something like the RX100 with a big aperture really kicks ass for low light, on the go shots. Using an interchangeable lens camera on auto mode is just turning it into a big point and shoot with very little benefit over something like the RX100. I've steered a few friends to this camera, and they've all been super happy with the purchase.
 
I got a Sony A7 full-frame mirrorless about 1.5 years ago. Have used it mainly for video, it's been amazing. The battery life absolutely sucks though. Not the biggest fan of the auto-focus for video either. And I thought I'd get more lenses but the kit has been more than enough. Price was only ~$1600 because they were clearing the model out for the updated mark II.
 
Being a Canon user, I suggest you to go for Canon.
With you budget Canon 7D will be the best option for you.
 
First off, I think regarding picture quality you really can’t go wrong. Any modern camera can take excellent photos – especially of static subjects. So the main differences will be: Usability, flexibility in different lenses, flashes, etc, focus and performance in video, focus of moving subjects, how narrow a depth of field you can get, and of course price.

If you have a decent store near you, try different cameras and see how they feel and operate in your hands. Consider different sizes from a Panasonic GM5 to a G7, to a Nikon D750. You may decide that you just don’t want to lug around a big heavy camera when hiking. Or you may decide you like the feel and operation so much more that you don’t mind it. Personally, I think either you want to go really small and throw out ergonomics – basically a compact like a Sony RX100, or get something that is nice to use from a Panasonic G7 on up. I regularly hike with my Canon 70D, but also sometimes just take a little Canon S100.

Consider how it feels and operates in your hands. When I was making my decision between a Nikon D7100 or a Canon 70D, the location of the main dial was the main deciding factor. My finger doesn’t like the dial parallel to the ground in front of the shutter button on the Nikon – it much prefers the Canon placement perpendicular to the ground behind the shutter button. It may sound silly – but I’m the one using the camera, and enjoying using the camera, so I want a camera which operates well in my hands.

Regarding flexibility, Canon, Nikon and Micro-4/3 all have you covered. Lots of lenses and flashes to choose from. IMO, Canon crop lineup is the best of the three once you consider price, but I may be biased. Sony is making some great cameras, but the lenses are lacking and expensive. You don’t want a lot of lenses to start with, but if you catch the photography bug then, well… you may just buy another camera body anyway so maybe don’t worry about it.

If you are interested in video, then it is difficult to not recommend Panasonic or Sony. 4k video, downscaled to HD or not, simply looks much better. But the Canon 70D or 80D has the best focus during video – so you can “pull” focus from one subject to another when shooting.

For focus of moving subjects, DSLR is still a bit better, with Panasonic and Sony trying hard to catch up. And the more you spend the better focus ability and shots per second you will get. This may not matter too much though – I think most cameras will be pretty good unless you really want to get into bird or sports photography.

For narrow depth of field you want a big sensor and a high aperture lens and generally a longer focal length. I’m happy with a crop camera with a 1.8 aperture lens. A full frame camera would help to isolate subjects more, a micro-4/3 camera would not have quite as much flexibility.

So, after all that, I would recommend one of the below. Actually, I think you should start with just the kit lens and add on later as you decide what you need, but sometimes you’ll get a good deal in a bundle.

Panasonic G7 with 14-150, 20mm 1.7 and 42.5mm 1.7

Canon 80D with 18-135 USM (or Canon 70D with 18-135 STM or USM), 24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 STM
 
I agree with CuriousMike 100%. I'd even go so far as to say that you will have much better results with the RX100 or LX100 than you would with a DSLR in auto mode, especially considering the likely many scenarios where you'll be carrying it where you wouldn't have brought the DSLR due to the size and weight differences. DSLRs are really not designed for auto mode, that's completely contradictory to the main purpose of those types of system cameras, IMO. There are a lot of neat 'somewhat but not completely auto' modes that some serious photographers will still use sometimes instead of shooting full manual -- but just leaving it in full auto mode just really isn't what they are all about.

Even though I'm a DSLR user myself, and a pixel-peeping one at that - I really have to insist that it's all about having the right tool for the job, which all depends on your use case. There are times where I've gotten shots with my cell phone that have been impossible with the DSLR. I've seen some amazing photos by others with cell phones, point and shoot cameras, etc. And I have seen completely terrible photos out of DSLRs. It's more about the user, being in the right place at the right time, making proper use of what you have, and having the right camera for the type of image you're looking to create. And then there is the whole "the best camera is the one you have on you" thing. This is one of the reasons why I actually want to get a camera like the RX100 or LX100 myself even though I regularly use my DSLR.

