Question Suggestion about buying a Camera?

[Eccentrus]

Well guys, I've been saving for a new camera and is at $450 now, and I still have several months to save on this before I go to a big trip where I would want to use this new camera (I currently am not in possession of any dedicated camera, my last one was an Olympus film pocket camera) and I am mightily interested in the dSLRs.

My current choices are either a Nikon D3200 or a Sony SLT A66K, I've seen many reviews and I think my choices and budget will fall to either of these two. So presumably some of you guys are very experienced in this kind of thing while I'm not, so I'm here asking for a suggestion.

 

[statickid]

I have a thought on that...

I used Canon point shoots pretty much from the first model, (advantix film 1998-99 :lol

I also have enjoyed a Nikon D100 from a pawn shop. I've had the DSLR for almost 5 years, they mistakenly sold me $2000 lens attached to the front of it worth FAR more than the camera. I picked up a lens or two to supplement it since then.

Here's my 2 cents:

A DSLR is a huge commitment. Only get one if you also plan to spend at least equal to or four times what you spent on the camera. I was lucky to get a high end lens with my camera. However I couldnt use it in a lot of situations coz I'd literally have to walk 30 feet back to snap a pic with 3 people in it. I supplemented with a 50mm primary lens, and its nice, but still doesn't have the field of view of my point and click. Also plan on carrying camera bags with you everywhere, lenses are bulky and heavy. DSLRs are romantic, but require lots of time, money, hassle, and effort. You'll also Need to get things like CCD cleaning kits, an air dust blaster and may want haze filters for the lenses. If you are interested in a telephoto picture, prepare to PAY, big time. There's no point in having removable lenses and then cheap out on them.

If your interested in a travel camera, I highly, highly highly recommend the other branch of camera you haven't mentioned. I recommend a super zoom model. You know the ones that look vaguely like DSLRs but operate like a point and shoot. My brother got one because we were going on a two week safari in Kenya. Let me tell you, I was incredibly jealous of the speed and magnitude of the zoom.

I think it could be summarized this way: dslr : the focus is on the camera you actually bring extra luggage for the camera and your only goal is to take pictures, period. big zoom: the focus is on the trip, great pictures, enjoy travel as well as take pictures, more ready for all occasions.

For DSLR go with Nikon, don't buy the newest model, get one a year or two old, DSLR has incredible longevity. Save money on the camera body and spend it on a better lens or there's no point in having DSLR. Expect it to last 10+ years service and consider it your new hobby.

For big zoom, I recommend checking out Nikon, Sony, but don't forget Canon. For these I recommend going to a robust camera store with lots of demo models and trying them out yourself. Check out the UIs, speed of lenses, drive speed, image stabilization on a zoomed in video, clarity of photos etc, read camera blog reviews.

Also consider history, Nikon and canon came from camera and lens manufacture, Sony comes from electronics and video recording. They are all good and maturing now, but their histories are still evident as subtle strengths in their cameras.

I guess that was more like 3 cents.

P.s.
No matter what your big camera of choice is, your tiny pocket camera is still valuable.
Don't forget its the photographer that takes good pictures, not the camera or its price tag.

---------- Post added at 06:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 AM ----------

I just reread your op and saw your last camera was film?




don't forget to look at the Nikon, canon, and Sony pocket cameras. They are awesome. For your money you can buy a great one! For choosing I recommend the same process as big zoom mentioned above. Pocket cameras and big zoom are better for video recording. Don't be fooled by digital zoom, its crap. All that matters is the lensatic zoom is the one that counts. Good luck!

---------- Post added at 06:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 AM ----------

Oh and get a camera that can take HDR sets automatically!!

 

[Eccentrus]

well I don't even have tiny pocket camera on me now :lol: after the advent of photo-enabled phones, my family stopped being interested in cameras since nobody is actually into photography, except for me. I want to choose dSLR because of the ability to manual zoom and focus. My Olympus was the last of the film camera which means it had auto-focus and all the fancy stuffs in the digicam, but with film as the capture device, and at that time I still think photography as a point-and-shoot thing. And then as I got older I was introduced to dSLRs by my uncle and my view of point just changed, but having a camera was nowhere in my list of priority for various reasons. Now that I have a lot of things going on I feel incomplete by the lack of proper documentation of what I saw in my trips, I mean yes I do have a lot of pictures from my phone, but my phone is not able to take what I want people to see, well I think you get what I mean here. As you said photography is more of the person behind the viewfinder rather than the tool itself, and I simply can't get my personality out with phone-cameras or pocket-cams, I need things that can manually zoom and focus, and that is the primer, the others including HDR is just a bonus thanks to moore's law

Well I don't know if I am able to spur out that much money into lenses, but I know that I will be interested into buying more than the stock ones, and filters etc. and I know that one of the first things I'll buy is a proper Tripod :lol:

I am ready with the bulk of things that I have to carry, I am already used to having to carry lots of clothes including the major systems of my computing devices (this is why I go for laptops now), I'm quite the mobile person because I basically live in two cities and have to be able to go home and continue work for my campus there, well you know, one of the perks of being a med student.

I'm sorry if I have to ask one more question, I recently found that dSLRs has just branched into the mirrored and mirrorless ones, and how do mirrorless cameras compare to dSLRs? I read that mirrors somehow gives you either more of a focus or quicker focus or whatnot compared to the mirrorless, well they ought to have the same CCDs if I'm not wrong, but I'm still much too ignorant about the subject.

 

[orb]

I recently found that dSLRs has just branched into the mirrored and mirrorless ones

With interchangeable lenses, it's either mirrored (SLR) or mirrorless (MILC*) camera. I haven't heard about mirrorless (d)SLR.

* Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera

 

[Eccentrus]

Ah I see, well that's exactly what you'll expect from someone just trying to enter the field . I've been searching around again and it seems that the only difference around is between having an optical viewfinder and not

 

[statickid]

I have to recommend Nikon for DSLR. I love mine, I have several friends that are professional photographers, including an international photo journalist and they all use Nikon. Basically Nikon has good lenses.

The mirror less cameras are trying to bring down the form factor, but have digital viewfinders. Get the DSLR I'd say. The optical viewfinder is the most gratifying and inspirational parts of going this direction in cameras.

Don't put too much emphasis on manual focus and zoom. What you pay out for in DSLR is a faster more accurate auto focus and image stabilization, and these features are usually packed into the lens. The novelty of manual focus dies quickly as you flip through countless blurry pictures. Drive rate, (the ability to take photos in rapid succession while holding down the shutter release is more important). Manual focus and focusing where you want are two different things. You are used to cell phpone photography and i know what you are thinking about autofocus. The problem with cell phones is that they only have one central focus point, and it is in continuous focus mode. A good pocket digital camera, like my canon ELPH can hold focus points when you press the shutter release half way down. This is the typical procedure for modern photography auto focus. Fancy DSLRs may even have a whole array of focus points that you can select with your eye (yes, your eye), but essentially the idea is the same. You select a focus depth by aiming the focus point and pausing it, then frame the photo as you choose. You can even take out of focus photos with auto focus by pausing the lens while focusing up close then taking a far picture.

There are super zoom cameras with a manual zoom slider that may shot your purpose. Don't think even the most expensive phone comes close to the features and abilities of good tiny pocket cameras.

---------- Post added at 08:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------

Hey Eccentrus go look at my user albums and check out the "pix" album. The photos that are obviously from a hot sandy desert were taken with a nikon D100 DSLR, and all the rest were taken with a Canon ELPH power shot (my pocket camera line of chjoice). Been using canon pocket for over 10 years, and I DO research other brands as well as borrow other people's cameras

 

[Eccentrus]

well yes, I agree, out of many friends' camera that I tried, my best results are with dSLR exactly because of the optical viewfinder, it gives your eye a full view of what your camera is seeing, rather than a digital picture of it, which makes up a lot of difference in the results, because the LCD can only display so much information.

Well don't you worry about it because my phone's shutter works exactly like that, it have a two-stage shutter, but I think it's all just for the action rather than actually doing something in the lens there.

And I've also found that Mirrorless are generally $100 cheaper than their larger counterparts, I know that I'm being cheap here, but my wallet is now screaming for mirrorless :lol:

 

[statickid]

Just go to a camera shop and get one a year or two older model. You'll get the glass viewfinder and trust me its still a good camera. DSLRs have HUGE longevity. They don't age like the other electronics. Plus new technology comes packed into the lens

---------- Post added at 08:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 AM ----------

Realistically, if your serious about photography, youll probably end up with all three types of cameras

 

[Eccentrus]

I am now seriously considering to go for Mirrorless Nikon 1 J1 with the double lens package (18 - 30 and 30 - 110) at only $550, but I might also still go for Nikon D3200 at $580 here, but yes, as you said I might end up with at least two cameras (a mirrorless and a dSLR) and in another 3 - 4 years, when the money starts coming in to my white coat pocket, I might want to go at the dSLR on the $1000 or more range. What do you say? Should I now save up so that I get the most of one machine (multiple lenses for one camera)? I am able to save up to perhaps for two to three more lenses and all the kits necessary to record a good video with a mirrorless before I start to make money and then I can go for a mid or upper range of dSLR rather than the entry one, and since dSLR will promise the best quality of pictures, I might be inclined to go this way.

 

[statickid]

Lenses. The lenses are the most important part. I think if the 1j1 uses the same standard lenses, go for that as a starter. Honestly the HIGHEST end cameras are cool, but when you get a hold of your midrange dslr ya might just be so happy you don't really feel the need to upgrade.it is more worth it to plop down 2k on an awesome lens than get the shiniest camera with features you may not use. Moving up the DSLR scale will get you lower noise at higher ISO, more complex autofocus systems, and faster drive speed (more photos per second)

---------- Post added at 09:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

You can still use a Nikon lens from 1959 on your modern 2013 dslr. Don't think about buying lenses for one camera, think about your lens collection as separate from your camera body collection. I can't stress enough that newer is not always better. Photographers often take impeccable care of good equipment, and used lenses may be as good as new. In some cases a certain year may be favored over the recent model. Vintage primary lenses can also be very cool. At the very least make sure the first camera and lens set will have a lens that is compatible with the high end can,era you have your eye on. I think this is one of many reasons Nikon is favored, you can always count on your expensive lens to last for literally decades

 

[Eccentrus]

well the nikon D3200 don't really have autofocus, it depends on the motors from the lenses to do it which means that a higher model with built-in motor would be the proper way to go as far as we talk about dSLR, and those models can have $700 pricetag just for the body.

Unfortunately due to size differences the Nikon 1 have different mounts, they're not your usual F-mount lenses for dSLR, but then again, this series is expected to live long and I can use my lenses for later models, when this one is severely outdated and need a replacement.

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 PM ----------

PS: there is an adapter for Nikon 1 mount to Nikon F mount, so I think I should go on that, as you said, I can buy up the lenses and still use them, or even need not to buy the kit pack for the dSLR

 

[statickid]

The lens contain focus machinery, but the FOCUS CONTROLLER is in the camera body. When I say the higher end has more complex autofocus, I'm talking about intelligence, number of focus points and most importantly the selection of focus point used. The DSLR body senses the focus and controls the lens. The dumping money into lenses gives snappier focus response to the body. Basically the body searches for the focus with whatever speed the lens mechanism allows.

 

[Eccentrus]

well having the built-in motor, as I read it, for Nikon, is the difference of having autofocus on every lenses available for auto-focus, or only on select lenses which have integrated motors, and this is the primary reason of why D3200 only have 11 auto-focus point, by starting later and skip to the D7xxx series instead, my range of lenses will be widened and much more variety of photographic materials can be attained, I think that, economically, this is the way to go.

---------- Post added at 12:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 AM ----------

oh D3200 don't have HDR, I think that really puts it out, and D3200, as a starter, are incapable to put out good shots in low light condition, which I find a lot because I live in a misty environment, and having the tropical mountainous climate means that more often than not, I'll find the clouds blocking the sun for whole days.

 

[statickid]

The difference is that some lenses have enhanced control built in, but no lenses focus themselves entirely on their own without direction from the camera.yes, my D100 has an autofocus motor so that I can use lenses that don't have their own motor (older or cheaper). Focus points are just locations in the field of view that can be focused on. My d100 has only 5 in a cross shape. I select them with a directional button. That's cool about the f lens adapter.

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D3200#section_1

This says it doesn't "do" HDR because the range of sensitivity in RAW format is good enough to extract HDR without exposure bracketing.


Don't worry about the low-light conditions. I can guarantee that any comments about low light performance in a modern DSLR is in reference to indoor candle light conditions. Even the foggiest darkest cloudiest day in the woods is still bright light conditions. I live in the darkest cloudiest place in the US and trust me my old d100 does fine

 

[Eccentrus]

Alright, but my argument still stands that having auto-focus motor gives a wider choice of lenses, and you said that sometimes, a lens built in certain year is considered better than the others, and I think that if I seriously want to indulge myself in this, I have to get the widest array of lenses as possible, just as you said, it will be more of a collection for lenses rather than camera bodies, and Nikon D3200 will be unable to mount older or certain types of lenses and not even D5200 already have autofocus motor, so I think I have to postpone my dSLR until I am able to buy D7xxx series. Especially in light of this discussion, those two, lense-wise, is not much different than a Nikon 1 series with an F-mount adapter, with the addition of optical viewfinder and a better CCD (but we know that pixel count is not the absolute in photography). So I would rather bet on a Nikon 1 J1 for now.

Thank you for the informations and the discussion, it has been seriously useful and helpful for me.

---------- Post added at 12:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 AM ----------

Wait a minute, I searched for Nikon D100, and it was built as an advanced dSLR nearly in the range of the professional grade, not an entry level like D3200 or D5200 and still one level higher than the D7xxx series, and it's successor is the D x00s series (the latest is D600)

 

[statickid]

Yeah I love cameras. Have fun with your new carmera! I agree about the built in focus motor giving you a wider selection. Remember to check out a used DSLR when your ready to upgrade. I got mine because at the time even a 3 year old high end body blows the newest entry level cameras out of the water and can be found for comparable prices in top condition :thumbup:

---------- Post added at 10:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------

Yes I got mine for 499 with a 2000 lens stuck to it in a pawn shop.

---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 AM ----------

Pardon all my myriad typos, I've been using my tablet all morning :lol:

 

[PhantomCruiser]

If you can manage to find a Nikon D50, grab it. I've been more than happy with mine. I'm no professional, but what I've managed to capture over the years with mine is pretty good. Once I spent the time to learn about shutter speeds and aperture settings I turned out some great pictures ( my kid on stage at dance recitals, high school football, cheerleaders, etc).

For "casual" use I've got a Nikon coolpix, just a point-n-shoot. Works great outdoors, inside, meh. But if I screw around with the settings I can get it to look pretty good (but that defeats the purpose of a point-n-shoot).

 

[Eccentrus]

Well not going to buy in another month or so, but you have been a great help to narrow down my choice according to need and budget (hell if it's according to want rather than reason, we'll be talking about a 60MP 3.5" CMOS Hasselblad here)

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 AM ----------

If you can manage to find a Nikon D50, grab it. I've been more than happy with mine. I'm no professional, but what I've managed to capture over the years with mine is pretty good. Once I spent the time to learn about shutter speeds and aperture settings I turned out some great pictures ( my kid on stage at dance recitals, high school football, cheerleaders, etc).

For "casual" use I've got a Nikon coolpix, just a point-n-shoot. Works great outdoors, inside, meh. But if I screw around with the settings I can get it to look pretty good (but that defeats the purpose of a point-n-shoot).

well Nikon D50 was largely superseeded by Nikon D90 and the current entry for that level is D7100 and considering the price I would rather postpone until I can buy a camera body of that level, and in the meantime I play around with this cheaper mirrorless and collect lenses some of which will be compatible to the dSLR

 

[Cras]

if you are looking for a DSLR, go with a a Nikkon or a Canon. Either one you will be fine. Most people have one they grew up and learned on and that is the one they chose, but they are both pretty much close in terms of capability.

The key is the lens. The brain of the camera is pretty much standard, and from what I can tell you won't tell much from one or the other, the only thing you may run into is that you may wish you had a full framed camera....but its the lens. You have a good lens, and you spend the time to learn what it can do, you can get some good shots.

 

[PhantomCruiser]

Most of the people I know that traded up to the D90 didn't like it as much. Their consensus was that while it took pictures and video, it didn't do video very well.