Just getting into photography, is the 7D a good starter?

[flarimeki38]

I've been using a friend's Nikon d3000 for the past few days, and I want to get my own camera, I found a second-hand deal at 250 euros for the body+2 lenses ( 18-55 and 75-300 ),and I just want to know if it's worth it

Keep in mind that my maximum budget is 250 euros and I don't plan on changing the camera for some years.

[Ray-uk]

It would make a good starter camera and assuming that it is in good condition then it is quite a good price.

[shadowsports]

Agree with Ray-uk.  

The 7D is a super basic no frills 18MP body based on the Digic4.  If you don't have a camera and 250 euros is your budget, this is in that range. Depending on condition, you may be changing it whether you want to or not.  Camera is 6.5 yrs old.

You're not gambling with that much cash, so unless it or the lenses were abused or defective, it's a starter.

[ebiggs1]

I sorta disagree with the previous posts.  The 7D is hardly a beginner camera.  Unless you claim it is a beginner pro level camera. The features and build quality put it way ahead of any beginner level.

Any camera you have or can buy is better than no camera.  In this case the lenses are what will let you down.  They are very beginner level. I say go for it.

[John_SD]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Any camera you have or can buy is better than no camera.  

---

I have to agree. I still use a T6, though I will most likely sell it and a few lenses once I am up and running with my RP. Nevertheless, I had a specific goal when I bought the refurbished T6. I wanted to learn as much about the basics of DSLR photography as I could and didn't feel that I needed a high-end rig to do it. I think I spent about $349 for the camera and 2 lenses. So from that standpoint the T6 served me well and I was pleased with it. I didn't have high expectations of the camera being a challenger to a D5 or a 5D4. That said, I think that most purchasers today getting in to the hobby have unrealistic expectations and seem quickly upset when their camera doesn't have high-end cinematic capabilities, labeling it as "trash" or "junk." YMMV. 

[ebiggs1]

It's all good when it works out for you. Most people don't need a 1DX.  I do but it isn't because it takes better photos. No, it is because of the build.  I am hard on gear. It does what I want or it doesn't. If a Rebel could, that is what I would have. If a P&S would that is what I would have. There is no joy spending thousands when hundreds would do what you want.

That is a big point about the 7D.  It is a magnesium body vs a plastic body Rebel. If plastic works go for a Rebel. The same goes for lenses and why I can not understand why Canon never made a 150-600mm super zoom.  I understand they make the worlds best 600mm lens. However for most of us it is not a reality and it is not anywhere close to four or five times better than a 150-600mm zoom. But if you are a working pro and that lens has to be there day in and day out, no excuses, the extreme cost is warranted.

I should say the camera/lens you have is better than no camera/lens unless it is broken!

[Waddizzle]

---

@flarimeki38 wrote:

I've been using a friend's Nikon d3000 for the past few days, and I want to get my own camera, I found a second-hand deal at 250 euros for the body+2 lenses ( 18-55 and 75-300 ),and I just want to know if it's worth it

Keep in mind that my maximum budget is 250 euros and I don't plan on changing the camera for some years.

---

The only downside to the 7D is that you expect to get years of use from it.  It is no longer serviced by Canon.  IF it breaks on you, then it is likely done for good.  So, make sure that any camera you buy is in good condition.  

I don't like the two lenses being offered.  They sound like a pair old kit lenses, probably even older than the camerra,  Make sure they are functional.  Do not expect the best image quality from them.

If you could aim your budgtet a little higher to 300-400 Euros, you may be much better off.

[ebiggs1]

"It is no longer serviced by Canon."

However, that is no fact it can not be serviced and/or repaired.

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"It is no longer serviced by Canon."

However, that is no fact it can not be serviced and/or repaired.

---

Euros.  It would not be serviced anywhere in the US, most likely.  

Expecting "years of service" from an already decade old camera could be overly optimistic.  The most common reason for a product to be dropped from being serviced is the availability of spare parts, which are simply no longer being produced anymore by the OEMs.

Because of the age of the camera, and quality of the lenses, I would give the package a thumbs down.  

[John_SD]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

Euros.  It would not be serviced anywhere in the US, most likely.  

Expecting "years of service" from an already decade old camera could be overly optimistic.  The most common reason for a product to be dropped from being serviced is the availability of spare parts, which are simply no longer being produced anymore by the OEMs.

Because of the age of the camera, and quality of the lenses, I would give the package a thumbs down.  

---

I agree with your main point, that given the old-age of the camera and the fact that it is essentially out of service with OEM parts likely unavialable, poetential third-pary repairs would be either too costly or nearly impossible. This is not the kind of camera you sink money in to for repairs. However, as he is getting it cheap, it is better than no camera. I would use it until it fails or he is able to buy something better. But if it breaks, he must be prepared to toss it into the local dump.