Camera buying advice needed
May 25, 2011 11:18 PM Subscribe
Looking to move up in the camera world. Help?
I've read through a number of camera advice threads, here and elsewhere, and am paralyzed by indecision.
My current camera is a Kodak EasyShare z612. It takes nice pictures in bright light, but that's not particularly impressive. It struggles in dim light situations, both indoors and out. It also has some manual settings (aperture, exposure, iso) which I've come to enjoy using. They make me feel rather limited, however, and I want more creative freedom and higher photo quality. That makes me think I might need a DSLR.
As for my needs, I'm going to be traveling quite a bit in the next year. The sort of photography I'll be doing will be a lot of portraits, street scenes, and land/cityscapes, with a lot of indoor and night-time shooting. I recognize that's a huge range of uses. I don't have a specific type of photography (birds, sports, concerts)--I just take the sorts of pictures people generally take of things that are beautiful or meaningful that they want to remember, and I want my pictures to be as good as possible. I do, however, also like photography for its own sake, and I like the possibilities that open up with manual control, which is why I'm not just buying a $400 PAS.
My budget is kind of vague, but I can't swing over $900 total, and wouldn't mind spending a notch less than that.
From what I've read, the Nikon D5100 and the Canon 550D seem like the best cameras within my budget. I've also read intriguing things about the four thirds cameras, but know nothing about them.
The little advice I've gotten has been along the lines of "they're all nice; go with what feels best when you use it." That doesn't help. I don't know what a camera "should" feel like, and so they all feel about the same. Specific camera recs would be great, but even if you can't offer that, at least giving me specific criteria by which I can judge for myself would be helpful as well.
I've read through a number of camera advice threads, here and elsewhere, and am paralyzed by indecision.
My current camera is a Kodak EasyShare z612. It takes nice pictures in bright light, but that's not particularly impressive. It struggles in dim light situations, both indoors and out. It also has some manual settings (aperture, exposure, iso) which I've come to enjoy using. They make me feel rather limited, however, and I want more creative freedom and higher photo quality. That makes me think I might need a DSLR.
As for my needs, I'm going to be traveling quite a bit in the next year. The sort of photography I'll be doing will be a lot of portraits, street scenes, and land/cityscapes, with a lot of indoor and night-time shooting. I recognize that's a huge range of uses. I don't have a specific type of photography (birds, sports, concerts)--I just take the sorts of pictures people generally take of things that are beautiful or meaningful that they want to remember, and I want my pictures to be as good as possible. I do, however, also like photography for its own sake, and I like the possibilities that open up with manual control, which is why I'm not just buying a $400 PAS.
My budget is kind of vague, but I can't swing over $900 total, and wouldn't mind spending a notch less than that.
From what I've read, the Nikon D5100 and the Canon 550D seem like the best cameras within my budget. I've also read intriguing things about the four thirds cameras, but know nothing about them.
The little advice I've gotten has been along the lines of "they're all nice; go with what feels best when you use it." That doesn't help. I don't know what a camera "should" feel like, and so they all feel about the same. Specific camera recs would be great, but even if you can't offer that, at least giving me specific criteria by which I can judge for myself would be helpful as well.
I love my Nikon dSLR. Not hugely useful when it's sitting in the closet, though.
I love my Panasonic GF2 micro four-thirds camera as well, and it's in my (dainty) purse every single day, all the time. For once, my backpacking weekends or museum trips in my own neighborhood don't warrant the question "is it worth bringing my camera?". It's great. It's tiny. It's really really ridiculously good-looking. There are no fantastic micro four-thirds telephoto lenses available right now, but the telephoto zoom I bought was relatively affordable at $600, and absolutely fantastic for wildlife & sports (I don't take nighttime concert pictures but my guess is that any telephoto lens that didn't cost thousands of dollars wouldn't be that great).
For everything else, the light and tiny 20mm f/1.7 can't be beat.
A setup like that would be over your budget if you go for extra lenses right away, but oh-so-worth-it. I can't recall many other purchases in that price range where I was (and still am) completely, entirely free of doubt and regrets. With the option of interchangeable, cross-compatible lenses, you can't go wrong with buying the camera body now – and the 14mm pancake kit lens is great, too.
posted by halogen at 11:47 PM on May 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
I love my Panasonic GF2 micro four-thirds camera as well, and it's in my (dainty) purse every single day, all the time. For once, my backpacking weekends or museum trips in my own neighborhood don't warrant the question "is it worth bringing my camera?". It's great. It's tiny. It's really really ridiculously good-looking. There are no fantastic micro four-thirds telephoto lenses available right now, but the telephoto zoom I bought was relatively affordable at $600, and absolutely fantastic for wildlife & sports (I don't take nighttime concert pictures but my guess is that any telephoto lens that didn't cost thousands of dollars wouldn't be that great).
For everything else, the light and tiny 20mm f/1.7 can't be beat.
A setup like that would be over your budget if you go for extra lenses right away, but oh-so-worth-it. I can't recall many other purchases in that price range where I was (and still am) completely, entirely free of doubt and regrets. With the option of interchangeable, cross-compatible lenses, you can't go wrong with buying the camera body now – and the 14mm pancake kit lens is great, too.
posted by halogen at 11:47 PM on May 25, 2011 [2 favorites]
Wow, great comments already.
I have noticed that on photographs out-of-the-camera, there's a difference in the color handling of Nikon vs. Canon. Both are inaccurate, both are as true as can reasonably be expected, and it's entirely a subjective opinion thing. To me the default Canon color feel errs on the side of being dull or 'accurate', whereas Nikon seems to err on the side of color pop or slight impressionism.
I like the Nikon style better, myself.
posted by krilli at 12:15 AM on May 26, 2011
I have noticed that on photographs out-of-the-camera, there's a difference in the color handling of Nikon vs. Canon. Both are inaccurate, both are as true as can reasonably be expected, and it's entirely a subjective opinion thing. To me the default Canon color feel errs on the side of being dull or 'accurate', whereas Nikon seems to err on the side of color pop or slight impressionism.
I like the Nikon style better, myself.
posted by krilli at 12:15 AM on May 26, 2011
My stock answer to this kind of question is the one you don't want to hear, which is "buy the low end DSLR outfit that feels the best to you".
Let me amend that by noting that one of the most important questions you should ask yourself is, "How important is portability and size"?
I ask because, as has been pointed out by others, the camera that's too much of a hassle to tote along is the camera which will likely be in a drawer somewhere when you'd really like to have a camera with you. The photography forums of the internet are littered with questions like, "I love my DSLR outfit but I need something that's pocketable or at least much smaller to keep with when trabeling, etc. What to buy"?
Unless you get a micro 4/3 camera with only a pancake lens, you've still got something which is somewhat intrusive on your person.
This is why I'd suggest you take a look at a Panasonic LX5.
posted by imjustsaying at 1:33 AM on May 26, 2011
Let me amend that by noting that one of the most important questions you should ask yourself is, "How important is portability and size"?
I ask because, as has been pointed out by others, the camera that's too much of a hassle to tote along is the camera which will likely be in a drawer somewhere when you'd really like to have a camera with you. The photography forums of the internet are littered with questions like, "I love my DSLR outfit but I need something that's pocketable or at least much smaller to keep with when trabeling, etc. What to buy"?
Unless you get a micro 4/3 camera with only a pancake lens, you've still got something which is somewhat intrusive on your person.
This is why I'd suggest you take a look at a Panasonic LX5.
posted by imjustsaying at 1:33 AM on May 26, 2011
"trabeling" = "traveling".
posted by imjustsaying at 1:34 AM on May 26, 2011
posted by imjustsaying at 1:34 AM on May 26, 2011
I absolutely love my panasonic LX3, the predecessor to the LX5. There are exactly two things that make me even consider stepping up, which would be to something like the GF2.
