Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I basically decided on a whim (from reading this site, talking to some friends, and always admiring great photos) that I want to get into photography.
Are there disadvantages to starting out with a prosumer camera like the Nikon D7000? I know stuff will be more expensive, but will there also be greater frustration or complexity?
(I am the kind of person who tries to find reasons to justify the extra cost even when I know deep down that it's not necessary...)
On the contrary, I think these cameras are better for beginners, if your intention is really to begin — that is, to start from here and (as you say) get into photography.
The lower-priced entry-level cameras focus on fully-automatic modes, and emphasize ways of making the camera work without any thought from you. The biggest example is scene modes, which basically say "You want to take a picture of that? No problem! Turn the camera to that mode, and I'll handle the rest." And then what they do is a black box operation, from which it's hard to learn.
On the other hand, the complexity in higher-end cameras is there to make it easier for you to tell the camera what to do. You get separate dials for aperture and shutter speed, and a quick way to set ISO. You get a top LCD screen so you can glance down to see settings without turning on the distracting, bright, badly-placed main rear LCD screen. You get an easily-accessible metering mode switch, so you can use the right metering mode for the situation. (On entry-level cameras, this is usually an option buried in the menu, making it a set-and-forget thing rather than something easily switched for every situation.) There will be more settings you can customize, and one or more "user modes" which you can define, rather than trusting the camera to guess.
And on top of all that, you get a more solidly-built camera, and a better viewfinder, and (depending on model) the ability fine-tune autofocus on a per-lens basis.
So, while it's certainly not necessary to get into photography, it's definitely nice. And there's some certain threshold features that, once you're used to, you probably would never dream of living without. (The dual control dials, for example.)
The main disadvantage is that the best camera is the one you have with you -- if the camera you buy isn't something that is easy to carry around, you will tend not to. The ability to carry the camera with you is why (back in the film days) people stuck with rangefinder and even simpler cameras after SLRs became popular.
There is even a photography book called "The Best Camera Is The One That's With You" that is filled with nothing but pictures taken by the author with an iPhone.
There is also the "EVIL" class of camera: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorless_interchangeable_lens_camera
(Note -- I have a big, heavy DSLR but you did ask for the disadvantages)
Contrary to others, I don't think that the fact that a camera is complicated is a good thing for a beginner.
When comparing a DSLR with a point-and-shoot compact camera, I would recommend the first one for every beginner who may want to become a professional photographer one day, and a second one for every person who just want to take family photos, without having to think about what she's doing.
On the other hand, when comparing a basic DSLR with a more advanced DSLR, I would strongly suggest a basic one for a beginner:
It's like learning how to fly a plane. You never start with a Boeing 747. Because it's just too complicate. Because there are lots of control panels and buttons. Because it can discourage. And finally because just by flying a two-seat Cessna, you learn pretty everything about how to fly a plane.
More advanced DSLRs are expensive. It means that you spend a lot of money while you're just a beginner.
If you succeed well in learning photography, in a few years, you will notice that your camera is a bit obsolete, or you need more lenses. If you spent all your money for an expensive DSLR from the beginning, you will have less money to spend in future for lenses/new camera body. If, on the other hand, you had a basic DSLR from the beginning, you may easily upgrade to a more advanced DSLR and buy more expensive lenses.
My first DSLR was a Nikon D60 with a 18-55mm non-VR kit lens. Currently, I have a recent D7000 with a few more advanced lenses. I'm glad that I've purchased a basic DSLR with a basic lens first. The DSLR options were easy to understand, letting you to do everything manually at the same time, so it was a good choice for a person like me who used only point-and-shoot compact cameras before. With a small and light lens, it was also easy to carry it with me everywhere, without attracting too much attention.
If I started my DSLR experience with my actual DSLR and lenses, I think I would abandon photography quickly. It's heavy and big, and it's really discouraging to attract attention when you're just a beginner. It also has a huge amount of options, so you have to spend some time digging in a manual, instead of taking real photos.
No disadvantage at all - in fact, a huge advantage
I gave a relatively high end camera to my GF who is a self-confessed beginner in photography (it was a body and kit zoom I wasn't using).
She finds the pictures it takes to be so much better quality than anything she took on her compact camera, and as a consequence of this she has started taking pride in her photos. She has become so much more interested in photography now, and she takes (and prints) so many more photos - all because she reckons the photos are so much better in quality.
When we go somewhere and take photos she is beginning to take almost as long as me to get a shot just the way she wants. She also shows me the odd picture and asks "what is the reason for this" when referring to a certain blurriness here, a certain color cast there, or whatever. She has taken countless photos of friends' kids and sent them prints as gifts, and is proud to show some of her better photos. She asked me all about manual mode once. I'm happy. I believe the best way to be a better photographer is to take lots of photos and figure out why some are better than others. If a more expensive camera encourages you to do that, then it's a net gain.
Other than all the normal caveats that apply to picking a platform (you'll probably end up spending more on lenses and accessories than you will on a camera body, so choose a body with that in mind), I can't think of too many pitfalls of starting with a prosumer body if you're going to go with a DSLR. These cameras all have an "auto-everything" mode, and they'll do a fine job in that mode while you're learning about all the other options at your disposal.
About the only real detriment of these higher-end cameras is weight, so as always, it's best to go handle a couple of cameras before you make a decision.
