The so-called starter kit - some thoughts

james laubscher · Feb 18, 2016

Recently, someone I know said he was planning to get a cheap Canon DSLR because of the kit bundle - the18 - 55mm lens and a 55 - 200mm lens and the relatively cheap price of the deal.

This would be his first DSLR and he seemed to think that when he became more proficient, he would upgrade.

In my opinion, based on years of experience with three brands of DSLR, this is one of the biggest mistakes anyone starting out can make.

And it doesn't matter which brand of camera you buy.

Why do I say this? Well to start, the 55 - 200mm is by and large useless as telephoto (not enough length) and not much good as a portrait lens since this type of cheap kit lens is rarely sharp enough.

Secondly, the cheaper DSLRs have many useful features stripped out that are designed to force you to buy another camera as soon as you realize how frustrating the limitations on the 'starter' camera are. And then you find that you don't get the re-sale price on your 'starter' camera you hoped for and by the time you end up with the camera you should have bought in the first place, you have paid a lot more than you needed to.

Beginners seem to think that a cheaper 'starter ' camera is easier to use than a more expensive model - this is not true at all - all you have to do is set the camera to Automatic and away you go!

The best way to buy your first camera then is to think about what you want to do with it once you know how to use it and then read up on the specifications and user reports of the models you have in mind and then choose based on specification, not on price as your first criterium.

And then avoid the cheap, 'starter' models in favour of a model two steps up the line - that will give you a few years of fun and sastisfaction before you decide to stop or improve your kit.

But most of all I think, watch out for the bundled extra lenses thrown into the offer to sweeten to deal - these are rarely worthwhile for general use - what people use most of all is wideangle (18mm on an APS-C camera) and telephoto (above 300mm)- the in between ranges may be useful for architectural features and the occasional bird in your garden close by.

golfhov · Feb 18, 2016

james laubscher said:
Recently, someone I know said he was planning to get a cheap Canon DSLR because of the kit bundle - the18 - 55mm lens and a 55 - 200mm lens and the relatively cheap price of the deal.

This would be his first DSLR and he seemed to think that when he became more proficient, he would upgrade.

In my opinion, based on years of experience with three brands of DSLR, this is one of the biggest mistakes anyone starting out can make.

And it doesn't matter which brand of camera you buy.

Why do I say this? Well to start, the 55 - 200mm is by and large useless as telephoto (not enough length) and not much good as a portrait lens since this type of cheap kit lens is rarely sharp enough.

Secondly, the cheaper DSLRs have many useful features stripped out that are designed to force you to buy another camera as soon as you realize how frustrating the limitations on the 'starter' camera are. And then you find that you don't get the re-sale price on your 'starter' camera you hoped for and by the time you end up with the camera you should have bought in the first place, you have paid a lot more than you needed to.

Beginners seem to think that a cheaper 'starter ' camera is easier to use than a more expensive model - this is not true at all - all you have to do is set the camera to Automatic and away you go!

The best way to buy your first camera then is to think about what you want to do with it once you know how to use it and then read up on the specifications and user reports of the models you have in mind and then choose based on specification, not on price as your first criterium.

And then avoid the cheap, 'starter' models in favour of a model two steps up the line - that will give you a few years of fun and sastisfaction before you decide to stop or improve your kit.

But most of all I think, watch out for the bundled extra lenses thrown into the offer to sweeten to deal - these are rarely worthwhile for general use - what people use most of all is wideangle (18mm on an APS-C camera) and telephoto (above 300mm)- the in between ranges may be useful for architectural features and the occasional bird in your garden close by.

--
jamesza

I fully agree on the kit telephoto lenses.

The second part about entry level models I do not fully agree with. You are right that anyone that takes it seriously will quickly outgrow them. You fail to realize that a lot of newcomers lack the ability ordesire to grow past an entry level model. I just think you are part right andpart wrong. It is impossible to tell what a new user may do in the future. They are going to lose money either way.

baloo_buc · Feb 18, 2016

james laubscher said:
Recently, someone I know said he was planning to get a cheap Canon DSLR because of the kit bundle - the18 - 55mm lens and a 55 - 200mm lens and the relatively cheap price of the deal.

