Hello. I'm looking to buy my first camera so I've come here to ask for advice. It has been a dream of mine for some time to own my own camera for some photo manipulation with my own pictures. And also for the creativity it takes to get a got shot.
Should I buy Sony, Nikon or Canon? I just want the best for cheapest price.
My budget is around 450-600$

Here's some I found myself:
Canon EOS 100D SLR+ 18-55mm lens
http://www.elgiganten.dk/product/foto-video/spejlrefleks-kompakt-systemkamera/EOS100D1855IS/canon-eos-100d-spejlreflekskamera-18-55mm-objektiv

Canon EOS 100D Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 AF XR Di-II LD IF
http://www.kamerahuset.dk/product/canon-eos-100d-tamron-18-200mm-f-3-5-6-3-af-xr-di-ii-ld-if/

These two are the same camera costing almost the same. About 600$ or 4.000 kroner.

Can you up your budget a tiny little bit? I remember when I picked up my DSLR, my budget was $2000, and I went with a crop body DSLR. In the end, I ended up spending $1900 on lenses for myself (plus I lost $250 on resale of a lens), plus $600 for my camera body, plus $300 or so for accessories, plus another $200 for my tripod. I have a 70-300mm lens, an 18-35mm f1.8 lens, a 10-20mm lens, a 50mm f1.8 prime, and an 85mm 1.8 prime. If I did it all over again and I were on a very tight budget, I'd have gotten a similar camera body (D5200 or D3200) plus a 35mm f1.8 prime... and that's it. If I did it all over again with the cash I spent, I would've gotten the Canon 6D at the time (or Nikon D750 now), plus a 24-70 Tamron lens. I have heard good things about Sony's more compact full frame DSLR's, but I don't know about their crop sensor cameras... and lens offerings for Sony aren't super.

In my opinion, in that price range, I would go with Nikon. You'll pump out better quality photos overall. Something like the D5200, or D3200 would be a good choice (the D3100/D5100 are not good choices, however). If, however, you want to start collecting lenses, and you're interested in an ultrawide lens, Canon has a very affordable 10-18mm ultrawide that makes buying into their crop sensor cameras worth-while over Nikon (Canon's 10-18 costs $300).

As far as the lens goes, it can be a learning process. I've seen some people be really happy with an 18-55, or an 18-200. Myself, if I can't get a constant aperture of f2.8 or quicker on crop, or f4 on full frame, then I just can't stand the lens. I like to be able to control my depth of field, and work with a good ISO range, and slow kit lenses on a crop body camera = a really bad time for me.

With a tight budget, you can't be super picky, but a combo like the D3200 + a kit lens might be a great place to start. If you want to go with Canon, the two choices you listed off aren't bad, and might be a good place to start. It just depends on what you really want out of the camera. You could maybe link some photographs that you would like to be able to take, and I can give you information about how those photographs were taken, what you would need out of a lens, what you would need out of your camera, etc, in order to achieve the linked photographs.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Feb 10 2015 09:32pm

buy that camera that you can offer
the camera is not very important, it is just your photographic eye that makes good pictures
i would give you a 50mm lens to learn don't start with a zoom
there is a canon 50mm 1.8 i belive for round about 100€ it is great, so you have ~450€ for a camera + SD Cards + 1 extra Battery

that is a great start i wish i had it 6years before

I disagree:

1) A 50mm f1.8 lens is certainly useful. However, on a crop sensor camera, that provides an approximately 76mm field of view on Nikon's current cameras (1.52 crop factor), and an approximate 80mm field of view on Canon's crop sensor cameras. What you end up getting is a short telephoto. However, f1.8 on crop provides a depth of field equivalent to about f2.73 on crop for Nikon, and f2.88 on Canon. So, you really have an entirely different lens between the two formats. On a crop sensor camera, the best prime to work with as a beginner (or just for general walk-around work) is a 30mm, or a 35mm. This will be equivalent to about the 50mm field of view of full frame. The big downside is that it still won't be a 50mm... it won't produce the shallow depth of field of f1.8 on full frame.

2) The camera body certainly does matter. If one camera body can produce shots with the same noise levels and dynamic range at ISO 3200 as the other does at ISO 1600, then you're looking at a huge difference. That means that if he's shooting in a scenario where he only gets say 1/60 of a second at ISO 1600, he could work with ISO 3200 and get 1/120 of a second shutter speed. If the other camera just produces terrible shots at ISO 3200, then it's going to limit low light shots. Additionally, the dynamic range of the camera, and the quality of the RAW file and information recorded, is going to dictate what can be futher done in lightroom. Finally - not that these points are the only points that I have to make, they're just the first that come to mind - the autofocus capabilities of the camera are very important... even single-servo single-point focus can be worse on one camera to another.

However, I do agree that a prime is wonderful to start with. More-so to allow a new shooter the ability to play with fast apertures, and not feel limited by slightly dim settings... although understanding the importance of moving, rather than zooming, is certainly a big deal (I feel that's not so much something to practice as it is something to practically understand... as in, I'll whip out my ultrawide if I want to elongate the scene, or I'll get out my 50mm prime if I want a more boxed-in, slightly more compressed view, or my 85mm if I want something tighter and specific ie. portrait). But I don't really run around practicing with them as a forced kind of thing, never have.

This post was edited by Canadian_Man on Feb 12 2015 10:38pm

Thanks for the replies
It sounds very technical to me what you're saying. I don't want anything to fancy to begin with. I just want a camera so I can get started and see if it's anything for me, then I might consider buying something more advanced later.
So anything in the 450-600$ range that will give me the most out of the money spent.

I would buy used canon 5d, used 50mm 1.8, some shitty like 35-85 kit lens that came with canon film cameras(just because sometimes zoom might be needed), old m42 mount 135mm 3.5 zeiss or some 135mm 2.8 and maybe some other old m42 mount lens on the wider side of 50mm if i still had money left. Oh yea and a split screen for manual focusing better.

But that sort of setup might not be your thing.

This post was edited by Antichrist- on Feb 13 2015 04:35am

Ugh these kinds of threads make me wish I had the D750, and if only I could get rid of my two DX lenses. But then I think about it harder and realize the 18-35 Sigma f1.8 on a good crop body produces quality which rivals the D750 with something like the Tamron 24-70 f2.8.

In layman's terms, for the OP: Photography can be an expensive hobby. You probably can't go too wrong with whatever you begin with (the Canon 100D should be great), but you should learn enough so that everything I've said in this thread isn't jargon to you any longer. You need to know about aperture, depth of field, focal length, ISO, and shutter speed. You need to know what shooting in RAW means. When you pick up your camera, if you want to shoot in anything other than "auto" mode, most of this will apply.