Hi,
Im buying a digital slr for the first time and I am completely dumbstruck by the amount of information out there and the apparent similarity of so many cameras. Im considering a number of options; Canon XS, Nikon D3000, Pentax K-X, Sony a230 and Fujifilm HS10. I will mostly be taking outdoor pictures; landscapes, animals, some macro. Does anyone have any advice I could heed in making my choice. Any help is greatly appreciated.
thanks
The fujifilm is not a DSLR, it's a compact sensor with a large zoom fixed lens. Subsequently the quality and flexibity will be miles behind any other DSLR.
As for the rest, all modern DSLRs are capable of taking fantastic pictures at resolutions we're unlikely to useYour suggested uses are also covered by lenses from all manufacturers.
So I would basically get down to a camera store with a budget in mind, and ask to try *every* DSLR that fits in that budget. They've all got different grips and different ways of accessing the controls, then go for which feels the most comfortable.
Nikon D5000 should be your choice. It's got the same sensor as in the far pricier D90 and has pretty spectacular image quality as a result. Noise is also handled very well -- I have it myself and just keep it at ISO 800 all the time. Which sometimes gets me in trouble as that's too strong for well lit outdoor photography, but that's another matter. It's simply a beautiful, rugged camera that does what a DSLR is supposed to do, it makes you wonder how you ever lived without one.
The D3000 has a worse sensor, ditto the D3100. I'd spring the extra bit of cash for the D5000.
Reasons not to go for the sony ? The image stabilisation is in the body of the camera, not in the lenses, so when a newer IS comes out (as it has on Nikon and Canon lenses) you are stuck with the old one.
Id also go for Nikon but I am biased as I have the D70 and D200
Cheers, David
I'm not so sure about "miles" behind. On image quality, behind, yes, but it's pretty decent. On flexibility, well, yes, there I agree with you.Originally Posted by kalniel
Paul, just remember that when you buy an SLR, you're not buying a camera, you're buying into a system. If you buy lenses for Nikon, then won't fit Canon or Pentax, if you buy Canon bits, they won't fit Nikon, etc. So .... if you buy a camera now and then decide in two, or five years time you'd rather have a different system, it's going to cost you a LOT to sell all the bits you've bought and but it all over again in a different system. And those "bits" might end up totalling thousands of pounds/dollars, by the time you've added a few lenses, and maybe a flash, battery grip, etc.
My advice is to look at what equipment you think you may add on, and work out which manufacturer offers you the best options, and prices, on that. From what you say, you're going to end up wanting a fairly wide range of lenses .... probably wide-angle for landscapes, telephoto for animals and, of course, macro for macro. By the time you've added up the cost of those, if you go for good quality, the cost of the cameras is trivial, and certainly the cost of upgrading or replacing it is far smaller than selling up several good lenses and a flash, and replacing them too.
With a few rare exceptions, I'm not convinced it makes much difference in system if you choose Canon or Nikon, but both have a more extensive range of options than the others. One of those exceptions would be Canon's MPE-60 macro, for which (unless I've missed it) neither Nikon nor anyone else has an equivalent. But, it's a pretty specialised macro lens, so unless you're really serious about macro, it may not be an issue. If you are really serious about it, that alone may chose your camera manufacturer for you.
As for prices, my feeling is that, generally, you'll pay a bit more for Nikon accessories than you will for Canon. There are exceptions, and the difference is not huge, but it's there. It's also worth bearing in mind that other makes, like Olympus, may not have the range of options in their accessories, but they may have enough to suit what you'll need. If so, don't rule them out.
Finally, camera handling is important. Some models may suit you, some may not, and the only way to tell is to physically handle them. On that point, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else advises, because it's you it has to suit. For instance, if you've got big hands, you may find the more compact models too fiddly, and if you've got small hands, the bigger 'pro' models may be heavy, awkward and cumbersome.
Do you know how to take pictures etc? If not, just grab a standard entry level SLR from Canon or Nikon. You will have a learning curve on the functions on these ones alone anyways.
I think you don't need a really expensive camera at the moment. Focus on knowing how to take pictures first I think.
By the time you know how to take pictures, the SLRs will have improved again with new models and you can then pick a SLR you want.
Whilst I know g8ina has definately hacked cameras appart I hate to say WTF.Reasons not to go for the sony ? The image stabilisation is in the body of the camera, not in the lenses, so when a newer IS comes out (as it has on Nikon and Canon lenses) you are stuck with the old one.
Id also go for Nikon but I am biased as I have the D70 and D200
Ok I'm a geek whos geekery outstrips his artistic abilities, but please, lets not have such fud.
Going for the Sony or the Pentax which have IS in the body is ONLY a postative thing for quality, it will add to the weight, cost and its another thing that can break (thou I've never seen it happen). A new lens comes out with better IS, you switch off the IS on the body. Simples, my k-20d has a dedicated hardware switch for this because on some long exposures it creates issues (and if your wanting to do cool panning shots it can work against).
I've a leaning to pentax for the hardware build quality, Canon are just crap at that price range, they cram in a world of features which you might think you need (I sure did when I was getting away from 35mm, how cool!) but ultimately they don't feel right to me, and I've seen two die (one was in iceland on a glacier giving it some credit).
Sony have a great UI, my mum is diabetic so suffers as quite a lot do from rapidly changing eye prescriptions so having a very good quick live view which is definately at the top end of budget DSLRs is very good. The live view on the pentax is a crop of dung. Thing is for me that doesn't bother me. Given the new economy Pentax's low light performance, and built in IS, you can have an excellent low light shooter with the 1.4F 50mm (which costs £150), thats not bad imho.
An ex had a Nikon D80 which was a nice bit of kit too, but tbh left me pining for the pentax glass. But Nikon do have a really gnarly wireless flash system that is definately best in class (I'd have to go up and touch flashgun to change settings!)
So in closing as someone said, try them, find the one that feels right in your hand, or comes at a good price in the config for the kind of shooting you want to do to start with.
And ignore with a terminal intensity someone who is so ravidly fanboy esk that they would say in body IS is a bad thing..... That made me have to post this rant.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Hmmmm, so lemme get this straight - with the sony you can switch off the IS and use the IS built into a lens ?
dint know that
and I wouldnt say I was rabidly fanboyesque, I just like my Nikons
Cheers, David
I would get the Pentax K-X especially since many places have it for around 350 quid:
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-...m-Lens_1033548
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_....22_KAF2_mount
Also,being a K mount camera there is a wide range of lenses available too.
Here are some details on the K mount:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_....22_KAF2_mount
Also, one of the Sony dSLRs are worth looking at too. They are compatible with all the older Minolta AF lenses too. Sony have also released some cheaper SAM lenses too:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0905/09...fourlenses.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10...mm35mm85mm.asp
I've not tried it with the Sonies, but with my Pentax I spent a fair while playing with this sigma day lens that had just come out to help me decide between it and the tamron.Hmmmm, so lemme get this straight - with the sony you can switch off the IS and use the IS built into a lens ?
dint know that
It is intresting as some kind of shots the in lens is better, but on a cheap day lens like that (£400 IS lens) the in body was vastly superiour for the low light stuff. Also the k-x has more advanced sensor shift than the k20d I have!
My point is in body IS is a brilliant thing, you really have to be drinking from the kool aid to think otherwise.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
But similarly, ignore anyone that's so fanboi that they would say in-body is unambiguously the best.
The truth is, both systems have their advantages.
It is undeniable that in-body is cheaper, because you only build it in once. It's also undeniable that if it packs up, you lose IS on all lenses, whereas with in-lens IS, if the IS fails it doesn't affect the body or other lenses.
It's also the case (unless someone's brought out a variant I haven't seen) that in-lens IS stabilises the viewfinder and in-body doesn't, because the sensors are behind the split. It's nicer for the user to have the crisp image in the viewfinder. I've seen claims that the same applies to auto-focus effectiveness, and certainly with in-lens IS, it's stabilised before the image gets anywhere near focus sensors.
To my mind, in lens is marginally, but I do stress marginally better. Whether it's better enough to justify the additional cost is entirely another thing, but is also often not just about IS. For instance, I have a Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, and I've had it for about 10 years. If I had a body with IS built-in, it would be stabilised, whereas Canon's new 100mm 2.8 IS macro is about £800. However, the new lens is regarded as being better than the old one, despite the fact that the old one is very, very good indeed.
Where in-body is indisputably better is that you can use your old lenses, or buy loads of relatively cheap second hand ones, and get IS from an IS body. But there are technical advantages, like stabilising the viewfinder image, to in-lens.
It's horses for courses. For newcomers, in-body has more significant advantages than it does for those with an existing investment to protect. For me, with a collection of Canon EF-mount lenses that pre-date IS, and with some IS lenses that date from when Canon released the very first 35mm IS lens, in-body is irrelevant unless Canon release a body (or bodies) with IS built-in, because I'm not about to spend thousands replacing all those lenses. If I were starting from scratch now, in-body IS would be a very tempting feature, but not enough, on it's own, to sway the decision. I'd be looking at what lenses were available, what other system accessories were available, and what I expected to need. IS, in-body or in-lens would feature into that, but not dominate it.
What I would like, and would not surprise me to see in the future, is Canon releasing in-body IS, at least, in their APS-C models. If they do that, and given the communications between lens and camera, there's no reason to suppose the body won't be able to sense when IS is active in-lens and disable in-body IS, or even give the user directly the option of which to use while still adding in-body IS to non-IS lenses. Now that, I would go for.
Indeed that was my point
But given the construction cost of sensor shift, I personally would consider it almost insignificant against the price of glass. You can also turn it off very easily, as it can create issues with long exp.
So the way I'm rabid is that its such a low cost to have such an option available to you on every glass.....
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
This may be of interest!
Canon 450D (with kit lens) for £324
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=330494310304 - Enter code: C2ARG9S to get it at £324
Thanks to everyone for the replies. really appreciate the advice. gonna go check out the D5000. I think perhaps its worth spending a little extra for video capability.
thanks again
ive just done a bit of looking around and it seems that choosing a dslr for its video capability is not really high up on the list. so bearing that in mind, is it worth spending an extra $150 to get either a Canon T1i or Nikon D5000 instead of the Canon Rebel XS?
Video function might be worth more to someone else, the pertinent question that you should be asking is is it worth paying extra for to you? ie. Do you want it? Do you need it? Will you use it?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