This would be his first DSLR and he seemed to think that when he became more proficient, he would upgrade.

In my opinion, based on years of experience with three brands of DSLR, this is one of the biggest mistakes anyone starting out can make.

Most of the people never get over the entry level anyhow so buying cheap means reducisng risks.

james laubscher said:
And it doesn't matter which brand of camera you buy.

Why do I say this? Well to start, the 55 - 200mm is by and large useless as telephoto (not enough length) and not much good as a portrait lens since this type of cheap kit lens is rarely sharp enough.

I somehow agree with you although the lens I have (55-200 mm) is OK for portraits. I am not in a very telephoto mood so 200 mm is quite enough for me. For wildlife and birding of course it is totally inadequate (slow and short).

james laubscher said:
Secondly, the cheaper DSLRs have many useful features stripped out that are designed to force you to buy another camera as soon as you realize how frustrating the limitations on the 'starter' camera are. And then you find that you don't get the re-sale price on your 'starter' camera you hoped for and by the time you end up with the camera you should have bought in the first place, you have paid a lot more than you needed to.

This is the case if the buyer knows that he/she will like this hobby and it will be involved. If he/she doesn't know it would be a severe financial loss if they buy something very expensive and find out that they don't like the hobby after a year or so.

james laubscher said:
Beginners seem to think that a cheaper 'starter ' camera is easier to use than a more expensive model - this is not true at all - all you have to do is set the camera to Automatic and away you go!

Totally agree. They are a little bit harder to use because they are menu driven.

james laubscher said:
The best way to buy your first camera then is to think about what you want to do with it once you know how to use it and then read up on the specifications and user reports of the models you have in mind and then choose based on specification, not on price as your first criterium.

I do agree with the condition that the buyer knows what they need. Usually it is not the case.

james laubscher said:
And then avoid the cheap, 'starter' models in favour of a model two steps up the line - that will give you a few years of fun and sastisfaction before you decide to stop or improve your kit.

I change the body about 2 or 3 years anyhow. I started with the humblest of dSLR. I still use it after 8 years because of the nice colors and the small size. I buy always at the end of the life so it is minimum price. Since then I got several better bodies so I have entry levels and middle level bodies. The entry level turnover was 4 years and middle class 5 years. I don't sell them because the price I would get would be so small that a backup or a different approach (my latest body has 24 MP, that means very large files so I can use my older bodies of 16 MP, 12 MP or 6 MP if I don't want the resolution or other features of the body).

james laubscher said:
But most of all I think, watch out for the bundled extra lenses thrown into the offer to sweeten to deal - these are rarely worthwhile for general use - what people use most of all is wideangle (18mm on an APS-C camera) and telephoto (above 300mm)- the in between ranges may be useful for architectural features and the occasional bird in your garden close by.

My main range is 16-85 mm. Sometimes I use 55-200 mm or 35 mm. I was never keen on telephoto so more than 300 mm is not an issue. For others telephoto is a must. So from the beginning I think that getting a two lenses setup that break at the awkward limit of 55 mm is not ideal. First you don't know how much you will use the second lens and the wide lens is kind of restricted. Most dSLR manufacturers have some good lenses with range 18-1xx mm that are more flexible and practical.

photosen · Feb 18, 2016

james laubscher said:
Recently, someone I know said he was planning to get a cheap Canon DSLR because of the kit bundle - the18 - 55mm lens and a 55 - 200mm lens and the relatively cheap price of the deal.

This would be his first DSLR and he seemed to think that when he became more proficient, he would upgrade.

In my opinion, based on years of experience with three brands of DSLR, this is one of the biggest mistakes anyone starting out can make.

And it doesn't matter which brand of camera you buy.

Why do I say this? Well to start, the 55 - 200mm is by and large useless as telephoto (not enough length) and not much good as a portrait lens since this type of cheap kit lens is rarely sharp enough.

Except it's a 55-250 and the latest version is very well regarded.

james laubscher said:
Secondly, the cheaper DSLRs have many useful features stripped out that are designed to force you to buy another camera as soon as you realize how frustrating the limitations on the 'starter' camera are. And then you find that you don't get the re-sale price on your 'starter' camera you hoped for and by the time you end up with the camera you should have bought in the first place, you have paid a lot more than you needed to.