Basically you should only consider a DSLR if you understand that it requires a certain measure of effort to become familiar with the ins and outs, going forth with it even when it's not as convenient, etc. They really shine when you make use of what they have to offer for their intended purposes - which is all about the manual control, larger sensor, ability to swap the lenses, etc. Kit lens with auto mode = almost certainly better off with point and shoot.
 
I really need to clarify what I said because most of you are really jumping on me for the AUTO thing.

I have been shooting with a DSLR for at least 5 years now. I'm comfortable with it. I like it. But after trying out a newer Sony camera in the store (and friend's newer Nikon), mine just really felt "out of date". I'm not new to DSLRs. I want to stick with what I've begun. I'm just looking to move up within the same world, and I'm looking for recommendations on what's best these days within that category and a given price range.

I know how to shoot without AUTO. I said I use AUTO "a lot". I didn't say I use AUTO "exclusively". I like having a full featured DSLR. I probably use AUTO about 60 to 70% of the time, but the rest I want the DSLR capabilities. I don't care about the size or the weight.

Generally it comes down to me using AUTO for spur-of-the-moment, fast-moving, completely unprepared shots, which tend to happen a lot in my life. Whereas I will switch out of AUTO when it is a slow-moving or static shot and I have time to really prepare and compose the shot, and try various settings to get the "perfect" shot that I want.

Battery life is important to me, but I can easily carry 1 - 3 extra batteries without complaining. Focus on moving subjects is important to me. Low-light shots are important to me. Video is important but secondary. General sensor quality is important to me.

Sometimes I carry a full camera bag, but in general I will not be carrying an extra lens, so having one good all-purpose lens is also important to me.
 
ZippyDan said:
1. I didn't say I use AUTO "exclusively". [I probably use AUTO about 60 to 70% of the time, ]
2. I like having a full featured DSLR.
3. I want the DSLR capabilities.
4. I don't care about the size or the weight.
5. Generally it comes down to me using AUTO for spur-of-the-moment, fast-moving, completely unprepared shots, which tend to happen a lot in my life. Whereas I will switch out of AUTO when it is a slow-moving or static shot and I have time to really prepare and compose the shot, and try various settings to get the "perfect" shot that I want.
6. Focus on moving subjects is important to me.
7/8/9 - Low-light shots are important to me. Video is important but secondary. General sensor quality is important to me.
10 - having one good all-purpose lens is also important to me.
Click to expand...

Lots of new info and clarifications here.
1 - I think a lot of DSLR owners dismiss AUTO when it can function perfectly fine most of the time. Except when it focuses on the wrong thing or picks too slow of a shutter speed.
2 - All the cameras we've talked about will be fully featured... even the micro 4/3 or 1" sensor cameras allow you to control aperture/shutter and have various focusing modes.
3 - I'm repeating myself. I'm repeating myself.
4 - This upsets the apple cart - I suppose the assumption that you're a backpacker/hiker/traveler doesn't always equate with desire for small and light weight. Bad assumption on my part.
5 - Your logic almost smells backwards here. You'd think AUTO would help with spur-of-the-moment, fast-moving and unprepared shots -- but that ( in my experience ) is where AUTO fails. Slow moving and static shots AUTO tends to get right more of the time.
6 - This is a hugely important point. Mirrorless cameras have gotten very good at focus... but *tracking* focus, they still lag DSLR's. This is a yuuuuge topic. Consider your needs for moving subject focus very carefully - DPR has done numerous reviews on all the latest mirrorless and DSLR's and my takeaway is DSLR's still provide superior AF for almost all variations of moving subjects (lateral, coming right at you, fast moving, slow moving.)
7/8/9 - Any of these cameras that have been released in the last 3-4 years are going to give you that
10 - Don't dismiss the lense on the RX100/LX100. A lot of people would say pick the lens first, then pick the body to go with the lens.

If you don't already, for your new AUTO mode ... consider using Shutter priority with AF-Continuous using single point focusing with Auto-ISO. That combination (and knowing to set the focus point on the spur-of-the-moment, fast-moving, completely unprepared subject) will get you more shots.
 
For my purposes when hiking/backpacking, I find weather sealing to be important (because I like keeping my camera out and accessible, even in rain). In that regard, Pentax weathersealing is phenomenal, sealed lens selection is adequate for OP's requested needs and the sensor is top notch. Autofocus/tracking (for fast sports and such) and video lags the competition, and the weight and bulk sucks. Additional features such as astrotracer and pixel shift are slick.

For lighter wethersealed packages, Sony's A6300 could be worth a shot, but I don't know what their sealed lens lineup looks like, or how the sealing compares.

All that said, I'm actually very interested in the Nikon DL18-50 for hiking/backpacking...even without sealing, and even with the 1" sensor purely for the size and weight + lens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top