BebuLamar

Cost was certainly a concern but it went either way. My first camera and the 50mm f/1.4 lens cost $750 in 1977 and that was my 5 weeks earning. But I didn't need another camera until film and processing became expensive and hard to find.

BebuLamar

Thank you! And unlike Chris T no matter what you have to say I will not put you on the ignore list.

djlouden Loc: Ocala, Florida

Certainly for some it's the cost. Let's face it photography can be / is an expensive undertaking. One that is never escaped. And once bitten, a quest if you will for better and better. Of course G.A.S. might enter there somewhere also.

I've found some folks who apologize for having an "inexpensive" camera in comparison to others more costly gear. But my comments to them are on the order of, did you enjoy your shooting and did you get that shot you wanted? Then be happy and enjoy your day and don't worry about what other people may have.

Happy shooting

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Terminology can be misleading. Take "point and shoot," for example. It would be difficult to find a camera that does not have adjustments. Any camera set on Auto is a P&S. As for "starter camera," obviously the person is starting in photography and wants something simple (Auto mode) and probably inexpensive. Just how simple and how inexpensive are two important questions. I don't like the term "starter," though, and I'm glad we don't see it too often. "Getting started in photography" sounds better.

firtree Loc: Florida, USA

Because you have to start somewhere. In theory, any first camera is a starter camera.

jccash Loc: Longwood, Florida

My first starter DSLR was Nikon D40. A gift from a friend with the 18-55 lens. I wanted something better so gave the D40 to my wife’s twin sister bought a D5100. Then gave the D5100 to my son and bought a D7200. Then sold my D7200 and bought the D500. The D500 is my current camera.

As a starter camera now knowing what I know I’d start with a D7200 or if the money was available but a D750.

If I was to purchase a new camera today I’d buy the D850. But, I’m happy with the D500 and have been buying glass.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

I my opinion consumer cameras with all their different modes only cause more confusion and slower learning. I would rather start people out with an older advanced or pro level camera that has P, Tv, Av and Manual modes. If you must start with a consumer camera then ignore the other modes if you really want to learn photography. Once you learn about exposure you will be set for life. Often learning costs a little time and money...

Best,
Todd Ferguson

Toment Loc: FL, IL

A "starter" is a compromise for two reasons: "not sure if I want to do this" or "I'm getting what I can afford for now"...
Sometimes it's a mistake, other times, not...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I have never spent more than $1000 on a camera; if the Japanese companies manufactured top-of-the-line only, Eastman-Kodak would still be manufacturing cameras for guys like me - and that is what I would be using.

cthahn

There is no such thing as a starter camera. Cameras are purchased for a specific reason and everyone is different.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"Well any camera can be the first camera one has so why do we distinguish between starter and non starter? My first camera was the Nikon F2AS in 77 and I never regret it."

I believe there is a difference between first camera and a starter camera. The first camera, as you stated, could be any camera. A camera for starters is a basic camera that will teach the student basic photography. If you ask me I do not believe someone that is just starting needs a D5. That is a professional camera and it is too advanced for someone new to photography.
I cannot speak in behalf of others but when I started my interest in photography, many years ago, I bought a Petri rangefinder camera and a hand held exposure meter. It never occurred to me to buy a Leica, first because I could not afford it and second because I knew something more simple will fulfill my needs. I was right!
Years later, when I had a solid knowledge of the basics of photography I bought a Nikon F and I continued to use my hand held exposure meter. As I am sure you know Nikon continued its evolution and eventually TTL metering was incorporated in their bodies. By this time I was ready for a more advanced professional camera.
My point is that a simple entry camera is more than enough for any starter and I have nothing against a refurb or used body which in the long run is going to save money.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Budget plays a role to test the waters if it is for you. A 1DX MII just isn't for everyone. A SL2 small, light, very capable might be a first but can also be a second or so because of size and great features to boot.
If being asked if I were a camera sales person (I was in a past life) I asked a lot of questions first to understand the goals, budget and temperament. Then started with what I thought might be a good fit, if it wasn't then showed other things from the subsequent comments. That then became the "Starter Camera".

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

The cost of a camera is a personal matter of how much you love to 'take' a picture, and maybe later you'll 'make' pictures.
Keeping the 'starter' simple will help stimulate you /or not, to 'want' to spend more.
It all starts with; are you an innate photographer? Is 'it' in you ?
I started at age 10 with a HIT camera (uses Minox 8mm film) bought in Time Square souvenir shop in 1957.
The photo bug hasn't left me for a minute.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I think that people start out with an intuitive understanding of their own artistic vision. Some don't want to be hampered by their equipment while others don't want to be bogged down with too much technology as they develope their skills. All of us have artistic vision to some degree so it becomes a matter of development for those of us who are artistically challenged, hence the need to upgrade from time to time.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

I had a Nikon F2AS also, great camera! However, you can't even compare the sophistication of that camera to a Nikon D850. (Or even to an entry level Nikon DSLR)