Not really, it all depends if you plan on improving by being in control of your shots or will always hope the camera guesses your shot in fully automatic mode.

james laubscher said:
Beginners seem to think that a cheaper 'starter ' camera is easier to use than a more expensive model - this is not true at all - all you have to do is set the camera to Automatic and away you go!

The best way to buy your first camera then is to think about what you want to do with it once you know how to use it and then read up on the specifications and user reports of the models you have in mind and then choose based on specification, not on price as your first criterium.

Good point.

james laubscher said:
And then avoid the cheap, 'starter' models in favour of a model two steps up the line - that will give you a few years of fun and sastisfaction before you decide to stop or improve your kit.

In other words an older model, even an used one from a good source, might be a good choice, particularly if it's from a higher tier or lets you buy a better lens.

james laubscher said:
But most of all I think, watch out for the bundled extra lenses thrown into the offer to sweeten to deal - these are rarely worthwhile for general use - what people use most of all is wideangle (18mm on an APS-C camera) and telephoto (above 300mm)- the in between ranges may be useful for architectural features and the occasional bird in your garden close by.

Very true.

chipmaster · Feb 18, 2016

Starter like sold at Costco/Bestbuy, LOL.

You think a stop at a pro photo store would help and said salesperson tries to convince them they want a midlevel body, and say fast wide angle and big / fast tele and they got 7K to burn?

Get them in, tease them, get them to upgrade?

Trouble is that for many things the starter kit is no better than an iPhone for many things, but you need to drop another grand on good glass that is both big and heavy so soon the kit is left at home.

james laubscher · Feb 19, 2016

golfhov said:
james laubscher said:

Recently, someone I know said he was planning to get a cheap Canon DSLR because of the kit bundle - the18 - 55mm lens and a 55 - 200mm lens and the relatively cheap price of the deal.

This would be his first DSLR and he seemed to think that when he became more proficient, he would upgrade.

In my opinion, based on years of experience with three brands of DSLR, this is one of the biggest mistakes anyone starting out can make.

And it doesn't matter which brand of camera you buy.

Why do I say this? Well to start, the 55 - 200mm is by and large useless as telephoto (not enough length) and not much good as a portrait lens since this type of cheap kit lens is rarely sharp enough.

Secondly, the cheaper DSLRs have many useful features stripped out that are designed to force you to buy another camera as soon as you realize how frustrating the limitations on the 'starter' camera are. And then you find that you don't get the re-sale price on your 'starter' camera you hoped for and by the time you end up with the camera you should have bought in the first place, you have paid a lot more than you needed to.

Beginners seem to think that a cheaper 'starter ' camera is easier to use than a more expensive model - this is not true at all - all you have to do is set the camera to Automatic and away you go!

The best way to buy your first camera then is to think about what you want to do with it once you know how to use it and then read up on the specifications and user reports of the models you have in mind and then choose based on specification, not on price as your first criterium.

And then avoid the cheap, 'starter' models in favour of a model two steps up the line - that will give you a few years of fun and sastisfaction before you decide to stop or improve your kit.

But most of all I think, watch out for the bundled extra lenses thrown into the offer to sweeten to deal - these are rarely worthwhile for general use - what people use most of all is wideangle (18mm on an APS-C camera) and telephoto (above 300mm)- the in between ranges may be useful for architectural features and the occasional bird in your garden close by.

Click to expand...

golfhov · Feb 19, 2016

I see your point. I just come at it from a different angle.

I see it as busy(or lazy) people and diminishing returns.

Once someone makes the leap from a cell phone or cheap pos they see a dramatic improvement in the quality of the image. As you go into more advanced models and lighting setups you need to know what you are doing to get as big a jump again.

This isnt even getting into understanding light which beginners do not. This is years of knowledge that you cannot just go out and buy. A professional is always going to be able to get better shots with worse equipment. This is a differen subject and I am wandering....

Back to the point it is really hard to advise newcomers because you never know what commitment they have.

beagle1 · Feb 19, 2016

the "useless starter kit with useless kit lens !

and it was only 10 megapixels ! .... whaaaa ??

StIves · Feb 19, 2016

james laubscher said:
Recently, someone I know said he was planning to get a cheap Canon DSLR because of the kit bundle - the18 - 55mm lens and a 55 - 200mm lens and the relatively cheap price of the deal.

This would be his first DSLR and he seemed to think that when he became more proficient, he would upgrade.

In my opinion, based on years of experience with three brands of DSLR, this is one of the biggest mistakes anyone starting out can make.

Clearly all beginners should start out with three F2.8 zooms covering 16-200mm because anything less is inferior.

james laubscher said:
Beginners seem to think that a cheaper 'starter ' camera is easier to use than a more expensive model - this is not true at all - all you have to do is set the camera to Automatic and away you go!

Well, that's because they ARE simpler. They have touchscreens instead of multiple dedicated control buttons. They tend to be smaller, lighter and easier to hold than professional bodies.

james laubscher said:
The best way to buy your first camera then is to think about what you want to do with it once you know how to use it and then read up on the specifications and user reports of the models you have in mind and then choose based on specification, not on price as your first criterium.

I think you've been using a camera for so long that you've forgotten how daunting this can be for a complete beginner who has no concept of things like ISO, aperture or why shutter speed is important.

Wading through user reviews on the internet for a beginner is really hard- there's overly fussy stuff like DPR, there's ridiculously geeky stuff like MTF charts, there are completely worthless reviews like those found on Amazon.

james laubscher said:
And then avoid the cheap, 'starter' models in favour of a model two steps up the line - that will give you a few years of fun and sastisfaction before you decide to stop or improve your kit.

Sometimes this would work, sometimes it wouldn't. For a body, I personally don't see any reason to get a base model APS-C camera and one a couple of steps up. The body is still largely a box that holds a sensor, technique can easily work around the number of AF points or buffer sizes.

james laubscher said:
But most of all I think, watch out for the bundled extra lenses thrown into the offer to sweeten to deal - these are rarely worthwhile for general use - what people use most of all is wideangle (18mm on an APS-C camera) and telephoto (above 300mm)- the in between ranges may be useful for architectural features and the occasional bird in your garden close by.

Are you seriously saying that people mainly use is around 18mm or over 300mm? And that the ranges in between are only of occasional use?

Bundled lenses, for the most part, are perfect for beginners who have little experience with photography. Last I checked, the bundled APS-C Canon lenses were well regarded. And the lenses bundled with FF Nikon/Canons are well regarded even for experienced photographers.

MarkInSF · Feb 19, 2016

baloo_buc said:
james laubscher said:

Recently, someone I know said he was planning to get a cheap Canon DSLR because of the kit bundle - the18 - 55mm lens and a 55 - 200mm lens and the relatively cheap price of the deal.

This would be his first DSLR and he seemed to think that when he became more proficient, he would upgrade.

In my opinion, based on years of experience with three brands of DSLR, this is one of the biggest mistakes anyone starting out can make.

Click to expand...

Most of the people never get over the entry level anyhow so buying cheap means reducisng risks.

Couldn't agree more. I also agree that some of the package deals are poorly chosen, but for most the additional cost for the second lens is a very nominal amount. The lens may not be great, but a hundred dollar lens doesn't need to be. It's just a way for a beginner to have a broader range of focal lengths available.

baloo_buc said:
baloo_buc said:

And it doesn't matter which brand of camera you buy.

Why do I say this? Well to start, the 55 - 200mm is by and large useless as telephoto (not enough length) and not much good as a portrait lens since this type of cheap kit lens is rarely sharp enough.

Click to expand...

I somehow agree with you although the lens I have (55-200 mm) is OK for portraits. I am not in a very telephoto mood so 200 mm is quite enough for me. For wildlife and birding of course it is totally inadequate (slow and short).

Wildlife photographers have unusual needs. A general purpose telezoom is not intended for them. It's for Joe Average who would otherwise not have anything above 55mm.

baloo_buc said:
baloo_buc said:

Secondly, the cheaper DSLRs have many useful features stripped out that are designed to force you to buy another camera as soon as you realize how frustrating the limitations on the 'starter' camera are. And then you find that you don't get the re-sale price on your 'starter' camera you hoped for and by the time you end up with the camera you should have bought in the first place, you have paid a lot more than you needed to.

