Question Suggestion about buying a Camera?

[Eccentrus]

well D90 was amongst the first dSLR that shoots video, current dSLRs are able to take astonishing HD quality videos and my friends the amateur film-makers (IDK how they still have time for that AND med school) use a couple dSLRs and believe me, the only thing still lacking from them is the acting quality.

 

[Ghostrider]

Modern DSLR are incredible - they can do great stillshots AND video. In fact, they're sometimes used in place of dedicated video cameras by indie film crews.
It all boils down on what you want to do with it. A modern prosumer-to-professional DSLR can do almost anything, the problem with it is that you can't always have it with you. It's sometimes good to have a compact as well (they're priced low and some Samsung models do have a 15x to 21x optical zoom with good lenses) because they're small and lightweight and you will always have it with you.

When getting a DSLR, check out the optics you want and the prices. You will eventually get a new camera body but the lenses will stay, and they're often more expensive than the camera.

 

[Ripley]

What kind of pictures will you (most likely) be shooting?
It can help focusing on which lens you'll need most.

 

[Unstung]

Ahh, so much conversation.

Anyways, I have a few things to add. Nikon and Canon have don't have built-in vibration reduction/image stabilization in their camera bodies and autofocus in cheap bodies. There's also certain lenses that are compatible with each camera. Nikon DSLR lens compatibility chart: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm#dslr

Canon discontinued their FD mount and replaced it with the EF mount in the 1980s for autofocus. Obviously, the mounts aren't compatible. I think, but I am not completely sure, that Canon's full frame lenses aren't compatible with their APS-C bodies, vice versa. This is a nuisance compared to the Nikon F mount which has been around since the Nikon F.

There's two sensor sizes that are used in DSLRs nowadays (APS-C and 35mm), both based on film. The cameras with 35mm sensors are much more expensive due to the more advanced technology to utilize a larger sensor and to cut out bigger silicon wafers.

The larger the sensor, the better the camera's image quality and noise performance. The Sony RX100 is the leader in compact cameras due to its 1" sensor, much larger than all pocketable point-and-shoot camera sensors. I still use my Canon Powershot S90 more than my DSLR due to its portability, but there is a definite downside in terms of image quality with its 1/1.7" sensor (~1/3 the surface area of Sony's similarly sized RX100). I've easily noticed a lack of quality in my 16 x 24" and even 8 x 12" prints compared to prints from my DSLR.

I chose the S90 in particular over four years ago mostly due to its ability to shoot RAW (having manual control was necessary and a wide aperture was desired). All DSLRs have this capability (ignore 12-bit vs 14-bit and compressed vs uncompressed), but not even all high-end point-and-shoots can output these files. If you're serious about photography, go with a compact that can shoot RAW (Panasonic LX7, Olympus XZ, Sony RX100, Fuji X10/X20) or a DSLR. Nikon makes bad point-and-shoots and Canon's S90-S110 line became mediocre. If you don't care for portability, go with a DSLR. They have much larger sensors and much better performance. But DSLR lenses and accessories can make this choice easily the most expensive.

The only benefit mirrorless cameras seem to have is their small size. If you're interested in a cheap interchangeable lens compact (ILC), I'd consider Sony then Olympus and Panasonic.

Recommendations:
Compact: Sony RX100 ($650, but unmatched image quality)
DSLR (entry-level): Nikon D3000 series, Canon 500D series, Pentax K30 (tons of pro features for cheap)
Mirrorless ILC: Sony NEX series, Panasonic G series, Olympus PEN series
(There's also cameras with large sensors but fixed lenses like the Sony RX1 and Fuji X100S.)


EDIT: As Cras mentioned, the most important thing about a camera with changeable lenses are the lenses. If you're going to save up for a good body (D7100) and have no money for lenses, it's almost pointless. In two years, your camera body will be outdated yet the lenses generally keep their value and can serve you for decades. Sure, the D7100 offers more features and performance than the much cheaper D3100, but unless you know that you need these benefits, it's a bad idea to spend more on the D7100 body.
Also, check this website out: http://snapsort.com/compare

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

I can't offer too much here (especially with the expertise on this thread), but I must say that my home's Nikon D3100 and this lens is serving well for my home for the past two years. Of course it might be useless for airplane spotting or even maybe astro-photography, but for general use it is a really good entry level DSLR. I guess the current D3200 camera with a similar lens should prove to be equally good. :thumbup:

 

[Eccentrus]

dammit Unstung, now I'm leaning over to D3200 again :lol:

 

[csanders]

I think, but I am not completely sure, that Canon's full frame lenses aren't compatible with their APS-C bodies

Canon's full frame lenses are compatible with their APS-C bodies.

But you can't use EF-S lenses on full-frame bodies. And actually, you might be able to use them with a firm-wear hack or something, but it would end up looking like this (because the image won't cover the full-frame):

---------- Post added at 01:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:33 PM ----------

DSLR (entry-level): Nikon D3000 series, Canon 500D series, Pentax K30 (tons of pro features for cheap)

I second this.

I have a Canon DSLR, but if I did it again, I might go Pentax. The significant difference being that Pentax as image stabilization in-body, so all lenses benefit from image stabilization.

The downside of Pentax, is that they have fewer lens choices.

I would love to try a Pentax out with this lens. It would rarely need a flash:
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Pentax-Samsung-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000FG6CME

 

[Eccentrus]

Well after thinking about it deeply, I think I will go for Nikon 1 after all. For the next 5 years perhaps, I can only commit myself at the range of $2000 for the camera, and if I buy a dSLR now, I will get less lenses than I would with a Nikon 1, I might end up with 5 lenses, and a really good one with that budget rather than only enough spare for 3 mediocre lenses with dSLR, and as everyone have said, it's all about the lenses, and about maintaining the budget for them.

 

[Unstung]

Well after thinking about it deeply, I think I will go for Nikon 1 after all. For the next 5 years perhaps, I can only commit myself at the range of $2000 for the camera, and if I buy a dSLR now, I will get less lenses than I would with a Nikon 1, I might end up with 5 lenses, and a really good one with that budget rather than only enough spare for 3 mediocre lenses with dSLR, and as everyone have said, it's all about the lenses, and about maintaining the budget for them.

You may not be able to get three "pro" DSLR lenses with $1000 or $1500, but you can certainly get three good ones with that money. The lenses I have are either $200 or $300 yet preform well despite the slow autofocus on the telephoto (Nikon 55-300) and the absence of autofocus on the f/1.4 (Rokinon) portrait lens. All you probably need to cover every situation are three lenses: a standard zoom, telephoto zoom, and fast prime.

The Nikon 1 system is an interesting choice and cheap indeed but there aren't many lenses (none of which are "pro"). Spending $2000 on such a system is odd. The camera has some cool features, but it only has a 1" sensor and you have to go through the menus just to reach manual controls.

It's up to you whether you'd get the Nikon 1, but here's what can be done for $2000 with a Nikon DSLR system (approximate):
$450 - D3100 (better performance than the Nikon 1)
This includes the 18-55mm VR kit lens, it produces excellent results for its price and is very sharp.
Ken Rockwell's site is wonderful, and so are his recommendations which I will choose from.
$550 - 70-300mm VR (A "semi-pro" lens, it has great autofocus and is for full frame, FX, but lacks a constant aperture.)
$200 - 35mm f/1.8g DX (and/or 50mm f/1.8g FX) - Primes are cheap and produce great results, but are obviously one focal length.
Total: $1200 (three lenses), $1400 (four lenses)
The two primes can replace your standard zoom most of the time if you don't like it, but I've found it to be useful.
This leaves room for another lens (wide angle or a "better" standard zoom), and doesn't even consider other brands like Sigma. Unlike the Nikon 1, the F mount has a huge selection of lenses from macros to fisheyes. Also, don't forget about accessories such as lens filters, cleaning equipment, SD cards, etc.