Another disadvantage is the 'wife' factor, especially if you are taking a lot of kid shots. You own a nice, expensive SLR, but she doesn't want anything to do with it. I ended up with my SLR and a higher end point and shoot for her that I could at least do a little fiddling with when necessary.
It can be frustrating for her when you have all the settings tweaked and are taking pictures then she wants to use it. She wants to use it now, right now, not in a few seconds after I put it back in mostly auto mode (Canon full auto won't let you shoot RAW).
While you'll likely spend more money with a DSLR system (if you get into it you'll end up spending more money on lenses and accessories than you do on the body), the only real disadvantage is probably the increased cost (when compared with a point-and-shoot camera).
Another downside is that a DSLR has the potential to be more complicated, but I actually see this as a positive thing because you'll have the option to get into the various manual controls and learn more about the technical aspects of photography.
I started out with a D3000 a year ago, because it was my first SLR and I wasn't sure that I would ever "get it."
Well, a year later, I've got the D7000 and I'm very happy with it and its features make it easier for me to experiment.
I don't regret buying the D3000, because there was no D7000 out at that time, but I'm really happy that I've go the D7000 now.
I'm still a beginner, but at least I do know my way around the camera and the D7000's pro-like features are a real blessing for the experimenter.
Thank you, Nikon!
Oh and the low-light performance is light-years from the D3000 and that alone makes it worth the cost.
I would say that a more advanced model is more difficult to operate, from the standpoint of a beginner. While they may offer features that enable faster, more reliable, or otherwise better performance in less-than-ideal shooting conditions, I would not normally recommend to a beginner anything above a Canon EOS 60D or Nikon D7000 as they are not worth the added complexity.
Past this point, you start to have more complicated control layouts and less assistance for the user to learn basic photography principles. These control layouts are designed to enable experienced photographers to quickly change settings and get the camera to work exactly the way they want, but beginners will only find that it gets in the way of learning the basic concepts. The Nikon D300S, for example, does not have a mode dial and requires the use of a MODE button and a separate control dial to select modes. There are no scene modes at this point, and it can become very difficult for a beginner to understand what the camera is doing and what he/she needs to do to get a desired result. The same holds for a Canon EOS-1 series camera.
Furthermore, a more advanced camera is larger and heavier. While they are often designed to be more durable as well as enable shooting in inclement weather, they make it more difficult to carry and can discourage going out with the camera. A beginner needs to be able to go out and shoot without having to deal with the weight of say, a 1.8 lb (820g) Canon EOS 7D - and this figure does not include a battery, memory card, or lens. These will easily push the weight towards 3 lb or more and will quickly discourage a beginner from going out with his/her camera. (The midrange Nikon D7000 weighs 780 grams, but with battery and memory card installed.)
On an entry-level or midrange model, all of the exposure modes are easily found on a mode dial and scene modes are easily accessed. There is often assistance on how to achieve a certain effect, and control layouts are simpler and easier to work with. While they may not offer the efficiency of more complex interfaces for experienced photographers, they allow a beginner to grasp the basic concepts of photography in a relatively painless manner. They are also lighter and easier to carry than a higher-end model as well.
For what it's worth, I use a Pentax K-r and I started out with the scene modes and tried to understand what the camera was doing until I got more experienced and learned to use the semi-automatic modes like Tv and Av. My camera is usually left on P to allow quick shots when they come up, but I'm perfectly happy switching to a more advanced mode. Had I started out with a K-5, I would have needed more time to learn the controls before I could do this, and since the K-5 does not have scene modes, it would have been more difficult for me to learn the basics.
To answer your question, a D7000 is fine, since it has scene modes and is still fairly beginner-friendly, but I certainly would not recommend that a beginner use a Nikon D300S, D700, Canon EOS 7D, 5D Mark II, or other semi-pro or pro-class camera, regardless of whether he/she could afford it.
Put it that way: I gave my mother my 400D and she hated it... - she preferred the results (!) from the older Canon PowerShot A610. (Well, the 400D is now my backup body when I need it :))
Many people have no concept of aspects such as the depth of field and no patience for them either - they want to hit a button and have the picture taken, period. In fact, some people will even have issues with the concept of AF points... - though it seems straightforward enough to me...
So if you just want a fancy point and shoot, it is possibly a waste of money to buy an SLR. Micro-Four-Thirds might in fact be a better option then. If however, you plan to get into photography, buying the best you can afford can be quite useful (as long as you don't stop).
Only one possible disadvantage I can see (apart from the size/weight already mentioned, but if you're already considering the camera you've probably decided that's not a factor, and that's that it's easier to get swamped by all the options and capabilities it offers over more basic models, things you don't yet know how to make use of. You have to consciously limit yourself from playing with the advanced stuff until you understand the basics, and a lot of people have trouble with that. They get frustrated. With themselves for not getting the results they yearn for, with their equipment for not being as easy to use for them as they'd hoped, with their hobby for being frustrating. And then they put that camera back in its box and either shove it in the bottom of a drawer where it gathers dust for years until rediscovered by their children (this is how I got my first camera, teehee) or they sell it on eBay for a fraction of what they paid for it a few hundred photos before.
If you seriously study and learn the aspects of photography and dslrs, I don't think a more advanced dslr will be very difficult. If money is completely not an issue then I would recommend getting an entry level model first and then upgrading. Because you could save a lot of money getting an advanced if you are serious about photography. But i also want to remind you that lenses, lighting equipment, etc are also as important or even more important than the dslr body.
