There are so many times I've asked myself: If I were starting fresh, would I end up within the same system of gear that I'm using now? When I started photography, Sony wasn't even a player in the DSLR game, and so inertia has invariably led me to (mostly) Canon and Nikon over the years. But today's new photographers are spoiled for choice. Which way to go?
One take on that question comes from landscape and street photographer Arnulfur Hakonarson, aka THAT ICELANDIC GUY on YouTube. As a Sony shooter, he recommends starting out with one of their budget APS-C models, such as the a6400 or a6300. Pretty standard choices, I suppose, but where he expanded on the lenses, he suggested that beginners steer clear of the kit lens options and instead go for a fixed aperture zoom. In the video, he suggests the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 (and just as a note, he accidentally calls it the 16-50mm, but this is the one he means) as a good starting point for its quality and constant aperture.
I've never thought of going that route when talking to beginners, but it makes sense. Having a constant aperture makes understanding and learning the triangle of exposure much easier since you're not fighting with changing apertures as you zoom. Also, kit lenses tend to let in so little light compared to something like the aforementioned Sigma that you have to kick the ISO much higher, and image quality suffers as a result. So, very sound advice to try something just a little higher-end from a reputable third-party company. If you're looking for something with a little more range (and also for a little more money), Tamron makes a 17-70mm f/2.8 lens for the Sony E-mount as well.
There are also some ancillary gear recommendations that Hakonarson makes, such as variable neutral density filters (especially important for those getting into video) and tripods. You can check out the rest of his video above for more advice and gear recommendations.
But that brings me back to the burning question I have from the top of this post: What gear would you choose as a beginner?
For me, with someone with years of Canon muscle memory, I find their cameras pretty easy to use. I've dipped a toe into the Sony waters here and there (I borrowed an a7 IV for a couple of weeks and own a ZV-1), but I find the menus way too confusing to understand and the ergonomics lacking. If I were starting fresh, I'd steer beginners on a budget towards a Canon EOS R50 or, if they had more of a budget, an R8—the full frame because of the wider lens selection available for the larger sensor. While third-party support, because of Canon's reluctance to open up the mount to more companies, is lacking, there's still a lot to be said for what the system offers in terms of an upgrade path for new photographers to grow into. For the most part, there's a consistency of design there that I like.
And as far as tripods go? Anything from a reputable brand that's built well, such as Manfrotto or Peak Design. I purchased too many $20 tripods in the early days to realize that a good tripod never dies.
What are your thoughts on the best gear for beginners? Especially those who shoot other brands I haven't mentioned in this article, I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments below.
The one thing I tell beginners is:
Get used gear.
Appart from that, a A6xxx with the Sigma 18-50F2.8 is a good starting kit. Personally, I prefere Fuji, because of the controls. A used X-T3 with a used 16-80F4 is a good alternative to the Sony option.
It is insane how the used Fuji cameras hold their value. The X-T1 used is still going for what I paid for it used in 2017. Great line though, the X-T series.
For an enthusiast who's eager to learn photography (not video), I'd have trouble endorsing a camera that doesn't have a front dial, such as the a6300, a6400 or a6600. I couldn't really endorse a newer front-dial-equipped a6700, either, when a used a7RIII - a hugely capable stills camera - is available for about the same price.
If budget is tight, I'd suggest instead a used Micro Four Thirds kit such as a Panasonic GX7, 12-32 and 35-100 or 45-175 zooms. Later, these could be supplemented at low cost by a 7-14/4 UWA zoom and 20/1.7 and 42.5/1.7 primes. This is similar to the MFT kit I used for seven years for professional event work. If video is a keen interest, a used GH-series body would probably serve well.
GX7 with 12-32 and 45-175 or the tiny 35-100 can be had for $600-$700. Make a 35-100/2.8 your tele lens instead for just $200 more.
+1 - I'll add the Panasonic G85 to the list of stellar Panasonics.
It depends on how serious they are, and how much cash they've got to spend. I bought my first digital camera as a novice photographer in 2003... an Olympus E-1 after comparing it with Canon and maybe a couple other brands. Five megapixel cameras were still pretty new at that time. I read all the specifications and reviews until I about turned blue. Flip-flopped several times until I finally had a chance to visit Mike's Camera in Denver. I don't know how many camera stores still exist today, but I highly recommend one if possible. After I had a chance to actually touch and hold several cameras under the guidance of a knowledgeable sales person, the decision became obvious. The Olympus simply felt right in my hands.
Interesting question and not an easy answer. I've never used Fuji, so I couldn't recommend for or against it. Sony's lens options are infinite, but as others mention, Sony ergonomics or an acquired taste. I never acquired it. By contrast I love Canon ergos, but despise their budget lens options and lack of 3rd-party alternatives.
Here is a novel idea, purchase a Nikon Z50II (or a used Z6II if on a budget) and a Megadap E-to-Z adapter. That way you get the excellent performance and ergonomics of a fairly recent Nikon body with access to every E-mount lens ever made. I've been playing with the Z6III lately and using the Megadap to access many phenomenal Z lenses (135GM, and 12-24 f/4 G from when I shot Sony, and 20-70 f/4 Gand 50mm 1.4 GM that I recently acquired). I'm getting near native performance (it has to be slower than using a Sony body, I just haven't noticed any delay or glitches). The only negative, is that I don't get automatic distortion and vignetting correction with this combo, and the 20-70mm is legendarily bad on these dimensions especially at 20mm. Nonetheless, the LR's lens performance does a good job of correction.
If a beginner chooses the Nikon route, I'd recommend starting with a used Z24-70mm F4 (my copy was about $300), and a 35mm or 50mm 1.8 prime. Or pick up one or two Sony E-mount lenses and the Megadap ETZ 21 adapter.
There is argument to be made for sticking with the brand your closest photographer friend uses. When you have a question for them, they won't have to translate every reference and concept. You MIGHT get a chance to borrow gear, or get hand-me-downs or good deals. I'm not saying to get the same model, but an entry level body in the same brand.
Yes, this does make sense, but it assumes that your closest photographer friend isn't using, say, an old Contax handed down from his dad. Not that I have anything against Contax - I loved shooting Contax for a decade - but it's a dead brand. I'd also think twice about Pentax now, though I loved my 67II kit 25 years ago.