Click to expand...

This is the case if the buyer knows that he/she will like this hobby and it will be involved. If he/she doesn't know it would be a severe financial loss if they buy something very expensive and find out that they don't like the hobby after a year or so.

It would be nice if the Nikon and Canon would see their way to throwing a few crumbs to the peasants. Leaving out exposure bracketing is so rude. As is a fixed rear screen. These aren't small cameras. The extra thickness to add a tilting screen would not be noticed. Pentax somehow managed to provide pentaprism finders and second control dials (and more) for low prices. Mirrorless models are often better equipped, too. Oh, well, they've been doing this for years. They must think it works.

baloo_buc said:
baloo_buc said:

Beginners seem to think that a cheaper 'starter ' camera is easier to use than a more expensive model - this is not true at all - all you have to do is set the camera to Automatic and away you go!

Click to expand...

Totally agree. They are a little bit harder to use because they are menu driven.

The extra dials and buttons are awfully nice to have.

baloo_buc said:
baloo_buc said:

The best way to buy your first camera then is to think about what you want to do with it once you know how to use it and then read up on the specifications and user reports of the models you have in mind and then choose based on specification, not on price as your first criterium.

Click to expand...

I do agree with the condition that the buyer knows what they need. Usually it is not the case.

Agree. They rarely know or they would be buying better. Or used, or Pentax.

baloo_buc said:
baloo_buc said:

And then avoid the cheap, 'starter' models in favour of a model two steps up the line - that will give you a few years of fun and sastisfaction before you decide to stop or improve your kit.

Click to expand...

Teo steps up I the Nikon line roughly triples the price, or more. That does matter to people.

baloo_buc said:
I change the body about 2 or 3 years anyhow. I started with the humblest of dSLR. I still use it after 8 years because of the nice colors and the small size. I buy always at the end of the life so it is minimum price. Since then I got several better bodies so I have entry levels and middle level bodies. The entry level turnover was 4 years and middle class 5 years. I don't sell them because the price I would get would be so small that a backup or a different approach (my latest body has 24 MP, that means very large files so I can use my older bodies of 16 MP, 12 MP or 6 MP if I don't want the resolution or other features of the body).

baloo_buc said:

But most of all I think, watch out for the bundled extra lenses thrown into the offer to sweeten to deal - these are rarely worthwhile for general use - what people use most of all is wideangle (18mm on an APS-C camera) and telephoto (above 300mm)- the in between ranges may be useful for architectural features and the occasional bird in your garden close by.

Click to expand...

What would be nice is if they'd offer the same choices of kit lenses they offer with the pricier models. An 18-55mm lens has an incredibly annoying range. If that's all that can be had, it's not surprising two-lens kits are popular.

baloo_buc said:
My main range is 16-85 mm. Sometimes I use 55-200 mm or 35 mm. I was never keen on telephoto so more than 300 mm is not an issue. For others telephoto is a must. So from the beginning I think that getting a two lenses setup that break at the awkward limit of 55 mm is not ideal. First you don't know how much you will use the second lens and the wide lens is kind of restricted. Most dSLR manufacturers have some good lenses with range 18-1xx mm that are more flexible and practical.

Sure do. Like 18-105mm or 18-140mm. They cost a bit more, but are much handier. Having to switch at 55mm is such a drag. And 18mm is nothing special these days. If they'd start at a more reasonable 16mm the lenses would be far handier. I'd be perfectly happy with a 16-90mm (on APS-C). That would cover everything from a useful mild wide angle up through the traditional portrait range. Add a telezoom on top, something like 75-300mm, and most of my needs would be met. Though I am fond of a wide angle zoom, too, though with a standard zoom that reached 16mm I'd need it less often.

Search

The so-called starter kit - some thoughts

james laubscher

Veteran Member

golfhov

Veteran Member

baloo_buc

Veteran Member

photosen

Veteran Member

chipmaster

Veteran Member

james laubscher

Veteran Member

golfhov

Veteran Member

beagle1

Veteran Member

StIves

Veteran Member

MarkInSF

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts