discussion camera options

[Birk]

I umped from using just cell phone mostly to a 60D Canon last christmas, I got the one with the 18-200 lens and they threw in a free 50mm f/1.8

I don't regret going right into DSLR and skipping a dedicated P/S. The Rebel T3i is still a very viable camera to learn on though.

 

[enaberif]

People also forget the huge learning curve to actually USING a dslr. Most people just leave it on the idiot switch and don't ever doing any more... if that is .. then just stick with a P+S camera.

 

[lowfat]

The only big learning curve is learning on how to use lighting. Everything else on the camera is secondary. This includes lens. You can get very sharp pictures with the kit 18-55 Canon lens. Likely even on auto with proper lighting. This is just as important with a point and shoot.


Canon EOS M 18 MP Interchangeable Lens Camera with 18-55mm Lens and Speedlite 90EX Flash - Black : Mirrorless Cameras - Future Shop

This right here is the camera I'd buy if I didn't have a t3i. DSLR level options and quality, but with a slight more noob friendly interface. Mirrorless is the way to go these days.

 

[fortkentdad]

P&S VS DSLR

To DSLR or Not to DSLR that is the question.

(Right after Nikon or Cannon, - think Nvidia or AMD, Ford or Dodge, Harley or -well there is no 'or' for motorbikes).

I bought a Nikon D5100 a few years back and love it. But it is another hobby - and can be as expensive as you want it to be.

Here is a good site to get an biased opinion on Nikon cameras Nikonians I hang out there and have learned a lot. But it is a steep learning curve. We all start out with the dial set to auto-everything and turn it into an expensive P&S. Then we move past that starting point.

Did a quick check and you can get a D3100 for under $500 with kit lens which is good enough for a while.
For $599 you can get a D3100 with zoom lens D3100 with Zoom

You may also want to consider used; See Henrys used section. I've shopped at Vistek and they are a good supplier too.

You will always wish you'd bought the better camera - I wish I'd gone for the D7000 but such is life. The D3100 is a great starter DSLR and for many people it will last them a very long time. It will take years to master what that camera can deliver - then you'll be ready to drop a few thousand on a new "real" camera. A Nikon D4 is $6000 (body only).

As for software - don't bother with full scale Photoshop for a beginner. Adobe Elements is the entry standard - about $80.00. Corel's version is on sale till the end of the month for $49 (thinking of buying that myself). But there are others for much less that will do. There are good open source free programs that do the job. Just touching up even Googles Pixlr free on-line editor is good enough to get by. But you are right to ask about the importance of the software - that's at least half the hobby. It is amazing what can be done in these photo programs (I use Elements and freebies). At least as much of a learning curve as the camera itself.

Having said this, I used a better quality point and shoot for years before upgrading to DSLR. Look at "Optical" Zoom (not just zoom or digital zoom those terms are meaningless) and megapixels. I'd expect to pay about $200-$300 for a better quality P&S camera with features.

I'd say comparing a P&S to DSLR is like comparing a tablet to a desktop. Both can surf the internet and play games. Depends on what else you want to do and how serious you want to get. IF your interest in photography takes off you'll be upgrading to a DSLR soon enough.

But be warned that is the entry level. I spent $800 on my camera and zoom lens a few years ago and already am eyeing a full frame camera (circa $2900 body only). Upside, you can use your lenses on your next camera (that's part of why I went Nikon, they promise that their lenses will always fit).

But you'll buy flashes (starts at about $350, the pop up one won't cut it after a bit) and gadgets - lots of gadgets, and then gadget bags (I've got three on the go), and filters (these range upwards of $50-100 each) and a tripod (had a cheap one, just bought a better one $300), and my most recent purchase flash umbrellas (cheap on ebay). Looking to get remote flash controllers now ($35) and another flash unit, and a photo-box, and a , and a, anda anda.... don't say you were not warned.

ON the upside there is no film and developing costs now.

Although printing can cost you - both in terms of buying a good quality printer (something that takes six to nine ink cartridges) and printing at the local photo shop. And class 10 SD cards.

And did I mention batteries - the ones for my D5100 are about $90 each! Fortunately they are rechargeable, but you will soon want to have a least two.

you see where this is going . . .

Find someone you know who is into photography, they will love to talk about their hobby.

 

[Bond007]

I have had a sony a37 for a while now and love it (small dslr type camera). The replacement for it is the a58 (though you can still find a57 on clearance at some places and is better in some ways than the newer a58) and if you find a good sale it would get in your price bracket. Check out the reviews if you want that size camera. If you want a bit smaller camera I would get a mirrorless camera if you want to be at all serious about photography.

My very condensed review of the sony A series compared to similarly priced Nikon/Canon is slightly worse low light performance and less lens availability, but better video capture and much faster burst speed for action (frames per second....perfect to capture my never stationary kids).

 

[guilly]

Awesome, this is exactly the type of responses I was hoping for!

fortkentdad,

Thanks for this, I can see where your coming from and appreciate the significant cost photography can become.


LowFat,

Thanks for the link on the EOS M, I'll do more research on that and look into the mirrorless features.

Well I guess I have some reading to do !! Lot's of terminology that I need to research I think once I get a handle on that I will have a better idea of where my starting point should be.

 

[Kilauea]

I'm going to go against the stream to suggest something different, but before that the most important question has to be asked.

What are your intentions regarding photography ? What do you intend to photograph ?

A long time ago, I bought my first camera, a Canon A series because back then I like most people aware of Canon and Nikon's brand recognition. I used it, I liked it, I learned tons from it (that was the reason why I got myself an A series). When it broke, I told myself I would go for the G series as I felt I was ready for more. However, by some stroke of luck or bad luck, one day I misspelled G1x by GX1 and that is when I got to see the advantages of micro four thirds system. Which is the one I will suggest.

Micro four thirds is basically the biggest (in terms of native lenses) mirrorless format. It is a partnership between Olympus and Panasonic. Therefore, all the Olympus lenses work on Panasonic bodies and all the Panasonic lenses work on Olympus bodies. It is smaller than a dSLR (not so much if you go for a Panasonic GH3, but that is way out of your budget), yet it produces in most cases similar image quality, with very little differences with the APS-C format (the smaller and cheaper dSLR).

I don't have more time at the moment, but I will link you to what I think is a good offer for a used camera, its not mine, but I have been looking at it:http://forums.redflagdeals.com/pana...ens-350-obo-price-drop-must-go-today-1406303/

If you are interested in the format, I will give you more information about the good and the bad later thsi week end.

 

[guilly]

Thanks Kilea,

To answer your question, I intend to do primarily still shooting to start. I don't see myself doing very much "action" shots. From what I've read (very little so far), this is where a DSLR will outshine a mirrorless so it seems based on a few reasons now mirrorless is the way to go for me.

I'd be interested to hear which company's offer the most lens options for mirrorless ? Looks like this is where mirrorless can get dicey and you can get vendor locked in depending on which make you've gone with.

 

[Kilauea]

As you pointed out mirrorless will be weaker for fast moving, unpredictable action. It will still be able to work, but you will work harder to get your shoot.

The other areas where micro for thirds is "weaker" is with depth of field control. It means you will get more things in focus with the same settings as a (mostly full frame) dslr. But that also has the advantage of meaning you can let more light in to take a shot if you wanted a bit more in focus. For me personally, this is a non issue. I find I have enough control, but it is harder with the kit lens (as is with APS-C dslr).

The other area where -again- mostly full frame dslr will beat micro for thirds is with low light noise (image quality). The difference is much smaller and sometimes virtually non-existant with APS-C.

Here are some samplesi've taken. I'm no photograph. They were mostly done with a kit lens in good lighting.
Flickr: Nicolas_Lefebvre's Photostream

Overall, if I were to be objective. I would not go for an EOS-M, it focuses slowly and it seems like it was Canon's way to say mirrorless sucks, lets not invest into it (at the risk of cannibalizing their dslr sales).

The nikon system is a bit Luke the Canon, but it does well with tracikng action (but it had the wrist image quality, which is not awful actually).

Sony does some very good products, but maybe in a year or two they will have a better lenses line up (still, it would be a good choice).

Then there is Fuji which produces amazing results in low light. They have some good but limited lenses. But they used to (not sure if they still do) have below average focusing speed.

Finally, there is micro four thirds. Older models (12MP) olympus cameras were good, but they were clearly lashing behind competition (Panasonic included); however, the recent models are giving APS-C DSLR a run for their money. Panasonic's current lineup is basically on par with olympus. In terms of lenses. Olympus designed some great prime lenses, some inexpensive zooms and is starting to enter the high quality zoom. Panasonic has also some very well regarded primes and 3 high quality zooms as well as some inexpensive zooms.
In general, m43 cameras autofocus very fast, have smaller lenses, can have smaller cameras.

Sorry, if I say more about micro four thirds, that is what I know the most about.

 

[Ultima_weaponx]

I know that this is a bit out of your price range, but just to chime in...

I have a Nikon D90 with very light use for sale at $500.
It includes an 18-105mm lens, original battery+charger, carry bag and manuals.
the shutter has ~2700 actuations

The guys in this thread will likely know more about it than I do, but I can guarantee that it has seen very limited use. I've used it for taking pictures of collectible figures for the past 3 years, so it hasn't been subject to any punishment.
It was an impulse buy for me back when it was $1100 brand new :funky: Back in the day when I had moneyyyy :haha:

So the dudes in this thread ought to know more about it than I do, I think. But as far as reviews went back then, it was a pretty badass camera.

Whatever you choose, best of luck!