-Zoom. I don't take zoom pictures, but you can't put a big zoom lens on one of these
-Taking lots of pictures very quickly. Waiting for memory card writes after bursts of RAW shots can be painful
That's about it. The f/2 lens on the LX3 is AMAZING, and it's small enough, even with a real hotshoe flash (which I can't recommend enough for indoor shots - being able to change the angle of the flash is what allows you to take properly exposed pictures. onboard flashes are universally terrible) that I never mind carrying it around.
You can get an LX + wide angle adapter + flash for around $700, and I get better pictures out of that setup than a lot of friends with SLRs. I think mostly because I have it with me a lot so I get more practice.
posted by flaterik at 1:41 AM on May 26, 2011
-Zoom. I don't take zoom pictures, but you can't put a big zoom lens on one of these
-Taking lots of pictures very quickly. Waiting for memory card writes after bursts of RAW shots can be painful
That's about it. The f/2 lens on the LX3 is AMAZING, and it's small enough, even with a real hotshoe flash (which I can't recommend enough for indoor shots - being able to change the angle of the flash is what allows you to take properly exposed pictures. onboard flashes are universally terrible) that I never mind carrying it around.
You can get an LX + wide angle adapter + flash for around $700, and I get better pictures out of that setup than a lot of friends with SLRs. I think mostly because I have it with me a lot so I get more practice.
posted by flaterik at 1:41 AM on May 26, 2011
I can't favorite smokes answer enough. It's highly unusual for a photography-gear related answer not to just favourite the brand they just bought.
Please learn about the difference between 4/3 and µ4/3. Only the latter is alive.
Differences between "large" sensors, be it in dynamic range, contrast, noise etc are smaller than they appear in reviews. All large sensors make good ISO800 shots. You'll only use higher ISO a few % of your time.
Try to avoid these 25 steps.
If I were you, I'd buy a refurbished Olympus PEN E-PL1, E-P1 or E-2. These are small cameras with a "large" sensor. The E-P1 does not accept an external electronic viewfinder. E-P1 and E-P2 have nice scroll wheels instead of E-PL1 buttons to change shutterspeed & aperture. For $300-400 you can get these slightly older cameras with the small kit 14-42 lens. You buy the kit lens to feel secure. You will not really use it after you bought the pancake.
Spend $50 for an old MANUAL focus 50mm f/1.8 in any mount (canon, pentax, nikon) and a $15 adapter to mount this lens on your µ4/3 camera. This will be your portrait lens. Manual focus will be hard at first but the magnified view helps a lot to nail focus.
Buy the $300 Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for the street scenes, because it's a very compact pancake and because it autofocuses fast in low light.
You're settled. Buy a new camera 4 years later.
posted by Akeem at 2:20 AM on May 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
Please learn about the difference between 4/3 and µ4/3. Only the latter is alive.
Differences between "large" sensors, be it in dynamic range, contrast, noise etc are smaller than they appear in reviews. All large sensors make good ISO800 shots. You'll only use higher ISO a few % of your time.
Try to avoid these 25 steps.
If I were you, I'd buy a refurbished Olympus PEN E-PL1, E-P1 or E-2. These are small cameras with a "large" sensor. The E-P1 does not accept an external electronic viewfinder. E-P1 and E-P2 have nice scroll wheels instead of E-PL1 buttons to change shutterspeed & aperture. For $300-400 you can get these slightly older cameras with the small kit 14-42 lens. You buy the kit lens to feel secure. You will not really use it after you bought the pancake.
Spend $50 for an old MANUAL focus 50mm f/1.8 in any mount (canon, pentax, nikon) and a $15 adapter to mount this lens on your µ4/3 camera. This will be your portrait lens. Manual focus will be hard at first but the magnified view helps a lot to nail focus.
Buy the $300 Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 for the street scenes, because it's a very compact pancake and because it autofocuses fast in low light.
You're settled. Buy a new camera 4 years later.
posted by Akeem at 2:20 AM on May 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
I think there's several related questions:
- What sort of pictures do you want to take?
- What do you mean by traveling? (Size and weight could be a big issue for you here)
- What do you want to do with the photos?
And I have several points:
- in terms of technical picture quality ultimately you get what you pay for. More expensive (and heavier) lenses from good manufacturers will give you better technical results
- in the end, you take the picture. It's your eye and composition. You will take different pictures with a high-end P+S than when schlepping a few pounds of kit around and futzing with lenses. Especially for street photography.
I do agree with others in this thread that the technonology is now 'there.' Anecdote: My LX-2 just packed up - through avoidable carelessness and abuse :( - and I'm looking for a replacement. I was surprised by how many competitors to the LX-5 are now on the market, and I'm now considering a Samsung TL500, which has some nice features that appeal to me. But there were a few others as well (Canon, Olympus, etc.).
Which is a way of saying as far as I am concerned, the differences in technology are now less than the differences that you can input as a human. Differences in technical specs between cameras at the same price point are going to matter less than how you actually use the camera.
The issue is more deciding what you want and then learning how to use it. Any of the cameras mentioned in this thread will give you fantastic photos.
posted by carter at 3:31 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
- What sort of pictures do you want to take?
- What do you mean by traveling? (Size and weight could be a big issue for you here)
- What do you want to do with the photos?
And I have several points:
- in terms of technical picture quality ultimately you get what you pay for. More expensive (and heavier) lenses from good manufacturers will give you better technical results
- in the end, you take the picture. It's your eye and composition. You will take different pictures with a high-end P+S than when schlepping a few pounds of kit around and futzing with lenses. Especially for street photography.
I do agree with others in this thread that the technonology is now 'there.' Anecdote: My LX-2 just packed up - through avoidable carelessness and abuse :( - and I'm looking for a replacement. I was surprised by how many competitors to the LX-5 are now on the market, and I'm now considering a Samsung TL500, which has some nice features that appeal to me. But there were a few others as well (Canon, Olympus, etc.).
Which is a way of saying as far as I am concerned, the differences in technology are now less than the differences that you can input as a human. Differences in technical specs between cameras at the same price point are going to matter less than how you actually use the camera.
The issue is more deciding what you want and then learning how to use it. Any of the cameras mentioned in this thread will give you fantastic photos.
posted by carter at 3:31 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I've owned a Nikon D40 with 18-55 and 55-200VR lenses for a few years. I never really did much indoor/portrait shooting at first, both from lack of interest and also that my indoor photos never really seemed to pop.
Recently, I purchased this lens and this flash, and what a difference. I'm really, really pleased with each of them; the lens for it's wide aperture and the flash for its bounce ability (and they were cheap!). At this point I don't see myself using the 18-55 over the 35 for indoor/low-light photos.
The 5100 sure looks like a great camera and will probably be my next purchase at some point. But you might also be able to get away with the 3100 if you're looking to save a few bucks. My D40 was the lowest end camera and while there were times I've longed for features on pricier cameras, it's sure gotten me its fair share of awesome photos.
Anywho, I'm no pro, I just like to point my camera at things that look cool. Just wanted to share what's worked for me.
Good luck!
posted by Tu13es at 5:10 AM on May 26, 2011
Recently, I purchased this lens and this flash, and what a difference. I'm really, really pleased with each of them; the lens for it's wide aperture and the flash for its bounce ability (and they were cheap!). At this point I don't see myself using the 18-55 over the 35 for indoor/low-light photos.
The 5100 sure looks like a great camera and will probably be my next purchase at some point. But you might also be able to get away with the 3100 if you're looking to save a few bucks. My D40 was the lowest end camera and while there were times I've longed for features on pricier cameras, it's sure gotten me its fair share of awesome photos.
Anywho, I'm no pro, I just like to point my camera at things that look cool. Just wanted to share what's worked for me.
Good luck!
posted by Tu13es at 5:10 AM on May 26, 2011
You're spot on with your Canon & Nikon preferences. I'm a Canon user because I own (thousands of £ worth of) lenses etc, but if I was starting today I would probably go Nikon. The 5100 sounds like a stonking little camera.
One thing to note is that the lens ranges are mostly, but not exactly equivalent. I'd take a little time to think about what lenses you might want in the future, because once you purchase additional lenses, you're kinda committing to a system.
posted by Magnakai at 5:12 AM on May 26, 2011
One thing to note is that the lens ranges are mostly, but not exactly equivalent. I'd take a little time to think about what lenses you might want in the future, because once you purchase additional lenses, you're kinda committing to a system.
posted by Magnakai at 5:12 AM on May 26, 2011
The Panasonic LX3 or LX5 would be an excellent choice for you.
The form factor is pocketable, the image quality excellent, the user interface very good. It has a nice wide lens which is good for landscape, and the zoom while somewhat limited does extend far enough to a good portrait length. It has full manual control and good light sensitivity.
I urge spending less right now so you can get a high quality compact camera that will allow you to hone your photographic chops and allow you to determine exactly what technical limitations you need to overcome for your next camera purchase, which should probably be an interchangable lens system of some sort. The photos you take with the LX will stand up extremely well over time. It's that good.
A camera purchase is not something that will net you something satisfying just because you threw a lot of money at it. FWIW, I have a lot of different cameras (it's what I do) and when I'm not carrying another camera for a specific reason (e.g. a job), I've got my LX3.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:13 AM on May 26, 2011
The form factor is pocketable, the image quality excellent, the user interface very good. It has a nice wide lens which is good for landscape, and the zoom while somewhat limited does extend far enough to a good portrait length. It has full manual control and good light sensitivity.
I urge spending less right now so you can get a high quality compact camera that will allow you to hone your photographic chops and allow you to determine exactly what technical limitations you need to overcome for your next camera purchase, which should probably be an interchangable lens system of some sort. The photos you take with the LX will stand up extremely well over time. It's that good.
A camera purchase is not something that will net you something satisfying just because you threw a lot of money at it. FWIW, I have a lot of different cameras (it's what I do) and when I'm not carrying another camera for a specific reason (e.g. a job), I've got my LX3.
posted by seanmpuckett at 5:13 AM on May 26, 2011
I've had a Nikon D5000 for about a year, which I love. I'm a pretty inexperienced photographer, and it's easy for me to handle and learn to use, and takes great pictures. I can also see that it's full of features that a more experienced photographer could take better advantage of. I use some of the manual settings, which allow for lots of control, but also sometimes use its numerous built in settings, which are really when I can't get it just right manually. It's my first DSLR though, so I don't have much basis for comparison.
In terms of portability, sure it's a hassle at times compared to a compact camera, but it's traveled to three different countries with me and I've always been really glad to have it. If you're looking to buy a DSLR you've already chosen quality over portability to a certain extent, and imho it doesn't really make sense to choose one just because it's a few centimeters smaller or an ounce lighter.
I'm also pretty sure that it (or the newer model) is within your budget, especially if you buy it new or refurbished. I bought a refurbished model, saved myself $200-300, and never would have known the difference.
posted by one little who at 8:09 AM on May 26, 2011
In terms of portability, sure it's a hassle at times compared to a compact camera, but it's traveled to three different countries with me and I've always been really glad to have it. If you're looking to buy a DSLR you've already chosen quality over portability to a certain extent, and imho it doesn't really make sense to choose one just because it's a few centimeters smaller or an ounce lighter.
I'm also pretty sure that it (or the newer model) is within your budget, especially if you buy it new or refurbished. I bought a refurbished model, saved myself $200-300, and never would have known the difference.
posted by one little who at 8:09 AM on May 26, 2011
Either of those cameras you are contemplating would serve you very well. A DSLR is going to get better image quality than a P&S or 4/3 camera and either of these DSLRs are great cameras. When you buy a DSLR you are also making a decision about a whole system and either the Canon or Nikon systems are great systems. A year ago I would have recommended only those two systems as the long term fate of some of the others seemed in doubt. Sony seems dedicated to their system which they purchased from Minolta so I guess I would add that to the list and they are worthy of consideration as I think the price is a little better on most of that stuff at similar performance levels. You give up some breadth of the system, you have less choice in the used market, and some fewer choices in 3rd party lenses and accessories. In the end the most important aspect of taking a great photograph sits behind your eyes, not in front of them. Your best photographic investment is probably in in a book on composition such as The Photographer's Eye by Michael Freeman.
posted by caddis at 8:10 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by caddis at 8:10 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Things I believe:
Pretty much all point and shoots are the same. Some are better than others. I have a Canon 780IS (an older model) that is pretty amazing, and in the right circumstances takes pictures competitive with my Canon 5D (older but still pretty amazing DSLR).
So...don't spend a lot on a point and shoot. But the Canon Elph series is pretty amazing. And pretty cheap too. Borderline disposable, so you can carry it around and not worry about it.
The other thing that I believe is that DSLRs are a TOTAL waste for 90% of people. I know you would like more "manual" control, but the truth is that the camera is generally better than you in adjusting things. Manual control is really only handy for a few things, like, if you are really trying to nail your exposures (something that not many people really care about or know how to do) or if you are trying to mess with depth of field effects (blurry backgrounds).
Generally, people don't end up doing that stuff. And DSLRs also always come with relatively crappy lenses. So...you pay a lot for a camera with a crappy lens. You'd be better off with a good point and shoot unless you are really trying to become a "photographer"...
posted by sully75 at 10:43 AM on May 26, 2011
Pretty much all point and shoots are the same. Some are better than others. I have a Canon 780IS (an older model) that is pretty amazing, and in the right circumstances takes pictures competitive with my Canon 5D (older but still pretty amazing DSLR).
So...don't spend a lot on a point and shoot. But the Canon Elph series is pretty amazing. And pretty cheap too. Borderline disposable, so you can carry it around and not worry about it.
The other thing that I believe is that DSLRs are a TOTAL waste for 90% of people. I know you would like more "manual" control, but the truth is that the camera is generally better than you in adjusting things. Manual control is really only handy for a few things, like, if you are really trying to nail your exposures (something that not many people really care about or know how to do) or if you are trying to mess with depth of field effects (blurry backgrounds).
Generally, people don't end up doing that stuff. And DSLRs also always come with relatively crappy lenses. So...you pay a lot for a camera with a crappy lens. You'd be better off with a good point and shoot unless you are really trying to become a "photographer"...
posted by sully75 at 10:43 AM on May 26, 2011
Response by poster: A question about lenses: say I had decided to get either the d3100 or the d5100. Would I be better off getting the d5100 and nothing else or the d3100 and, say, this 50mm 1.8f lens? I think the latter would end up being slightly cheaper. Would the flexibility of two lenses and the quality of the 50mm lens balance out the superior technology in the 5100?
posted by resiny at 12:13 PM on May 26, 2011
posted by resiny at 12:13 PM on May 26, 2011
Response by poster:
posted by resiny at 12:17 PM on May 26, 2011
Manual control is really only handy for a few things, like, if you are really trying to nail your exposures (something that not many people really care about or know how to do) or if you are trying to mess with depth of field effects (blurry backgrounds).That's exactly the sort of thing I want to do more of.
posted by resiny at 12:17 PM on May 26, 2011
Note that both the D3100 and D5100 won't autofocus with the lens to which you linked. You'd have to get the newly-released, slightly more expensive 50mm f/1.8G, or you can try the 35mm f/1.8G which has been on the market longer and can be found cheaper used.
posted by litnerd at 12:28 PM on May 26, 2011
posted by litnerd at 12:28 PM on May 26, 2011
The Nikon 18-55 kit lens really isn't so bad, but I like the VR version for a few bucks more. If you go for that prime lens definitely see if you can find a used one for about 60% of the street price.
posted by caddis at 12:29 PM on May 26, 2011
posted by caddis at 12:29 PM on May 26, 2011
Response by poster: So am I better off with 5100 and no prime lens or 3100 + prime lens?
posted by resiny at 12:41 PM on May 26, 2011
posted by resiny at 12:41 PM on May 26, 2011
Depending on how serious you are about your hobby, you'll probably outgrow either the 3100 or 5100 within a year or two; I'd say get the cheaper with a nice prime lens to start with and upgrade to something better (if you decide you want something better) once you've developed a sense of your wants and needs.
So yeah, I'd say skip the kit lens entirely (but then I shoot exclusively in primes so I'm biased), get the 3100 + 35mm f/1.8G, and upgrade to a better body when you're ready.
posted by litnerd at 12:47 PM on May 26, 2011
So yeah, I'd say skip the kit lens entirely (but then I shoot exclusively in primes so I'm biased), get the 3100 + 35mm f/1.8G, and upgrade to a better body when you're ready.
posted by litnerd at 12:47 PM on May 26, 2011
Here are some tests of the 50mm AF 1.8 prime and the 18-55 AF zoom. Just glancing at them shows the zoom to hold its own quite well. I like prime lenses, but the 50mm 1.8 is nothing special. Nikon makes some very special primes, which of course carry very special prices. A used 50mm 1.4 isn't too dear though.
posted by caddis at 12:55 PM on May 26, 2011
posted by caddis at 12:55 PM on May 26, 2011
Based on how you said you'd use the camera, and that you want the ability to control exposure (I will assume that you don't mean with manual dials only), then I have another suggestion:
Sony NEX-3 of NEX-5
I just got a NEX-3 with the 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 stabilized kit zoom, but you can also get a 16mm F2.8 pancake and a 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 superzoom (the cameras come with a APS-C sensor, so the effective field of view is x1.5.
This is a pretty sweet camera. Lots of options to manipulate the exposure (even a handy scroll to defocus the background to varying degrees), but they are all managed through the large, bright articulating back LCD screen. No optical view finder, for what that's worth.
It comes with a rather innovative removable flash, but it's rather weak. The good news is that the low-light performance is so outstanding, that a flash isn't really needed. Perhaps for fill, but that's it. Low light pictures are really stunning.
With the 16mm pancake (effective 24mm), you have an extremely powerful pocket camera. With the 18-55mm lens, it is more of a small bag camera, even though the body is so thin.
Pros:
Smaller than a DSLR with competitive performance
AF lenses are almost completely silent (this has to do with AF video performance)
Low light pictures
In-camera panoramic
HD AF video
Light weight
Articulating LCD allows taking pictures low to the ground or above head easily
Cons:
Shutter is quite loud and everyone will think you are a Paparazzi
With anything but pancake lens, not a pocket camera
Requires Sony E-Series mount lenses, although takes Sony Alpha with an adapter, although AF is much slower
Manual adjustments are through the LCD menu (except focus), although nifty scroll wheel with soft controls on back.
All in all, a great camera for something that is between a high end fixed lens point and shoot and DSLR. I think it would be great for travel photos and something to enjoy after I got back.
posted by qwip at 5:59 PM on May 27, 2011
Sony NEX-3 of NEX-5
I just got a NEX-3 with the 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 stabilized kit zoom, but you can also get a 16mm F2.8 pancake and a 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 superzoom (the cameras come with a APS-C sensor, so the effective field of view is x1.5.
This is a pretty sweet camera. Lots of options to manipulate the exposure (even a handy scroll to defocus the background to varying degrees), but they are all managed through the large, bright articulating back LCD screen. No optical view finder, for what that's worth.
It comes with a rather innovative removable flash, but it's rather weak. The good news is that the low-light performance is so outstanding, that a flash isn't really needed. Perhaps for fill, but that's it. Low light pictures are really stunning.
With the 16mm pancake (effective 24mm), you have an extremely powerful pocket camera. With the 18-55mm lens, it is more of a small bag camera, even though the body is so thin.
Pros:
Smaller than a DSLR with competitive performance
AF lenses are almost completely silent (this has to do with AF video performance)
Low light pictures
In-camera panoramic
HD AF video
Light weight
Articulating LCD allows taking pictures low to the ground or above head easily
Cons:
Shutter is quite loud and everyone will think you are a Paparazzi
With anything but pancake lens, not a pocket camera
Requires Sony E-Series mount lenses, although takes Sony Alpha with an adapter, although AF is much slower
Manual adjustments are through the LCD menu (except focus), although nifty scroll wheel with soft controls on back.
All in all, a great camera for something that is between a high end fixed lens point and shoot and DSLR. I think it would be great for travel photos and something to enjoy after I got back.
posted by qwip at 5:59 PM on May 27, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
Your budget for an entry-level DSLR is fine. For that kind of money, you could probably get a two lens kit. I'm sure everyone will weigh in, with their favourite entry-level, which just happens to be the brand they bought, and probably the only brand they own. Disregard them - any entry level DSLR will blow your mind compared to where you're coming from, and weigh up the rest of the pros and cons, for what you like, not randoms on the internet.
FYI, if you like the D5100 (and why wouldn't you?), that Sony sensor in that is the same sensor in the new Pentax and Sony cameras as well. See below for my quick perspective on the brands, in absolutely no order:
Canon 550d - lots of lenses available, nice colour rendition, waiting for a refresh of product line at the moment. I would get a newer model if I were you personally speaking. The 550D is a fine camera, but the newer Nikons etc offer more bang for buck. Fairly strong second hand market for lenses, and you can use older lenses with cheap adaptors.
Nikon d5100 - lots of lenses available also, and truly the best flash/lighting system going. New Sony chip = fabulous low light performance. The two big boys love their market dominance, and it has advantages in terms of accessories, lens variety etc.
Sony a-series (eg a55): "mirrorless" sensor = small camera and interesting viewfinder. In-body stabilisation = cheaper lenses and you get shake-reduction on older lenses like Minolta (fun for ebay hunters). (sony sensor, obviously)
Pentax (k-r or k5): In-body stabilisation, compatible with all older pentax mounts up, K-R can take AA batteries (some people like this, some people hate it), pentax has cheap, high-quality primes that are pretty much unique in the current market segment. Has new sony sensor in the k5, not sure about k-r.
Olympus (e510 or whatever it's up to): small, micro 4/3rds can make this popular with wildlife photographers because you get effectively a longer focal length. Good quality lenses but not especially cheap. In-built sensor cleaning mechanism is arguably the best of all (shakes the sensor; dust falls onto what's basically sticky tape, brilliant!), Oly's always have a nice menu system, too. You could probably get one of these babies quite cheaply now.
For me, when I bought my dslr last year, my personal criteria were:
In-body stabilisation (the only reason Nikon and Canon don't do this is that they started stabilisation in their lenses before in-body was available. Now they're locked in. It makes lenses more expensive, and bulkier, and arguably isn't much more effective than in-body.)
Good ISO performance - low light is super common, I wanted a camera that could perform well in that arena.
Cheaper end of the market, and a lens + body kit with a long lens because I was going to Africa and wanted a long lens for safari.
For me, at the time, the sweet spot in this was a pentax k-x with a 300mm kit lens. But that all said, whilst I've been happy with my camera, I'm not brand loyal: it was the right camera kit, for me, at the time. If I was buying it now - a year later - I would be looking very closely indeed at the newer Nikon's and perhaps the Sony (though the Electronic Viewfinder didn't really ring my bell).
posted by smoke at 11:44 PM on May 25, 2011 [3 favorites]