I'm looking for a simple camera to replace my Canon 400D which I'm selling (see Exchange thread if interested).
The brief:
I'm not a photographer nor do I profess to be one. I need a camera which is somewhere between my point & click lumix (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-Lumix-TZ18-Digital-Camera/dp/B004I1KOM6/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt) and a proper full blown professional one (I know a man who does that :flirty:). It just needs to be good enough to take to client events and shows and take some half decent pictures.
I'm now sure what the generic term is the type of camera I want but I imagine it's going to be something similar to this Lumix G3 (http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/panasonic/lumix-dmc-g3-compact-system-camera-with-14-42mm-lens-81279/show.html) but I'm happy to look at anything which won't make me look totally out of place in a press pit.
Any thoughts or comments appreciated.
Pay me to do the photo's you tight-wad.
The G3 is a decent camera but it might be considered as downward move from a full DSLR like the 400D you're selling. Image quality is on a par with entry level DSLR's but mirror-less cameras like the G3 can't focus as fast or work in low light levels like a decent DSLR can. Coming from a compact camera they are certainly a step up but from an iconic camera like the 400D you might find them a bit limited. And as mentioned in low light or with fast moving subjects the focus might be a problem. For the same price as the G3 you could get a Nikon D3100 which is a really decent camera that can cope nicely with less than perfect shooting conditions.
This (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0344780582/mirrorless-cameras-a-primer) is a decent write up about mirror-less cameras like the G3 with the plus and minus points well discussed
All depends on what you need to get shots of. A micro four thirds like the Lumix can be pretty tight when shooting indoors even with a pretty wide lens. Also a smaller sensor with more pixels = more heat and possibly more noise. You still get quite a few more stops over your 400D as cameras have come on quite a bit since the 400D time. What glass do you need in front of it?
I disagree with Smilo about the focusing on the mirror-less as yes it will not compete with a high end full frame SLR but in theory mirror-less should be faster than Mirrored cameras due the the technology used. I have used a couple of Sony mirror-less which were faster and better focussing than the 7D which seriously impressed me. Most low end DSLR will not focus well and even some high end will not focus too fast like the 5D mark 2 which never was speedy. Mirrorless have the added advantage of being able to focus a-lot better when using live view so for video this is great as its like using a camcorder rather than an SLR. Saying that the 650D has this technology in it now but its still not as good as the mirrorless IMO
Personally I would go for something lightweight like the 650D or 550D if you need magic lantern as the difference between then and the 60D is the burst rate and a metal body. You will have all of the advantages of a proper camera but something more lightweight and without the price tag.
The glass is the most important part anyway =)
DZ
Quote from: smilodon;361591Pay me to do the photo's you tight-wad.
May I refer the honourable gentleman to my first post:
QuoteI need a camera which is somewhere between my point & click lumix (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-Lumix-TZ18-Digital-Camera/dp/B004I1KOM6/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt) and a proper full blown professional one (I know a man who does that :flirty:).
Thanks for the comments. For whatever reason I just don't take good photos with the 400D. I know it' a good camera so it's down to user-error I'm afraid. I just want something simple that I don't need to twiddle an endless selection of knobs and dials to get some half decent photos of client events. They're not going to be used for press (well occasionally maybe but only small).
Won't the 500D or 650D give me the same problems as the 400d?
I don't really understand what you are trying to achieve here. For example my 550D has the following full auto modes where it will attempt to optimise the picture for you for the situation : AUTO, AUTO without flash, P mode, A-DEP, sports, low light, portrait, landscape, macro..... those are just the ones on the dial which require no fiddling with buttons to get setting right they are point and click. If you leave it in auto without flash you will get the photo everytime. If you want the camera to estimate the DoF for you then put it in A-DEP. If you are taking a portrait and want nice blurry background put it in portrait and it will optimise the setting for that. Landscape will leave everything in focus and optimise for that. Sports will give you a highish shutter speed and optimise all setting for that.
I think you may just need to read the manual as your camera will have way more auto modes than you think. You also have the option of using Aperture priority, time priority and manual mode when you want to tune the picture for something specific. I normally walk around in Aperture priority.
No camera can take a good photo for you as it doesn't know what you want unless you tell it and the most important thing in photography is not the camera but the imagination of the person standing behind it.
A point and shoot will have probably one or two modes. Yes less to worry about but worse pictures as it also doesn't know what you want to achieve.
Hope this doesn't sound rude.
DZ
As luck would have it, I had an offer through from GroupOn this morning (http://www.groupon.co.uk/deals/national-deal/ASK-Direct/13106507?nlp=&CID=UK_CRM_1_0_0_320&a=1664) for a D3100 for £309 which is about £11 better than Amazon's best price - a bargain.
My sister-in-law bought one as her first DSLR and the results have been amazing. http://www.flickr.com/photos/johunt/. She just got the camera to take baby photos! The built-in photo-guide is perfect for non-photographers (if you see what I mean).
I had the G1 and upgraded to the D5100 and I haver never regretted it. http://www.flickr.com/photos/arithonuk/
Hope that helps!
EDIT: Found a better price! £299 http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/nikon-d3100-299-99-argos-get-a-10-voucher-spending-more-than-100-35-cashback-from-1365442
Yep all entry level SLR will have this "guide" now. You still need to select what you want though for the type of shot.
Pen I strongly advise spending an hour reading the guide for your camera rather than investing in anything else as the 400D is a good camera.
Your brain needs the upgrade and not the camera =).
Loving your Sis'es pics Arithon, Specially on ones low to the ground with the shallow DoF. Really creative.
DZ
The focus issue relates to tracking auto focus i.e. locking focus on a moving subject and maintaining that focus over the time required to take one or more pictures (usually no more thanks few seconds in real world situations). The mirror or lack of it in a camera is the crucial factor.
A mirrored camera will simply bounce the image off the mirror and down into the auto focus unit. The auto focus system works by using a little device called a beam splitter to send light to the auto focus sensor in the base of the camera. Two tiny lenses each capture the light from opposite sides of the camera lens and direct it to the auto focus sensor. The two images are compared and something known as the separation error is calculated as well as the distance from the sensor to the subject. This error value is basically the value of how much the image is out of focus. Importantly the camera also knows if the focus is in front of (front focus) or behind (back focus) the subject. So it immediately moves the focus in the right direction. The adjustment is made and the image brought into focus. This process is known as phase detection. It's a very fast system that allows high end professional DSLR's to grab focus in a fraction of a second and hold it even if the subject is moving towards or away from the camera at speed. Even in lower spec DSLR's the phase detection system works well and it's easy to get quick focus on subjects.
Another feature of phase detection is that the camera can still focus well in relatively low light. My cameras are bit more advanced than a Canon 400D but I've learnt that even when I cannot see anything much through the viewfinder in very dark conditions, my camera can ,and if I let it do it's thing the resulting pictures are usually well focused.
Mirror-less cameras don't have this feature as they simply send light directly to the sensor. They use a system known as contrast focus which detects the intensity difference between areas of light and dark in the image. The greater the difference the sharper the focus. The camera adjusts the lens until the maximum contrast between the light and dark areas is found. A feature of contrast focus is that the camera cannot range find the distance to the subject (as a DLSR can) and therefore has no way of knowing if the focus in in front or behind the subject. The camera has to hunt back and forward to find it. It also needs to focus past the correct point and then pull back to make sure it's reached proper focus. This makes the system inherently slower than phase detection. Another feature is that in low light situations contrast is often very poor and so the contrast focus system can struggle and sometimes completely fail to obtain good focus.
But back to the point in hand. I also don't think you'll necessarily get better shots from a G3 than you're getting from the 400D. The 400D has an auto mode that lets the camera do most of the heavy lifting which is going to be no worse than the equivalent system in the G3. To be honest there's probably not a lot of difference between entry level DSLR's and new mirror-less systems for most photography situations. If you want to post some examples of the images you're unhappy with we could try to make a few suggestions. Maybe we could buddy up for the next trade show and do some photography together?
Then again this is also a chance to buy a new shiny gadget which is almost reason enough to just say 'to hell with it' and get the Lumix anyway :D
I don't know, it's strange. Attached are some photos of a house I took. they are dark and it just didn't work. Yes it was bright outside but even so. I ended up taking some with my small camera and they were just as good if not better.
Thanks
Quote from: smilodon;361613Mirror-less cameras don't have this feature as they simply send light directly to the sensor. They use a system known as contrast focus which detects the intensity difference between areas of light and dark in the image. The greater the difference the sharper the focus. The camera adjusts the lens until the maximum contrast between the light and dark areas is found. A feature of contrast focus is that the camera cannot range find the distance to the subject (as a DLSR can) and therefore has no way of knowing if the focus in in front or behind the subject. The camera has to hunt back and forward to find it. It also needs to focus past the correct point and then pull back to make sure it's reached proper focus. This makes the system inherently slower than phase detection. Another feature is that in low light situations contrast is often very poor and so the contrast focus system can struggle and sometimes completely fail to obtain good focus.
Wrong information there mate as mirror-less has the ability for better phase than mirrored on most SLR these days. Here (http://flareout.sawfnews.com/tech-take/mirrorless-cameras/mirrorless-dslrs-vs-traditional-dslrs#TOC-Autofocus-with-OVF) is a good read for some of arguments.
There are Mirrorless now which are more than just a contrast array the translucent mirror still reflects some light to a phase detection array, so you can use AF all of the time even in video or live view via phase rather than being interrupted when the mirror moves. This means better tracking AF than a Mirrored DSLR is capable of and you can use phase detection and contrast detection at the same time. BIG WIN over traditional tech where its one or the other. Mirrorless has a greater flexibility for AF now and huge win in the future when they refine the technology more.
Even bigger win for video.
The new Sony DSLR are Mirrorless and have the best focussing on pretty much any SLR out there.
Quote from: Penfold;361614I don't know, it's strange. Attached are some photos of a house I took. they are dark and it just didn't work. Yes it was bright outside but even so. I ended up taking some with my small camera and they were just as good if not better.
Thanks
I see a higher Dynamic range from the SLR pictures, greater contrast and a different metering system used from the pictures (all of these are highly prized by photographers). Your SLR gives you the option to meter differently to get the contrast correct. You have spot metering, center weighted average, full metering acorss the entire picture etc.
I think the thing you are noticing more is the shallow DOF from some of the pictures. This can be solved easily but upping the f-stop to make everything in focus. As the point and shoot has a smaller sensor it will naturally have larger DOF than your 400D. This will make everything look more crisp.
I would ask you to go round the house now in Av mode (say f/10 ish), A-DEP set to far or landscape mode to fix this as it will then have more in focus.
You just need to instruct in on what you want it to do.
Metering mode is a bit more complicated but I tend to use centre weighted average myself and leave it be most of the time. With bright sunlight indoors meter what is inside the house by using spot metering rather than full frame. This will "Blow out" the highlight sfrom outside but everything indoors will look bright crisp with outside just looking like white light.
As you don't have live view on your 400D use the use the DoF preview button on your 400D, it should be close to the lens ejection button. This will let you see what is and is not on focus through the viewfinder.
Hope this helps.
DZ
Basically I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this. When considering stills photography the fasted way to get a decent focus lock is through the use of a mirror box and phase detection focusing. Contrast focusing with or without dedicated phase detecting pixels on the sensor is always slower. That may change but for any camera on the market at the moment phase is quicker. Live view and shooting video is a completely different thing and the hybrid system is very fast and faster than previous methods.
However I don't believe Pen was thinking about buying a camera with the new hybrid focus system and so we're comparing just phase to just contrast. Also i'm guessing he doesn't give a monkeys about what bit of incomprehsible tech is or isn't inside his new camera :norty:
In a nutshell I don't think there's going to be a step change in the quality of images taken with a G3 over a 400D. And shooting inside in trade shows that often have questionable lighting is going to challenge the G3 more than it will the 400D.
They are not phase detection pixels on the sensor though. The translucent mirror reflects up to the same system as a DSLR but less light is reflected up. Same thing but no moving mirror aka mirror-less and it works all the time even when taking the photos. The Sony's work like this and they are class leading for AF currently.
Agree that the 400D would be better than the G3 in lower light but the G3 will have better ISO performance possibly with a newer sensor.
Pen:
Stick with the 400D and save yourself some money and invest instead in learning your way around the camera which will be applicable to all SLR or compacts moving forward. Bring it to the next LAN and I would be happy to geek out and answer any questions.
If you have any questions let me know and I am sure Smilo be happy to help you, (he will know EVERYTHING, how to compose and set up a camera and tons of best practice stuff that self taught people like me will not). I will write up a guide on this later when I have time as I have always wanted to write something for myself on this as I had to learn this all the hard way.
DZ.
Thanks guys.
TBH I lost interest in this thread from about #6 when it started getting over my head.
I do appreciate all your comments but fundamentally I'm not interested in learning how to use the 400D properly....... or rather I don't *want* to have to learn how to use it properly - I just want to fire and forget as it were.
I'll have a play with DOF as you suggest but really, if it's going to be much more than that, it ain't going to happen. I'm not a professional photographer and I don't want to be a professional photographer. That's what I pay Smilo for :)
Sorry Penfold to hop on this thread ,but as you guys know your stuff :D
How does the NEX cameras stack up .NEX 5R ,NEX 6.
Looking for an in between camera that small like my tz7 which i take every where
so it get used ,but not a full on dslr jobbie .That wouldn't get used .
Any advice welcome :D
Quote from: essy;361645Looking for an in between camera that small like my tz7 which i take every where
so it get used ,but not a full on dslr jobbie .That wouldn't get used .
Any advice welcome :D
Exactly my point (and issue). In fact I have the same TZ7 which is a cracking little camera.
Hijack away.
Quote from: essy;361645How does the NEX cameras stack up .NEX 5R ,NEX 6.
Apart from being a very odd looking camera, which is no reason not to buy it, the only issue is that Sony haven't produced a huge range of lenses for the camera, there's currently about half a dozen. Also it doesn't come with a viewfinder as standard, you'll have to buy one if it's important to you. Finally at £550 - 600 it's priced slap bang in the middle of the traditional consumer DSLR range and there are some outstanding cameras that it has to compete with.
I've never actually picked one up myself but I've seen them being used by other people and with the standard kit lens they do look to be a near perfect size. Not as small and fiddly as a compact or camera phone but not as big as a DSLR.
But most importantly though is that they are very capable of taking a stunning picture http://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/nex-5/
C (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/nex-5/)ompacts are great though and until I got my Samsung SII which has a very decent camera I always carried my Olympus XZ-1 with me everywhere
Pen, I reckon you need to decide on your parameters lest you get shoved towards something someone else would like ;)
dpreview used to have a decent camera chooser thing and I'd be surprised if there wasn't a good compact that met your description. SLR is more of a toy/hobby (assuming you're not wanting to become a pro...) where you more or less play with the camera and accessories. I still use my ancient little 6Mpix fuji compact for any occasions where my a200 is too much of a pain to carry around. It's good enough in low light, and if you use a tripod (or balance on a wine glass or whatever - same thing) the image quality is still really good.
I've had a go with one of the little sony dslr and they're pretty nice! Made my a200 seem really massive, and lacking in fancy processing features. Then again, when I looked up the pricing my old dslr was something of a bargain!
Quote from: essy;361645Sorry Penfold to hop on this thread ,but as you guys know your stuff :D
How does the NEX cameras stack up .NEX 5R ,NEX 6.
Looking for an in between camera that small like my tz7 which i take every where
so it get used ,but not a full on dslr jobbie .That wouldn't get used .
Any advice welcome :D
As Smilo says you are paying a lot of money on something which currently is limited in it uses and has an uncertain future as you can invest 2k in glass just for the format to dissapear. You can buy a fully fledged DSLR for considerably less money and feel safe in your investment in glass with more available in terms of a range too.
I have a friend that was thinking the same way and has his heart set on one of the new little samsung nx1000's. I was in the shop with him doing some simple camera drills like changing the ISO, Apterure etc and it was pretty horrendous as the shot would have been long gone in the time it took even wit shortcuts set up. The killer for him was when he accidentally started to take a video when turning it off auto to Av. The sonys in my experience are much the same. Yes they are smaller and look sexy and can have a lot of the feature of the full DSLR but my god they can be hard to operate if you have big man hands. Other things like battery life and durability are also a concern as its in a smaller package to both will suffer. I know you are all going to shout me down here too but they are actually pretty large if a zoom attached. A Canon 550D with a 50mm prime takes more less room than the NEX 5R and 6 in my pocket with a kit zoom and with the 550D kit zoom there is not much in it in terms of pocket-ability as both require a huge pocket to fit in with kits attached.
Personally if I wanted a good small camera I would look at one of the Olmypus Pen style cameras or a Leica knock off that are about these days. Other offerings are the compact cameras with tons of bells and whistles like the Canon PowerShot G12 or GX1. The other thing.... Use your phone... Most phones have great cameras on them for most uses. Low light and bright sunlight they are not great but for pictures of your mates and recording family stuff they get the job done!
Hope this helps.
DZ
OI :P stop talking about me haha.
Yeah after going and trying out the Compact System camera's (including the NX1000) I kind of met the same philosophy as I did when I wanted to get a small form factor computer that was a beast, its pretty difficult and I ended up going for a fully blown out E-ATX rig and haven't regretted it since. Going back to camera's fortunately my dad had a 30D kicking around that he said I could have so I saved myself £££ and used that instead. DZ also subbed me some lenses for the time being and I'm good to go :) The compact system camera's are too fiddley to play with for a guy like me who has massive fingers, there is a reason the NX1000 advert has a lady showing it off as her fingers are small enough to tinker with all the buttons on the camera.
The other major concern I had was that the focus ring was not actually physically attached to the lense and is totally controlled by motors internally, I found this out because the focal adjustment was slow and when the camera's firmware locked up I couldnt adjust the focus anymore. Having an SLR really makes a difference in this respect, I recommend sticking with it if you want the ease of use and additional control over the shot.
I dont know if this helps at all but if you're still interested in getting a new camera I found this quite good for me to compare the quality of a variety of camera's: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare)
Hope this helps.
-- Sky
So is a nx or nex not even suitable if you are after a large sensor small body camera , camcorder
that's small enough that it goes every where with you .
I take a very small man bag :lmfao: well ,gadget bag with me for my tablet ,phone ,wallet old tz7 on all day trips etc.
One of these nx nex cameras would go in a treat with a spare lens .
I know they are pricey for what they are ,but for an old SLR owner that never really
used it because of the bulk of it ,it was and expensive camera .
Pound per photo ,hours of use ive had 1000 times the use out my tz7 .
So is there a place for the nx or nex for as enthusiast photographer not semi or pro?
If not and full DSLR is best what is the smallest DLSR out there in the same price bracket :)
I found this tool ,site for size comparison :)
http://camerasize.com/
The Nex cameras are very good and do carry a decent sized sensor, so if you're looking to get away from a DSLR they are seriously worth considering. As they are priced like a DSLR it mightbe worth looking at something like the Nikon D3100 is a great camera and quite small, so it might be an option as well. Although the form factor is maybe still too big for what you need. The D3100 certainly isn't pocket sized, where as the NEX=5R is. http://j.mp/Wexc6N
So I'm making headway on this.
Had another play on the Eos400D and actually took some OK photos with it but it's still a bit too much like hardwork so I'm set on the point and click bridge cameras.
I think I've narrowed it down to two:
Panasonic Lumix FZ200 (http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/panasonic/lumix-dmc-fz200-digital-bridge-camera-86308/show.html)
or
Canon Powershot SX50 http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/canon/powershot-sx50-hs-digital-camera-87327/show.html)
Looking at the following compare they're much of a muchness of the Powershot just won in the hands-on test.
http://sortable.com/cameras/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-FZ200-vs-Canon-PowerShot-SX50-HS
However if anyone has any comments or experience then I'm all ears.
Thanks
I would be careful with this type of comparison as the a cameras tech specs don't necessarily maker it a better camera.
The glass in front of the sensor is arguably the most important part. Sharpness is much prized followed by maximum aperture for low light shooting and zoom range (aperture over the zoom range too), ISO performance and range etc. If the photos are 2.8 are not sharp, of have distortion, vignetting so you cant take photos at that f/ stop focal length combination then there no is no point in having it on the camera. A lot of manufacturers will add the option to take pictures with high spec but the pictures with those settings would not be usable.
I know a fair few people with Canon bridge cameras and their are fairly happy with them, Panasonic I don't know about in terms of cameras. Fuji do some very nice little compact offering at a much lower price point too which seem like a very similar spec (I think around £150). Those little Fuji's are very popular.
I will ask around to see if any of my photo pals have any recommendations on a bridge and snoop around the net there are any in depth review on the pictures these take, but both look fine for trade faire shooting.
That would be great, thanks.
Right, my turn to Hijack.
My missus wants a DSLR for her 40th and after a search of all makes in the <£500 price range I have decided on this:
http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/cameras/digital-cameras/digital-slr-cameras/nikon-d3200-digital-slr-camera-with-18-55-mm-telephoto-zoom-lens-55-200-mm-telephoto-zoom-lens-lp36510-format-120-dslr-camera-bag-black-performance-sdhc-memory-card-16gb-twin-pack-pn980476-pdt.html
I call on the knowledgeable to educate my ignorance :P
Smite
What is she going to use the camera for?
Where and when is she going to use it?
What cameras does she use now and have experience with?
There is no "Best camera" or "Best sub £500 camera" only different options for the way you shoot.
She wants to take better pictures for all occasions. Holidays, kids, parties etc...
Currently using a cheap Sony compact and mobile phones for all pictures.
No previous experience of DSLR but fancies one. No more, no less :D
canon powershot sk50 looks a good all round camera. in agros for 349.99 at the moment
Quote from: smite;374659She wants to take better pictures for all occasions. Holidays, kids, parties etc...
Currently using a cheap Sony compact and mobile phones for all pictures.
No previous experience of DSLR but fancies one. No more, no less :D
"Better pictures" doesn't really help unfortunately mate =). You need different equipment for different uses.
I have to say that the need for a fully fledged DSLR is rapidly diminishing with Mirrorless Camera's getting almost the same image quaility in a much smaller and less expensive package. DSLR have moving parts, are pretty heavy and they have bigger heavier lenses meaning that they are not particularly compact, they cost more money to upkeep and to service and are a real investment. Saying this they have still the best image quality and flexibility and you can shoot pretty much anything if you have the right lenses.
I have to say that if I was starting out I would probably go for a micro four thirds camera as the lenses are great quality and cheap, the cameras are small and lighter and the noise at high ISO is almost as good as APS-C. I think that this price point you get the most bang for your buck and a better all round package as you can get some very good glass in front of your sensor for M4/3 at that price point where you will struggle for APS-C SLR's. The only drawback is no optical viewfinder but you can get a cheap digital one which can often be a benefits for exposure control over optical but this depends on what you like.
If you do want to go for a DSLR I would possibly recommend going for a nifty fifty (50mm) as your first lens, which on an APS-C body will give you around 80mm which is a great portrait length. Getting a cheap prime with a wide aperture is great for learning and a 50mm f/1.8 is about £80 maximum and will be the sharpest lens you will own until you spend £500 and up on a single lens. Superzooms are great for convenience but you sacrifice a lot in sharpness, distortion and low light. Plus they make you lazy as you will find yourself composing the shot less but using your feet to get angles etc. So a 50mm is great to learn with.
Getting a standard kit lens for 18 to 55 is the next most important as this will be on the camera the most for taking pictures indoors and of family. These lenses are cheap and cheerful but not sharp at all and they will suffer from distortion.
The next choice will depends on what you want to do, you can go for a telephoto superzoom like a 55-200 or 70-300 or even the opposite and got for a super wide or fisheye for getting a massive viewing angle.
I have recently fallen in love with the new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 that a friend has which is £800 but its a f/1.8 zoom and the sharpness on it is excellent.
That is my thoughts anyway =).
Smilo is the professional tog so he will know a lot more.
DZ
Quote from: DrunkenZombiee;374720"Better pictures" doesn't really help unfortunately mate =). You need different equipment for different uses.
I have to say that the need for a fully fledged DSLR is rapidly diminishing with Mirrorless Camera's getting almost the same image quaility in a much smaller and less expensive package. DSLR have moving parts, are pretty heavy and they have bigger heavier lenses meaning that they are not particularly compact, they cost more money to upkeep and to service and are a real investment. Saying this they have still the best image quality and flexibility and you can shoot pretty much anything if you have the right lenses.