In short, you definitely don't need "pro" glass that costs thousands of dollars a pop, plus the system you considered is DX so the lenses are cheaper. When using FX lenses, the center, sharpest part of the frame is used. Image quality doesn't improve dramatically when you spend more and more on a lens. The improvement in quality you get by spending more probably looks something like this to illustrate.

 

[statickid]

I have to agree with unstung. I was actually looking at a Nikon 1 at a camera counter the other day, and I just realized thats what you were talking about. I have to say that while checking it out, i was unfortunately VERY much not impressed with it. You really should just start out with an entry level or older dslr and start training with it. That way when you upgrade you will already understand and appreciate what you are getting for your hard earned bux by comparison. I have used and am (mostly) happy with only 3 lenses that I use, a 30-70mm, a 70-200mm, and a 50mm prime. Oddly the lens i want the most right now is a wider angle prime to get photos about as wide as my pocket camera, which i hilariously still cannot do.

 

[Eccentrus]

Ok then with another month still looming before I have enough budget to buy anything, I'm now considering between a nikon D3100 kit or a the 1 J1

well yes, one of the many restraint of having the 1 system is the lack of manual steering on the lenses, but the lack of pro lenses for the 1 system can be alleviated by having a F-to-1 Adapter

I am used to having to click menus for all kind of controls (remember that I only have a cell phone camera as of now) so it's not much of a bother for me, but I know from experience that a hands-on manual control would be a lot quicker than the scrolling-first method.

So here's a list for on my consideration of both systems (I'm going to just use Nikon not others because a lot of my people use Nikon and therefore larger chance to obtain second-hand lenses and whatnot here)

dSLR (D3100 or D3200)

(+) control, manual focusing hands-on
(+) Image quality (esp. D3200)
(+) no need for adapters to mount pro lenses
(+) Can just start the lens collection without ever looking back again
(+) A complex system in which many things I can learn from and exploit
(+) Optical viewfinder, no need to argue on this one

(-) For the two models inside my budget, they don't have LV viewfinder
(-) harder to use, I can't simply hand it to my family and trust them to have a good shot at me
(-) Size, but these are among the smallest of the dSLRs

Mirrorless (Nikon 1 J1, the V1 is a little bit outside my budget range)

(+) For the same price as the outdated D3100, it comes with two lenses (10-30mm VR, and 30-110 mm VR, equivalent to 300 mm)
(+) LCD viewfinder
(+) much better at video with quick video autofocusing, not to mention the slow motion recordings available on this device. The mirrorless systems were built with the fact that dSLRs are increasingly used for video recording in mind, not just as a nice-to-have feature, but almost as much energy is spent on building this as a video recorder as it is as a photography device.
(+) AF is actually faster than the D3xxx systems, the ads claim it have one of the fastest AF, but let's just ignore the ads.
(+) Still have a decent image quality for a 1" system, the reviews I've seen are just mindblowing. The images I saw from reviews are comparable to those I took from my friend's D90
(+) Light and compact, the whole system, even when in their planned full capacity, can all be packed inside my suitcase, along with my clothes and stuffs for trips. The body itself is the size of a modern smartphone just twice as thick. (well statickid has seen it). In fact forget about putting it in a suitcase, I can just ask my mom to carry it in her purse for me.
(+) When using the adapter for the pro lenses, it have an advantage of narrowing the FoV that an ordinary zoom lens become a superzoom lens for this system. This is great especially for people who are interested in astronomy as we do, I can buy a good F-mount zoom lens at $500 and can have a very good shot at the moon.
(+) So easy to use, I bet I can just hand it to my mom and still know that she will have a good shot at me
(+) A lot easier for beginners

(-) Image quality
(-) Hassle to use the advanced systems, manual focus, for example, have to be activated first from the menu, not through an external switch like the dSLR, but this is not such a big point for me, because I learn very much of my knowledge in photography from my cell-phone, which means, by default, I'm more used to having to click and scroll the settings before starting to shoot.
(-) Look at that interface! too few buttons! but this can be a plus too when I ask my friend or family to take a shot for me, see above.
(-) Intended really for beginners, not actually a very good system to learn on as I might be considered as an intermediate in these kind of things.
(-) the LCD viewfinder is not a true electronic viewfinder and the lack of the optical viewfinder is a little bit disturbing (should be a lot actually).

In short I'm still leaning a bit over to the 1-system side, I mean it's within budget, and still come with two lenses at that, and even when I know that it have its downside especially on the image quality, but I honestly see them as not being too much apart. The thing that makes me lean on the Nikon 1 side is not actually the spec (yeah, I know, first time I read them, I also say "meh") but the experience of reviewers have at them, I mean the compromise is acceptable at still having 80 - 90% of the dSLR output in the most demanding conditions (disregarding the pixel count), and at a bright shiny day? I can't tell the difference. And actually just the picture quality part can take me right back into buying a D3100 or D3200, but the video AF quality just pulled me back to the 1 system, I mean I can't find reason enough especially with my wallet to favor the dSLR system until I have the ability to purchase a D7xxx or equivalent. And I actually say that for my buck atm, I get the most bang out of a 1 system, although the bang for buck factor would go way higher for dSLR in the long term, but why buy a system that I can't maximize the potentials until 5 years from now while I can buy this one system which I can maximize at 80% of my dream team at as short as a year from now? Well I know that after that not a lot of improvements can be made, but I get most of it in the shortest amount of time possible, and don't forget that having a 1-system will not stop me from buying F-lenses and by the time I can commit myself to advanced dSLR systems, I will already have a lens drawer for that system as well.

 

[statickid]

Actually that makes a lot of sense to me. You should get it. You're planning a long and deep experience with cameras and your conclusions have everything to do with weighted reason and nothing to do with frivolity. You already know and care about the subject more than most people walking in and buying the shiniest thing because they are overpaid and curious, only to give up next week. Stepping to the n1 from cell phones will inspiring. You WILL get awesome photos because you WANT them.

 

[Eccentrus]

well actually I just found out that my local shop also have a Sony F3D deal with two lenses just 40$ above the N1, with 16 MP APS-C CMOS, now I'm getting all confused because I plan to have a full dSLR system later on and I am inclined to rather take Nikon than Sony for that.

 

[Unstung]

Well, the J1 has live view but not a digital viewfinder which you weren't very clear on. Same as a point-and-shoot. DSLRs have optical viewfinders and live view on the D3100 and above. The resolution on the D3100's live view is pretty low, but only a pain for manual focusing.

I don't see why it would be so much more difficult for a novice to capture images on a DSLR than the Nikon 1. Just set the camera mode to auto on the DSLR's mode dial. There's a switch for live view, but the person operating the camera should be able to find it easily. I doubt the Nikon 1 is a lot easier for beginners. But overall, the Nikon 1 is easier to just pick up and shoot although the same can essentially be done with a DSLR in auto.

The Nikon 1 does probably have faster autofocus in live view with fast contrast detection, but it's another story when compared to the D3100's phase detection point. The other 10 autofocus points in the optical viewfinder may be faster than the J1 too, but that depends more on the lenses.

Yes, the Nikon 1 has some interesting technology and better video shooting. There's also a high speed electronic shutter mode than can produce RAW movies, but at 1 second clips (or 2 seconds with a 60 FPS option?).


Considering the way you plan on using the camera, I'm gonna go back and recommend the RX100 which will remain a great performer for many years to come. It's a point-and-shoot with a 1" sensor and as easy as the Nikon 1 to operate yet also has easy access to manual controls. It's even more compact than the Nikon 1 system, of course. As I said, it's odd to invest a lot in a system designed for newbies. (Actually, getting F mount lenses then eventually a Nikon DSLR is an interesting, solid idea. If you're sure about eventually upgrading to a DSLR, go for it.) No other accessories, lenses, etc. are necessary for the RX100 than an SD card. Its range is pretty decent, 28-100mm equivalent, but has a poor aperture range and lacks a long telephoto focal length. With an adapter and a 3x crop, the Nikon 1 will crush anything in low ISO telephoto shooting which is probably its greatest potential benefit. However, for "expert" astrophotography, a camera lens is not the way to go.

 

[statickid]

I'd stick with one brand. If I were you I'd get the n1 if anything because when I upgraded I could use the f adapter, which would tempt me to get a DSLR not bundled with a lens, meaning I could spring for a better one and use the little lenses while I saved up for some bigger ones

 

[Eccentrus]

After reading more into Sony's offer I found out that it might have more bangs for the buck than the Nikon 1 J1. You see the J1 can't be customized, at all, except for the lenses, while the F3 is as customizable as all the higher-end member of the series are, and particularly useful things such as the external flash and external microphone, and it have image quality on par with the Olympus OM D which is the current leader of the market (as of 2012), but it is more restrained in terms of lenses and the adapter is about $100 more expensive than Nikon's FT1. But this thing, for the same price of D3200 have comparable image quality and comes with two lenses, my wallet says that this is the way to go, but it might not be that good for a long term in which I'll eventually switch to dSLR, but at the time I'm buying dSLR I might already have enough income to say that building a competent lens drawer is rather easy. I'm also seeing the track-record of my family, my father's first camera was a Sony, the old DV camcorder is also a sony, and the TV is also a sony, I mean it's nice to have a little continuation there and I can trust Sony to have one of the best video capability in this market (and of which I'll use this system almost exclusively when the time to switch to dSLR comes). And as Unstung said, the N1 system have the 2.7x killer crop factor that with decent DX zoom lens can be a very capable amateur astrophotograpy system. Further thoughts?

 

[RisingFury]

The best suggestion I can give you is not to get a pocket cam, but spend big and get something you need to hold with both hands. I did that years ago and I haven't regretted it since. Today's pocket cams still can't match the quality of my camera, even though it's now 7 year old...

Sony DSC-5:

The only complaint I have about this camera is the same as everyone else's. The shutter button broke. The half-press to focus doesn't work, so it sometimes takes a bit of trial and error when shooting, because you press the thing and the cam has to focus and shoot at the same time.

Make sure to read reviews of the cam you're about to buy. Look for flaws. Stuff that breaks and stuff that's wrong with it.

 

[statickid]

They are no doubt both good cameras, when I narrow something down to two specific options, I like to go and check out floor models. The difference may be something unexpected, like particularities in the contrast of the screen in bright light, a cheap feeling button, the texture of the finish, or the specific size in your hand

 

[Eccentrus]

and then we fall back to the true master of the camera lines, the lenses, the more I research upon this, the more I get the impression that Sony actually have excellent sensors, with mediocre lenses, while Nikon have just the opposite in the mirrorless category, and in fact, the best out there is the macro four third system used by Olympus and Panasonic, ah... just what I need, another field which have to have great deal of consideration and compromises, well I do still have another month or two to decide, let's just let all of this sink in for awhile and think.

 

[Ripley]

When, sooner or later, you'll buy a "fast" lens, take your camera and try it with it. I didn't.
I mean, do it always, but DO IT when the lens must perform what it was made for (yes...I know it sounds obvious).

I have a Nikon D90 and a Nikon 50mm 1.4G (DPReview), and they simply don't like each other, at f/1.4 there's a nasty front-focus problem. When I shoot with the max aperture (which is why I bought it in the first place), the viewfinder says that the focus is someplace (veeeeery little depth of field), but it's not. It's a little towards me.

If I close it down a few "clicks" it's as sharp as a knife, but that totally defeats the pros in having a not-so-cheap "fast" 1.4 prime (which is not so prime, since my body is DX...)!!

:beathead: