Just pick a camera for me so I don't have to! Please!!
December 30, 2010 12:05 PM Subscribe
Yet another "pick a camera for me" question. Details inside.
My old point-and-shoot digital (E5600 Nikon Coolpix) died earlier this year (the screen when white, rendering it unusable), and I promised myself I'd buy a new DSLR before the new year, but the choices are overwhelming, so I've fallen back on my iPhone, where the photo quality isn't great - but at least we have photos of Christmas.
Really, I'm overwhelmed by the task of choosing a camera. Choose for me.
Budget: Sub $1000, including lens. Ideally sub $600, but I think that's ambitious.
Must:
- Manually focus, with decent depth of field.
- Have slight zoom but I don't need a huge one
- Be pretty easy to use. Many DSLRs have twenty million options, and I don't need that. Some flexibility re: light levels, sports mode, etc, but I don't need thirty (or a hundred) settings.
- Be sturdy enough to be dragged to the beach, on camping trips, etc.
- Probably a built-in flash, but that's not essential.
- Be small enough to fit in a backpack. (ie: small enough that I'll actually take it places with me and get it out.)
For years I shot with a Canon T50 (film) camera, that I loved, and which took really great photos while being very simple to operate. I have a pretty good "eye" but I don't enjoy the technical details of photography.
What camera will best replicate the experience of shooting with my T50. That's the camera I want.
My old point-and-shoot digital (E5600 Nikon Coolpix) died earlier this year (the screen when white, rendering it unusable), and I promised myself I'd buy a new DSLR before the new year, but the choices are overwhelming, so I've fallen back on my iPhone, where the photo quality isn't great - but at least we have photos of Christmas.
Really, I'm overwhelmed by the task of choosing a camera. Choose for me.
Budget: Sub $1000, including lens. Ideally sub $600, but I think that's ambitious.
Must:
- Manually focus, with decent depth of field.
- Have slight zoom but I don't need a huge one
- Be pretty easy to use. Many DSLRs have twenty million options, and I don't need that. Some flexibility re: light levels, sports mode, etc, but I don't need thirty (or a hundred) settings.
- Be sturdy enough to be dragged to the beach, on camping trips, etc.
- Probably a built-in flash, but that's not essential.
- Be small enough to fit in a backpack. (ie: small enough that I'll actually take it places with me and get it out.)
For years I shot with a Canon T50 (film) camera, that I loved, and which took really great photos while being very simple to operate. I have a pretty good "eye" but I don't enjoy the technical details of photography.
What camera will best replicate the experience of shooting with my T50. That's the camera I want.
Manual focus, depth of field, and zoom are all dependent upon the lens, not the body.
dSLRs, even the starter set, inherently have tons of options, because they're a step up from point and shoots, and the manufacturer assumes the consumer will want to customize their shooting experience--otherwise, they would continue to buy point and shoots. But the great thing is that you don't have to fiddle with those options if you don't want to--just use the "auto" mode, or the various scene modes and let the camera determine your options for you.
Basically, any entry-level dSLR kit should do you fine. The Nikon D3000 can be had for a steal with all the recent upgrades in the lineup, or you can go for the D3100 which is newer, and does movies, live view, better ISO performance, etc. I don't know much about Canons, but I'd imagine a T1i kit would probably work as well.
Best of luck and happy shooting!
posted by litnerd at 12:23 PM on December 30, 2010
dSLRs, even the starter set, inherently have tons of options, because they're a step up from point and shoots, and the manufacturer assumes the consumer will want to customize their shooting experience--otherwise, they would continue to buy point and shoots. But the great thing is that you don't have to fiddle with those options if you don't want to--just use the "auto" mode, or the various scene modes and let the camera determine your options for you.
Basically, any entry-level dSLR kit should do you fine. The Nikon D3000 can be had for a steal with all the recent upgrades in the lineup, or you can go for the D3100 which is newer, and does movies, live view, better ISO performance, etc. I don't know much about Canons, but I'd imagine a T1i kit would probably work as well.
Best of luck and happy shooting!
posted by litnerd at 12:23 PM on December 30, 2010
Response by poster: Manual focus, depth of field, and zoom are all dependent upon the lens, not the body.
Yes and no. Point and shoots, and even some "entry level" DSLRS (I guess they're called something like "pro-sumer" now) have fixed lenses, which drive me crazy. I can focus my own photos, thank you very much. My point was that I don't want a fixed lens camera - i want the ability to manually focus and change lenses.
Just about any entry-level SLR is going to be perfect for you.
Yes, and herein lies the problem. I spent a good two hours in our local indy camera shop holding cameras and playing with them, and left with nothing but a headache.
But the great thing is that you don't have to fiddle with those options if you don't want to--just use the "auto" mode, or the various scene modes and let the camera determine your options for you.
The camera store nerds certainly didn't make it sound like this. I left feeling like the step up from P&S was a BIG step - that it was all auto, or all manual, but no choices in between.
posted by anastasiav at 12:29 PM on December 30, 2010
Yes and no. Point and shoots, and even some "entry level" DSLRS (I guess they're called something like "pro-sumer" now) have fixed lenses, which drive me crazy. I can focus my own photos, thank you very much. My point was that I don't want a fixed lens camera - i want the ability to manually focus and change lenses.
Just about any entry-level SLR is going to be perfect for you.
Yes, and herein lies the problem. I spent a good two hours in our local indy camera shop holding cameras and playing with them, and left with nothing but a headache.
But the great thing is that you don't have to fiddle with those options if you don't want to--just use the "auto" mode, or the various scene modes and let the camera determine your options for you.
The camera store nerds certainly didn't make it sound like this. I left feeling like the step up from P&S was a BIG step - that it was all auto, or all manual, but no choices in between.
posted by anastasiav at 12:29 PM on December 30, 2010
I bought a Nikon D3000 this year, and found that I love it precisely for the wide range of auto/manual combinations. It can be full auto, full manual, and just about everything (that I want) in between. It has shooting modes (sports, night, portrait, etc.) and setting priority modes (you set the aperture/shutter and the camera sets the rest).
Lenses are interchangeable, but the 18-55mm kit lens isn't great for narrowing depth of field. I added the 35mm f/1.8 Nikon lens and I'm glad I did. While lenses can autofocus, it's not necessary to use the autofocus feature. Just set the lens to manual, and focus your shot yourself.
I didn't care about live view because I'm used to a viewfinder, and didn't want video in my DSLR, so the D3000 was a great choice for me to jump into an entry-level DSLR
posted by LouMac at 12:39 PM on December 30, 2010
Lenses are interchangeable, but the 18-55mm kit lens isn't great for narrowing depth of field. I added the 35mm f/1.8 Nikon lens and I'm glad I did. While lenses can autofocus, it's not necessary to use the autofocus feature. Just set the lens to manual, and focus your shot yourself.
I didn't care about live view because I'm used to a viewfinder, and didn't want video in my DSLR, so the D3000 was a great choice for me to jump into an entry-level DSLR
posted by LouMac at 12:39 PM on December 30, 2010
Yes and no. Point and shoots, and even some "entry level" DSLRS (I guess they're called something like "pro-sumer" now) have fixed lenses, which drive me crazy. I can focus my own photos, thank you very much. My point was that I don't want a fixed lens camera - i want the ability to manually focus and change lenses.
Those "Prosumer" cameras with non-interchangable lenses are not SLRs. They're high-end point-and-shoots. When we talk about entry-level SLRs, we're talking about the Canon T1 and the Nikon 3000/3100 - not, say, the Canon G10 or Panasonic DMC-FZ40.
The camera store nerds certainly didn't make it sound like this. I left feeling like the step up from P&S was a BIG step - that it was all auto, or all manual, but no choices in between.
I'd like to give a stern talking to those camera store nerds. The step up from P&S does not have to be a big step. Every SLR sold today, especially the entry-level ones, has a huge basket of automatic modes that will do everything for you short of clicking the shutter. And there's a wide range of them - from fully-automated modes to the "automatic" that I prefer, that gives me manual control over things like white balance and ISO while letting the camera auto-select aperture and exposure time. You can mix-and-match any settings with automatic or manual focus.
Also, if you want to change lenses, you want (read: need) an SLR. The only interchangable-lens non-SLR cameras are things like the Panasonic G2, which are technically not SLRs in that they don't have a Single Lens Reflex, but provide all the manual controls and lens-swapping fun of an SLR. In other words, they're just like SLRs from the perspective of the person taking photos - it's just that tech/photo nerds will sputter with frustration if you call them that.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:44 PM on December 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Those "Prosumer" cameras with non-interchangable lenses are not SLRs. They're high-end point-and-shoots. When we talk about entry-level SLRs, we're talking about the Canon T1 and the Nikon 3000/3100 - not, say, the Canon G10 or Panasonic DMC-FZ40.
The camera store nerds certainly didn't make it sound like this. I left feeling like the step up from P&S was a BIG step - that it was all auto, or all manual, but no choices in between.
I'd like to give a stern talking to those camera store nerds. The step up from P&S does not have to be a big step. Every SLR sold today, especially the entry-level ones, has a huge basket of automatic modes that will do everything for you short of clicking the shutter. And there's a wide range of them - from fully-automated modes to the "automatic" that I prefer, that gives me manual control over things like white balance and ISO while letting the camera auto-select aperture and exposure time. You can mix-and-match any settings with automatic or manual focus.
Also, if you want to change lenses, you want (read: need) an SLR. The only interchangable-lens non-SLR cameras are things like the Panasonic G2, which are technically not SLRs in that they don't have a Single Lens Reflex, but provide all the manual controls and lens-swapping fun of an SLR. In other words, they're just like SLRs from the perspective of the person taking photos - it's just that tech/photo nerds will sputter with frustration if you call them that.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:44 PM on December 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
I can't think of a DSLR that doesn't have interchangeable lenses off of the top of my head, but you're correct that the two are not synonymous concepts.
In any event, posters above are right that really any camera in your price range is going to do everything you want and much more. I shoot Canon, and Nikon is fine too (I tend not to recommend any other makers, though they have their merits; there's something to be said for buying the two most widely available formats). For what it's worth, here's Canon's comparison of the kits of their three most reasonably priced models, the T2i, the T1i and the XSi.
If you really want a deep depth of field, Canon (and I think Nikon) makes an inexpensive 50mm f1.8. The background blur that they produce is not the world's loveliest, but you can be very selective in your focusing. At f1.8, you would have about four inches of depth of field if your subject is five feet away. With the kit lenses wide open to f3.5, by comparison, you'd have about eight inches of depth of field at the same distance.
All of these cameras allow you to go from full manual, to aperture and shutter priority, to full program modes.
You can go two ways here. If it were me, I'd get the T2i kit (it's the newest and will last you a number of years), and the 50mm 1.8 and be done with it. If this is your first DSLR, you'll get much more out of actually having the camera in your hands than you would by over thinking this. On the other hand, you can just get the cheapest of the three--the XSi--and accept that you'll grow out of it. The lenses you buy today (i.e., the kit lens and the 50mm 1.8) will work on your next Canon (provided that you don't upgrade to the real prosumer line and above--ca. $2,500).
Auto focus really is your friend; you just need to know how to control the AF points.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 1:00 PM on December 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
In any event, posters above are right that really any camera in your price range is going to do everything you want and much more. I shoot Canon, and Nikon is fine too (I tend not to recommend any other makers, though they have their merits; there's something to be said for buying the two most widely available formats). For what it's worth, here's Canon's comparison of the kits of their three most reasonably priced models, the T2i, the T1i and the XSi.
If you really want a deep depth of field, Canon (and I think Nikon) makes an inexpensive 50mm f1.8. The background blur that they produce is not the world's loveliest, but you can be very selective in your focusing. At f1.8, you would have about four inches of depth of field if your subject is five feet away. With the kit lenses wide open to f3.5, by comparison, you'd have about eight inches of depth of field at the same distance.
All of these cameras allow you to go from full manual, to aperture and shutter priority, to full program modes.
You can go two ways here. If it were me, I'd get the T2i kit (it's the newest and will last you a number of years), and the 50mm 1.8 and be done with it. If this is your first DSLR, you'll get much more out of actually having the camera in your hands than you would by over thinking this. On the other hand, you can just get the cheapest of the three--the XSi--and accept that you'll grow out of it. The lenses you buy today (i.e., the kit lens and the 50mm 1.8) will work on your next Canon (provided that you don't upgrade to the real prosumer line and above--ca. $2,500).
Auto focus really is your friend; you just need to know how to control the AF points.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 1:00 PM on December 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
I don't know enough about cameras to really ramble on about it, but. I am extremely happy with my Olympus Pen E-PL1, and it fits your criteria. You can focus it or tell it to focus itself; it's nice and sturdy but also nice and compact; it's so easy to use that I, not very knowledgeable, have still not made it to reading the manual. That model has a little pop-up flash, too (not all the Pens do).
posted by kmennie at 1:03 PM on December 30, 2010
posted by kmennie at 1:03 PM on December 30, 2010
I meant to add that getting any of this stuff used, if you can find a reputable seller, is a great bargain. That 50mm lens is easily had for $99 on Craigslist. A camera body that is just a year or two old can be had for hundreds less than new.
No joke: I've bought thousands of dollars worth of camera lenses in coffee shops and parking lots, and I've never had a problem. Saved a fortune.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 1:03 PM on December 30, 2010
No joke: I've bought thousands of dollars worth of camera lenses in coffee shops and parking lots, and I've never had a problem. Saved a fortune.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 1:03 PM on December 30, 2010
Look into micro four-thirds - it's a new format. Basically it has the body of a P&S and has interchangable lenses. Quite a few people I know have bought it exactly because of its size - your best camera is the one you have with you.
- Manually focus, with decent depth of field.
- Have slight zoom but I don't need a huge one
- Be pretty easy to use. Many DSLRs have twenty million options, and I don't need that. Some flexibility re: light levels, sports mode, etc, but I don't need thirty (or a hundred) settings.
- Be sturdy enough to be dragged to the beach, on camping trips, etc.
Not exactly sure what you meant by "sturdy"...like you can drop it onto concrete floor and it would still work?
- Probably a built-in flash, but that's not essential.
- Be small enough to fit in a backpack. (ie: small enough that I'll actually take it places with me and get it out.)
You would love mocro four-thirds because of their size.
Give it a look. I know Sony and Samsung have them and they are gaining a lot of popularity among people who are in similar situations as you are.
posted by jstarlee at 1:21 PM on December 30, 2010
- Manually focus, with decent depth of field.
- Have slight zoom but I don't need a huge one
- Be pretty easy to use. Many DSLRs have twenty million options, and I don't need that. Some flexibility re: light levels, sports mode, etc, but I don't need thirty (or a hundred) settings.
- Be sturdy enough to be dragged to the beach, on camping trips, etc.
Not exactly sure what you meant by "sturdy"...like you can drop it onto concrete floor and it would still work?
- Probably a built-in flash, but that's not essential.
- Be small enough to fit in a backpack. (ie: small enough that I'll actually take it places with me and get it out.)
You would love mocro four-thirds because of their size.
Give it a look. I know Sony and Samsung have them and they are gaining a lot of popularity among people who are in similar situations as you are.
posted by jstarlee at 1:21 PM on December 30, 2010
I was in almost exactly the same situation as you a few weeks ago. After a ton of consideration and research, I went with the Canon EOS Rebel T2i/550D, the newest in the Canon Digital Rebel line. After a couple of weeks of use, I'm extremely happy with the purchase. My decision was ultimately based on the fact that it has gotten unusually fantastic reviews ("it is the best camera of its class that we've ever seen, and one of those rare cameras that won't look out of date in a couple of years' time"). To address your specific requirements:
- You can get it with a decent kit lens for $800.
- The kit lens offers manual focus, decent zoom (18-55mm), and a decent depth of field (and the camera makes it very easy to get that depth of field on its "creative" setting).
- Its astonishingly easy to use. My previous camera was a comparable Nikon, and this is much much more intuitive and straightforward. It does have a bunch of settings, from full manual to fully automated and everything in between, but I can honestly say that the additional settings don't unnecessarily complicate things.
- The build quality is good and it feels good in your hands, though at this price you aren't going to get anything especially rugged.
- Built-in flash that is adequate.
- For a DSLR its about standard size, but quite light (18 oz). Not something that you can slip in a small bag, but definitely fits into a backpack.
Bonus: you may be able to use old Canon lenses you have lying around. Oh, and it takes really good pictures for its class, especially in low light.
Lastly, regarding this:
The camera store nerds certainly didn't make it sound like this. I left feeling like the step up from P&S was a BIG step - that it was all auto, or all manual, but no choices in between.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Canon T2i gives you both ends of the spectrum and lots in between. In fact, its those "in between" modes that I like the best. For example, it has a "creative" mode that allows you to quickly specify whether or not you want flash, how much depth of field you want (on a slider), and how bright you want the picture (slider), and then sets the aperture and shutter speed for you - a nice midway between P&S and manual SLR.
posted by googly at 1:55 PM on December 30, 2010
- You can get it with a decent kit lens for $800.
- The kit lens offers manual focus, decent zoom (18-55mm), and a decent depth of field (and the camera makes it very easy to get that depth of field on its "creative" setting).
- Its astonishingly easy to use. My previous camera was a comparable Nikon, and this is much much more intuitive and straightforward. It does have a bunch of settings, from full manual to fully automated and everything in between, but I can honestly say that the additional settings don't unnecessarily complicate things.
- The build quality is good and it feels good in your hands, though at this price you aren't going to get anything especially rugged.
- Built-in flash that is adequate.
- For a DSLR its about standard size, but quite light (18 oz). Not something that you can slip in a small bag, but definitely fits into a backpack.
Bonus: you may be able to use old Canon lenses you have lying around. Oh, and it takes really good pictures for its class, especially in low light.
Lastly, regarding this:
The camera store nerds certainly didn't make it sound like this. I left feeling like the step up from P&S was a BIG step - that it was all auto, or all manual, but no choices in between.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The Canon T2i gives you both ends of the spectrum and lots in between. In fact, its those "in between" modes that I like the best. For example, it has a "creative" mode that allows you to quickly specify whether or not you want flash, how much depth of field you want (on a slider), and how bright you want the picture (slider), and then sets the aperture and shutter speed for you - a nice midway between P&S and manual SLR.
posted by googly at 1:55 PM on December 30, 2010
Agree with jstarlee - a micro four thirds camera is what I got simply because I didn't want the million technical options on a full DSLR. I got the Sony NEX-5 and am incredibly happy with it.
posted by shazzam! at 2:14 PM on December 30, 2010
posted by shazzam! at 2:14 PM on December 30, 2010
You are buying the system, not just the camera, with a DSLR. If you are starting from scratch and not trying to use old stuff from film cameras then I would stick with Nikon and Canon. Either is fine. Buy used if possible. Spend you money on a good lens and get an OK body. The lens technology is not evolving rapidly but the bodies are. You can keep a lens for decades but a current digital camera body will truly be obsolete in a decade, and out of date much earlier. One thing to consider is future use of a lens. DSLRs mostly use APS-C sized sensors which are smaller than full size sensor which are the same size as 35mm film. Some lenses are made for the smaller size and some can be used on both the small and large sensors. DSLRs are evolving toward the larger sensors as the sensor technology allows them to be made more cheaply. A lens that can work with a full frame sensor may thus have a longer future than one built only for the APS-c sensors. You are getting a lens for today though so I wouldn't fret over this too much or spend much more for a lens built for both.
posted by caddis at 2:16 PM on December 30, 2010
posted by caddis at 2:16 PM on December 30, 2010
Though it might end up falling above your budget, I'm going to mention the Fujifilm Finepix X100 as a camera that might be worth waiting for. I've been seeking a compact digital for years that gives me some sort of manual control and a big, bright viewfinder, and it's the first serious offering in the category (and if you think the Canon G and the Nikon P compete than you haven't looked through their VFs lately): http://www.finepix-x100.com/
posted by tapesonthefloor at 2:16 PM on December 30, 2010
posted by tapesonthefloor at 2:16 PM on December 30, 2010
Concurring with the numerous suggestions that you look into an entry level DSLR from any company that makes them. The dogs have long since been weeded out.
My usual caveat is to suggest you go with a Nikon or Canon product unless you find a "can't live without it" feature of another brand. I say this only because in terms of everything from lenses and accessories to online support (tutorials, user base, etc.) the N and C brands tower over all others.
I will never, ever, understand why people shy away from DSLR cameras because of their so-called "too many options and controls". You can buy everything from a bottom line $500.00 DSLR w/kit lens to an $8000.00 high end camera body, and they'll all have an Automatic and/or Program mode. Either of these settings will effectively turn that camera into a point and shoot.
And, as I have answered here before, a micro 4/3 camera may well be a good solution for some people, but there is no micro 4/3 camera out there that has the capabilities of any entry level DSLR.
Regarding the upcoming Fuji Finepix X100, currently essentially vaporware, you have to ask yourself if you want to drop a substantial amount of money on a camera with absolutely zero capability to use interchangeable lenses. I see this camera far more as a supplement to one's arsenal than one's only camera.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:57 PM on December 30, 2010
My usual caveat is to suggest you go with a Nikon or Canon product unless you find a "can't live without it" feature of another brand. I say this only because in terms of everything from lenses and accessories to online support (tutorials, user base, etc.) the N and C brands tower over all others.
I will never, ever, understand why people shy away from DSLR cameras because of their so-called "too many options and controls". You can buy everything from a bottom line $500.00 DSLR w/kit lens to an $8000.00 high end camera body, and they'll all have an Automatic and/or Program mode. Either of these settings will effectively turn that camera into a point and shoot.
And, as I have answered here before, a micro 4/3 camera may well be a good solution for some people, but there is no micro 4/3 camera out there that has the capabilities of any entry level DSLR.
Regarding the upcoming Fuji Finepix X100, currently essentially vaporware, you have to ask yourself if you want to drop a substantial amount of money on a camera with absolutely zero capability to use interchangeable lenses. I see this camera far more as a supplement to one's arsenal than one's only camera.
posted by imjustsaying at 2:57 PM on December 30, 2010
I've started a similar but slightly lower price point hunt and am currently watching ebay for Nikon D40. Covers all your points I think, but I have an old Nikon zoom so I can get in with just a body. The micro4/3rds seem real interesting though.
posted by sammyo at 3:05 PM on December 30, 2010
posted by sammyo at 3:05 PM on December 30, 2010
Just buy a Nikon D3100 with whatever lens comes with it these days, put it in 'P' mode, stop worrying and go have fun with it.
It only seems complicated because the people that sell these cameras think it's in their interest to compete with each others' endless lists of specifications that most folks who just want to make pictures would be better off not thinking too hard about.
DSLRs are as complex or simple as you want to make them. When there's a specific shot you're trying to get or some particular photographic problem you want to solve, there's a big web full of geeks for you to ask and explore, if that's your thing. But in the meantime, you can keep things as simple as you like. 'P', or one of the self-explanatory 'scene modes' will get you a long way. You can leave just about anything else at its out-the-box setting and get some very good results.
posted by normy at 3:55 PM on December 30, 2010
It only seems complicated because the people that sell these cameras think it's in their interest to compete with each others' endless lists of specifications that most folks who just want to make pictures would be better off not thinking too hard about.
DSLRs are as complex or simple as you want to make them. When there's a specific shot you're trying to get or some particular photographic problem you want to solve, there's a big web full of geeks for you to ask and explore, if that's your thing. But in the meantime, you can keep things as simple as you like. 'P', or one of the self-explanatory 'scene modes' will get you a long way. You can leave just about anything else at its out-the-box setting and get some very good results.
posted by normy at 3:55 PM on December 30, 2010
Nthing getting an entry level Nikon or Canon and a fast 50mm or 35mm lens. Other brands surely make fine cameras, but if there's a chance that you will really get into photography, then you will want to have Nikon or Canon because of the huge choice in lenses, and used lenses from decades ago are still compatible.
posted by snofoam at 5:38 PM on December 30, 2010
posted by snofoam at 5:38 PM on December 30, 2010
Bought a Micro Four-Thirds system (Panasonic Lumix GF-1 with 20mm and 14-45 zoom lenses) for my Dad for Christmas this year after reading rave reviews. He'd been a frequent user of a Nikon SLR (the manual kind) in earlier years (he's now in his seventies), but had stopped taking photos over the past five years or so, saying the weight of the camera and the lenses was just too tiring and intrusive/intimidating (due to size) to the people being photographed. My hope is that the light and small GF-1, combined with the extremely fast 20mm lens, will help him fall in love with photography again. He can also use his manual Nikkor lenses (which are very nice indeed).
I brought my Nikon D80 home for the holidays so he could compare the size/weight of the GF-1 against a standard DSLR and I have to say that I'm a little jealous now. :)
In any case, I'd wait to see what camera-related announcements are made at CES before making a decision. You may see something that looks really appealing. (I hear Panasonic may be back with an instant digital camera....)
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:41 PM on December 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
I brought my Nikon D80 home for the holidays so he could compare the size/weight of the GF-1 against a standard DSLR and I have to say that I'm a little jealous now. :)
In any case, I'd wait to see what camera-related announcements are made at CES before making a decision. You may see something that looks really appealing. (I hear Panasonic may be back with an instant digital camera....)
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:41 PM on December 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Gah, I meant Polaroid, sorry. Polaroid may be back with an instant digital camera. Damn "P"s.
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:45 PM on December 30, 2010
posted by longdaysjourney at 6:45 PM on December 30, 2010
I'd normally learn towards recommending a dSLR myself, but "Be sturdy enough to be dragged to the beach, on camping trips, etc." and "Be small enough to fit in a backpack. (ie: small enough that I'll actually take it places with me and get it out.)" really does suggest a good point-and-shoot to me. Maybe a Micro 4/3 if you want to spend the money and be locked into newish & expensive-ish lenses.
As someone once said, "the best camera to have is the one you carry with you" - it's no good buying a dSLR if you leave it behind most of the time because you fear expensive damage or it won't fit in your bag.
But, if you're set on a dSLR:
"I spent a good two hours in our local indy camera shop holding cameras and playing with them, and left with nothing but a headache."
You, and the staff who were helping you, were "doing it wrong". At the bottom end they're all much of a muchness quality-wise, give or take the odd thing that various brands / models do slightly better than their competitors (e.g. the old D40's near-legendary high ISO performance and Nikon's slightly-better-than-average kit lens). Unless you're tied to a particular make, what you should focus on next time is how each one feels in your hand - weight, grip stability, control placement, logical menu flow, etc. These vary from person to person, and can mean the difference between a camera you use, and a camera you love to use.
And yeah - for the beginner, concentrate on how it works in "Program" mode. "Auto" is generally too auto, while program gets you thinking a bit about aperture, shutter speed, and ISO one at a time, and you can see the effect of the relationship between them. Particularly if you're coming from a P&S and you want "good depth of field", since that's largely a function of aperture.
Manual focus? Well, I've yet to see a kit lens that's really good for manual focus (although I'm told the current Canon - what is it, 17-55? - is slightly better than the Nikon 18-55). What you're looking for is a focus ring that is easy to find, smooth but well-damped, has good range (i.e. one that rotates through 8/10ths of a circle is better than one that only rotates half-way), and ideally rotates independently of the front element (so any filter you use doesn't rotate when focussing). That's something that falls under the "feel" I mentioned above, but is lens-dependant rather than camera-dependant. However, no kit lens (and very few auto-focus lenses outside of pro gear) will beat a good old manual-only lens. Luckily, they can be picked up relatively cheap online thought eBay / KEH / etc, or occasionally in pawn shops.
(If your interests really lean towards manual focus and buying older lenses - consider Pentax. Their cheaper dSLRs are comparable picture quality wise, lens quality is generally good, in-hand feel (for me) is somewhere between Nikon and Canon, but because they're not quite as popular old lenses are usually a lot cheaper.)
But, overall, go by feel. Put each one into your preferred mode (e.g. Program), then turn it off and put it back into the bag. If you can reach into the bag, grab it comfortably, put it up to your eye, zoom and frame, change aperture / shutter speed easily (depending on mode), and your index finger rests on the shutter button - all without looking at it - then that's the best camera for you.
posted by Pinback at 7:01 PM on December 30, 2010
As someone once said, "the best camera to have is the one you carry with you" - it's no good buying a dSLR if you leave it behind most of the time because you fear expensive damage or it won't fit in your bag.
But, if you're set on a dSLR:
"I spent a good two hours in our local indy camera shop holding cameras and playing with them, and left with nothing but a headache."
You, and the staff who were helping you, were "doing it wrong". At the bottom end they're all much of a muchness quality-wise, give or take the odd thing that various brands / models do slightly better than their competitors (e.g. the old D40's near-legendary high ISO performance and Nikon's slightly-better-than-average kit lens). Unless you're tied to a particular make, what you should focus on next time is how each one feels in your hand - weight, grip stability, control placement, logical menu flow, etc. These vary from person to person, and can mean the difference between a camera you use, and a camera you love to use.
And yeah - for the beginner, concentrate on how it works in "Program" mode. "Auto" is generally too auto, while program gets you thinking a bit about aperture, shutter speed, and ISO one at a time, and you can see the effect of the relationship between them. Particularly if you're coming from a P&S and you want "good depth of field", since that's largely a function of aperture.
Manual focus? Well, I've yet to see a kit lens that's really good for manual focus (although I'm told the current Canon - what is it, 17-55? - is slightly better than the Nikon 18-55). What you're looking for is a focus ring that is easy to find, smooth but well-damped, has good range (i.e. one that rotates through 8/10ths of a circle is better than one that only rotates half-way), and ideally rotates independently of the front element (so any filter you use doesn't rotate when focussing). That's something that falls under the "feel" I mentioned above, but is lens-dependant rather than camera-dependant. However, no kit lens (and very few auto-focus lenses outside of pro gear) will beat a good old manual-only lens. Luckily, they can be picked up relatively cheap online thought eBay / KEH / etc, or occasionally in pawn shops.
(If your interests really lean towards manual focus and buying older lenses - consider Pentax. Their cheaper dSLRs are comparable picture quality wise, lens quality is generally good, in-hand feel (for me) is somewhere between Nikon and Canon, but because they're not quite as popular old lenses are usually a lot cheaper.)
But, overall, go by feel. Put each one into your preferred mode (e.g. Program), then turn it off and put it back into the bag. If you can reach into the bag, grab it comfortably, put it up to your eye, zoom and frame, change aperture / shutter speed easily (depending on mode), and your index finger rests on the shutter button - all without looking at it - then that's the best camera for you.
posted by Pinback at 7:01 PM on December 30, 2010
I need to put in a good word for Pentax here - they've been doing SLR's for longer than either Nikon or Canon, so there's no chance of them going under, and their system has image stabilization built into the body, rather than the lenses. The K-r is a great beginner's model, and has a ton of very nice lenses available for it in a mere-mortal price range.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:27 PM on December 30, 2010
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:27 PM on December 30, 2010
depth of field ... dependent upon the lens, not the body.
Depth of field is very dependent on the body. Sensor size determines depth of field (here's an okay overview, if you scroll down to the depth of field discussion). With point and shoots, the tiny sensor size (maybe the size of pinhead, sometimes) makes depth of field nearly impossible to achieve. And, a medium format camera has much shallower depth of field than a 35mm camera.
Be pretty easy to use. Many DSLRs have twenty million options, and I don't need that.
Those options are only there if you use them. I have a 5d, and I guess it has a million options, too, but I don't know what any of them do. I just set the camera on M (manual mode) and now I only have 4 things to change: ISO, lens aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Nothing else even comes into play, and likewise, never gets in the way of me taking a picture.
Manually focus
I used to be the same way and hated auto-focus, but I have seen the way of autofocus. Mostly it has to do with my eyes getting worse and my camera not having a decent way to tell when things are in focus in the viewfinder. Old cameras (I used to use an F3 as my work camera) generally have a rangefinder of some sort. That's an optical device in the viewfinder that indicates when things are in focus. In my f3 it was a small circle that split the image laterally; to make sure what I wanted was in focus, I had to line up the two halves of the split image in that tiny circle to make sure they matched up. In a Leica M series camera (or my little canonette rangefinder) there's a little box that you have to line up; in a Pentax, there was a field of dots that would, if I remember, disappear when the image was in focus. I've never seen a digital camera that has anything like this. If you rely on your eyes to focus the image, in my experience, you will always be disappointed.
Maybe you hate the way that the shutter button controls autofocus? I do too. HATE it! Set your camera to use the back button for autofocus. Here's how to do it on a canon. You'll never look back.
posted by msbrauer at 8:23 AM on December 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
Depth of field is very dependent on the body. Sensor size determines depth of field (here's an okay overview, if you scroll down to the depth of field discussion). With point and shoots, the tiny sensor size (maybe the size of pinhead, sometimes) makes depth of field nearly impossible to achieve. And, a medium format camera has much shallower depth of field than a 35mm camera.
Be pretty easy to use. Many DSLRs have twenty million options, and I don't need that.
Those options are only there if you use them. I have a 5d, and I guess it has a million options, too, but I don't know what any of them do. I just set the camera on M (manual mode) and now I only have 4 things to change: ISO, lens aperture, shutter speed, and focus. Nothing else even comes into play, and likewise, never gets in the way of me taking a picture.
Manually focus
I used to be the same way and hated auto-focus, but I have seen the way of autofocus. Mostly it has to do with my eyes getting worse and my camera not having a decent way to tell when things are in focus in the viewfinder. Old cameras (I used to use an F3 as my work camera) generally have a rangefinder of some sort. That's an optical device in the viewfinder that indicates when things are in focus. In my f3 it was a small circle that split the image laterally; to make sure what I wanted was in focus, I had to line up the two halves of the split image in that tiny circle to make sure they matched up. In a Leica M series camera (or my little canonette rangefinder) there's a little box that you have to line up; in a Pentax, there was a field of dots that would, if I remember, disappear when the image was in focus. I've never seen a digital camera that has anything like this. If you rely on your eyes to focus the image, in my experience, you will always be disappointed.
Maybe you hate the way that the shutter button controls autofocus? I do too. HATE it! Set your camera to use the back button for autofocus. Here's how to do it on a canon. You'll never look back.
posted by msbrauer at 8:23 AM on December 31, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm late to the party, but I'd like to note that the most basic of DSLRs will be more than sufficient for your needs and can easily be gotten for under $600. I bought a Canon XS with the kit lens for $549. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles that the higher-end Canons do, but it does a lot more than any P&S I've ever had. While I prefer to tinker with the settings, I actually shoot in auto quite a bit and it works pretty well. Same for the modes. The camera auto focuses, which works pretty well most of the time.
posted by echolalia67 at 8:17 AM on January 4, 2011
posted by echolalia67 at 8:17 AM on January 4, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
The great thing about modern SLRs is that while they have a million options, you don't have to use them. They're just there, waiting for you to say "oh god, this would be so much easier if I could manipulate white balance at will."
So grab a cheap Nikon, or Canon, with the kit lens, and get shooting. It'll be $600-ish, and you can save the rest of your budget for when you find you Really Really Want something - a flash to bounce off walls; a fast lens so you can work in low light or achieve really narrow depth of field, or whatever else you need to do. If you really care about depth of field that lens purchase might come faster, or immediately - I shoot Canon, and my $80 f/1.8 50mm is great. There's a reason it's nicknamed the Plastic Fantastic. But regardless, anybody's entry-level DSLR will do you fine, and let you stay in automated modes until you get your feet and start messing with manual stuff.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:17 PM on December 30, 2010