I have to say that if I was starting out I would probably go for a micro four thirds camera as the lenses are great quality and cheap, the cameras are small and lighter and the noise at high ISO is almost as good as APS-C. I think that this price point you get the most bang for your buck and a better all round package as you can get some very good glass in front of your sensor for M4/3 at that price point where you will struggle for APS-C SLR's. The only drawback is no optical viewfinder but you can get a cheap digital one which can often be a benefits for exposure control over optical but this depends on what you like.
If you do want to go for a DSLR I would possibly recommend going for a nifty fifty (50mm) as your first lens, which on an APS-C body will give you around 80mm which is a great portrait length. Getting a cheap prime with a wide aperture is great for learning and a 50mm f/1.8 is about £80 maximum and will be the sharpest lens you will own until you spend £500 and up on a single lens. Superzooms are great for convenience but you sacrifice a lot in sharpness, distortion and low light. Plus they make you lazy as you will find yourself composing the shot less but using your feet to get angles etc. So a 50mm is great to learn with.
Getting a standard kit lens for 18 to 55 is the next most important as this will be on the camera the most for taking pictures indoors and of family. These lenses are cheap and cheerful but not sharp at all and they will suffer from distortion.
The next choice will depends on what you want to do, you can go for a telephoto superzoom like a 55-200 or 70-300 or even the opposite and got for a super wide or fisheye for getting a massive viewing angle.
I have recently fallen in love with the new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 that a friend has which is £800 but its a f/1.8 zoom and the sharpness on it is excellent.
That is my thoughts anyway =).
Smilo is the professional tog so he will know a lot more.
DZ
Hi DZ,
Thank you for replying and in depth.
We visited the lovely Currys yesterday and looked at all of the cameras and had some decent demo's from the "Camera Guy".
He pointed out some of things you mentioned, showed us pictures from different cameras with different lenses. In fact it's the most helpful I have found anyone in Currys.
But it all came down to the Mrs going, I want that one (the Nikon D3200). It was close between the Canon EOS100D but megapixels, guide mode, additional 55-200mm lens won out.
Again cheers for replying. I know nothing about camera's before this :D.
Mick
Right, it looks like after talking to various people at work / friends etc.. she will be better off with a bridge camera for what she needs.
Strangely I have narrowed it down to the same 2 cameras that Pen was deciding between nearly a year ago. The Canon Powershot SX50 or Panasonic Lumix Fz200.
The Lumix is getting better reviews for picture quality with the f/2.8 (constant) app compared to the Canon at f/3.4-6.5. But the Canon has x50 zoom....I can't see her needing more than the x24 of the Lumix though.
I want to buy the Canon just due to the optical zoom, especially looking at the videos on YouTube, but as she wants the camera for pictures of the kids, landscapes, evening / parties and not bird watching (Perving :D)
then the Lumix is looking the better option.
Pen, which one did you get and how are you finding it?
Quote from: smite;374916Right, it looks like after talking to various people at work / friends etc.. she will be better off with a bridge camera for what she needs.
Strangely I have narrowed it down to the same 2 cameras that Pen was deciding between nearly a year ago. The Canon Powershot SX50 or Panasonic Lumix Fz200.
The Lumix is getting better reviews for picture quality with the f/2.8 (constant) app compared to the Canon at f/3.4-6.5. But the Canon has x50 zoom....I can't see her needing more than the x24 of the Lumix though.
I want to buy the Canon just due to the optical zoom, especially looking at the videos on YouTube, but as she wants the camera for pictures of the kids, landscapes, evening / parties and not bird watching (Perving :D)
then the Lumix is looking the better option.
Pen, which one did you get and how are you finding it?
These are the top end of bridge cameras mate and are pretty expensive for what they are IMO.
Superzooms have a lot of issues with barrel distortion, vignetting etc even when they are perfectly paired with a sensor to get maximum quality and the camera correcting for this in software/hardware. The Killer is the smaller sensor for me and ISO performance.
For that price you can get a really nice Micro four thirds setup, but lets see what Pen says =).
DZ.