Anybody know about cameras?

[Hiking Fox]

I'd like to get a camera next month, when such things become cheaper in the shops. For years I have just used a basic snapshot digital camera, but I want to get a proper SLR. The last SLR I had used traditional film, but obviously this time I want a vegan camera, so my knowledge is limited and out of date.

Does anybody know anything about digital cameras? I believe there is a massive variation in quality and performance. I'm after something that will allow the flexibility of lenses, filters etc. but nothing too bulky for going hiking with.

Finally, I'd rather avoid any company with a really dodgy ethical record on matters such as arms manufacture, human rights etc. That's the kind of thing I can look up myself after any particular brands have been recommended.

[littlepurplegoth]

Are you coming down to MK any time? I can lend you my DP to pick the brains of?

Or have a read of the dpreview forums - www.dpreview.com

[aliquis]

I'd like to get a camera next month, when such things become cheaper in the shops. For years I have just used a basic snapshot digital camera, but I want to get a proper SLR. The last SLR I had used traditional film, but obviously this time I want a vegan camera, so my knowledge is limited and out of date.

Does anybody know anything about digital cameras? I believe there is a massive variation in quality and performance. I'm after something that will allow the flexibility of lenses, filters etc. but nothing too bulky for going hiking with.

Finally, I'd rather avoid any company with a really dodgy ethical record on matters such as arms manufacture, human rights etc. That's the kind of thing I can look up myself after any particular brands have been recommended.

Do you have lots of lenses for your old camera system and in that case what brand are they?

I don't think there is too much variation in the various price regions actually. Most often if you but the cheapest stuff you get a camera which still works but may have a smaller view finder, maybe more basic autofocus and metering system, fewer images / second, lower maximum ISO settings, lower resolution on the LCD. But it's still a good camera.

Everyone got cheaper lines and of course there is hard competition so noone can lag to much behind. And most got pro-consumer cameras and a few got professional systems.

I have no idea about the ethical stuff. Personally atleast as far as globalisation goes I would rather say that it's good if the things are manufactured in a less developed country because then atleast they get some more modern industries in their countries and higher salaries.

I will answer again in yet another post.

[aliquis]

To begin with, what will cost the most is the lenses and not the camera body. Atleast if you don't think the kit stuff is ok and if you do I don't think you should buy a more expensive camera and keep that stuff.

Canon is the biggest brand around, they had stabilisation within the lenses back in the film days so they have kept that system. You know they will be around forever and have good image quality in all their bodies and so on. You will have an easy time finding used lenses to.

Nikon is second biggest, except that kinda like above.

Olympus uses somewhat smaller sensors, I think people consider that you get more for your money with their lenses because smaller sensor = smaller lens = cheaper price and also they got the image stabilisation in the camera so they don't need to add that feature to their lenses. Personally the E-620 don't impress me enough and the E-30 and E-3 cost more and seem so old. Olympus uses four thirds standard on their lenses so some other companies uses the same to.

Sony makes cameras to, the impression I get from these are that they aren't exactly made as camera gears used to but somewhat different. I think they have taken over the konica-minolta business for the cameras and that they can use minolta lenses. The cameras seem to offer good value but well, not for me.

Pentax usually seem to offer much camera for the money and also not limit their low range models as much, people also seem to like their lenses and pancake primes. But who knows if they will be around forever and this is my issue with them because I don't know if I want to invest in a brand which may die.

Sony and Pentax got in camera house image stabilisation to. All of the above except Sony makes DSLRs which can do film to.

Panasonic and Leica uses four thirds standard afaik.

[aliquis]

So, with mirrors you got a bunch of cheap cameras:

Canon EOS 500D
Nikon D5000
Olympus E-620
Pentax K-X
Sony DSLR-A550

The Canon got awesome image quality but lacks image stabilisation in the house. Nikons usually got higher range hardware but is artificially limited to make a cheaper line (as in same specs as the more expensive cameras but still not as good.)
I would skip the Olympus and the Sony I think, the Pentax has better image quality than the more expensive K7 but is limited against that one in other areas.

One step up you leave the most basic cameras and then you got the Nikon D90 and Canon 50D. Of these with swedish prices I'd pick the 50D.

Go up again and you can have a camera which is faster and does better in low light situations such sports and indoor usage. There you have the Nikon D300S and the Canon 7D. I have no idea which one to choose of those ones. I guess I might had looked more at the 7D because it's supposed to be superior for movies.

The K7 falls somewhere between the D90/50D and the D300S/7D in price. But I don't know, I think you may get almost as good camera with K-x.

K7 and 50D is weather sealed I think. Maybe D300S and 7D are to.






There is also some mirrorless cameras around, these have smaller houses, four thirds sensors, smaller lenses and is therefor easier to take with you. They use contrast focus as pocket cameras and their display (or electronic viewfinder) instead of the phase-shift thingy on the DSLRs.

The Olympus E-P1 and E-P2 got image stabilisation in their houses, The Panasonic DMC-GF1 does not but instead it looks way better imho and have faster autofocus. The DMC-GH1 cost quite a lot more but got a 28-280mm equivalent lens with fast focusing for movie usage.


I like those cameras because of their portability, new fresh ideas, innovative focusing and I assume they will be around for long. The issue with them is the lack of optical view finder if you will shoot sports for instance and want to follow your object while taking a burst of shots and the current somewhat lack of lenses. Panasonic have put out quite a lot of lenses for them already though and they seem nice but they cost quite much thanks to the built in image stabilisation.





So if you want small size and don't need a mirror / optical viewfinder:
Panasonic DMC-GF1, Olympus E-P1, DMC-GH1

Small size with optical viewfinder:
Olympus E-620, Pentax K-X

Somewhat less features but more well-known brand:
Canon EOS 500D

A more advanced camera:
Canon EOS 50D (or the DMC-GF1/DMC-GH1 or K7 I guess )

The better stuff from just beneath pro-gear:
Nikon D300S or Canon EOS 7D.

Or something such, I guess




With Canon and Nikon I guess you will spend more money on lenses but have more to choose form and know they will work in the future.

With Olympus or Pentax you will get more for your money but have to worry about the future.

With the micro four thirds cameras (such as DMC-GF1) you will gain some (size), lose some (theoretical image quality and optical viewfinder, though GF1 got awesome image quality imho.) but mostly have a limited amount of lenses around. You will currently be limited to speed = panasonic or image stabilisation = olympus.




Of course there exist adapters so you can get say a micro four thirds to four thirds adapter and hook up regular four thirds olympus lenses to your panasonic DMC-GF1 and therefor get way more to choose from.

[aliquis]

Personally I would had liked the idea of having a bunch of Pentax prime lenses because the primes usually offer better image quality than the zooms because they are easier to manufacture. And they are also smaller (especially the pancake lenses.)

So I guess then I may had wanted something equivalent to 50mm, 24mm, 100mm primes + some macro zoom and/or tele zoom in fast variants but it would cost a lot of money

The DMC-GF1 exist in a kit with either a zoom or a 20mm (40mm eqv.) f/1.7 lens which is sweet =p


P.S.
I don't know shit about this kind of stuff, I don't even own a DSLR myself. I want to get one though and yes I have read reviews on dpreview ;D
D.S.

[Hiking Fox]

Blimey Aliquis, you know your stuff! I'll have to print this off and read properly later.

LPG, my weekly visits to MK have stopped for the time being as the school I was working on was completed recently. I might get put on another job down there, I won't know until next year.

[fredrikw]

When I was looking for a DSLR camera 6 months ago I started to read up on the subject, but pretty soon concluded that as a beginner I'd be fine with whatever brand/model. I ended up with a Nikon D60, for the simple reason that two of my friends had these and were happy with them. Six months later I'm very pleased with it, and it fullfills everything I need (and are able to do) with a DSLR camera.

A word of warning though, it's not the camera itself that's expensive, it's when you discover the world of lenses that things start getting complicated and expensive

[aliquis]

When I was looking for a DSLR camera 6 months ago I started to read up on the subject, but pretty soon concluded that as a beginner I'd be fine with whatever brand/model. I ended up with a Nikon D60, for the simple reason that two of my friends had these and were happy with them. Six months later I'm very pleased with it, and it fullfills everything I need (and are able to do) with a DSLR camera.

A word of warning though, it's not the camera itself that's expensive, it's when you discover the world of lenses that things start getting complicated and expensive

Yeah, unless the company one invest in goes belly up a good lens will keep being a good lens but sensor technology, cpu speeds, onboard memory, screen resolutions and such will keep on improving.

So since cameras will keep on improving all the time what is more advanced now may sooner or later be what will be basic by then.

And I guess in some cases if people say compare iso quality and find that say the 7D got better quality than the 500D then that will be true of course. But if someone then put a 50mm/1.4 or 50mm/1.8 lens on the 500D but would have had something like a kit lens with f/3.6-5.6 or something such on the 7D then maybe that would be equivalent to shooting in say iso 3200 vs iso 800 and maybe by then the 500D would have less noise. (Just to get the idea, not stated as a fact.)

And yeah, with a cheap camera such as the current D3000/D5000 or the 500D/1000D you could easily get the next cheap one in say 4 years time instead of buying a more expensive one now.

Though I guess the cheaper ones may always lack somewhat vs the more advanced ones in some specification.




In general I think people in the know simply suggest one to pick up the camera body and use the camera / look at the menus and such. I guess comfortability and how it works for you may be more important in the long run than nit-picking quality differences between models of the same class. I also guess looking at lens assortment and prices before buying if one think one will be buying plenty may be one idea.



And also I guess atleast for us in Sweden traveling to New York and buying the things there if it's a bunch may be a good idea to . Get the Panasonic AE4000 projector while you're there to ;D (like less than 2000 dollars over there but like 25000 sek over here.)

[aliquis]

Pentax K-X review is in:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxkx/

But well, as I've said before if they dies it kinda suck.

Pentax is owned by Hoya atm.

[Herbsman]

When I got into photography I started with a Pentax. They were cheap, no-fuss cameras with full manual control, and the lenses were cheap too.

I got serious into photography and had my eyes on a nikon F90x, but the canon EOS 5 seemed to have better features for the same price (despite being more plasticy and less rugged) - and secondhand Canon lenses seem to go for less money.

So I'd recommend Canon, but to be honest, the best thing to do is just go to a camera shop and see which camera you get on with best.

[Hiking Fox]

I've had a good read of this thread and a bought two magazines: 'Digital Photo' and 'Practical Photography'.

After a cursory read of those, I'm leaning towards a Nikon D3000 because I want something that's around 10mp and I'm not bothered about having a light up screen viewfinder tracker thingy on the back. The Nikon's seem to be consistently well reviewed and I'm sure there would be lots of potential for 2nd hand lenses in the future. The Canons also sound pretty good. I don't see the point in getting summat too professional, because it would be like riding a high spec mountain bike on good paths, if you see what I mean.

I'm still doing my research. When I get the chance, I'll pop into a camera shop and try picking up a few. Thanks to those who have offered their advice.

[aliquis]

Just make sure to check up which lenses don't work with cheaper Nikons. I don't remember but maybe it's lenses with no autofocus or older focus thing / screwdrive or something such.

May affect the amount of used or cheap lenses you can buy.

The step up would still be the D90 I think, or the 500D.

[Hiking Fox]

Just an update to say that I got a second hand Pentax K100D. The thought of being able to use old lenses swung it.

Now trying to figure out how to use it!

[thestoatyone]

Sounds like fun!

In the best traditions of the interwebz, "pics or it neva happened!"