Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
Airmantharp wrote:Nikon D3300 (cheap), D5300 (articulating screen), D7100 (better controls/twin dials/has the screw drive for older lenses), all 24MP. The D3300 is shipping with Nikon's updated kit lens, which like Canon's new kit lens, is supposed to be a significant improvement. Next, Nikon has the best real mix of inexpensive available lenses, and they have the best sensors.
Consider Canon only if you're willing to spend more money, stepping up to either the 70D for it's incredible video performance or their full-frame semi-pro cameras for access to Canon lenses. Canon's more expensive cameras are enticing primarily because Canon has the best glass for a larger set of applications, but we're talking $2,000/lens before the differences really matter.
Another option is to forgo the DSLR for a mirror-less option. You lose the mirror, and you lose the more capable auto-focus tracking for bursts, but you still get all of the manual controls and the lens selection.
Overall, nearly any camera + lens kit will take great pictures if you're taking your time to ensure a sharp shot, well exposed shot, shoot in RAW, and spend a few minutes afterward in your photo editing program of choice. Choosing a system should be balanced on where you want to go with your photography far more than where you want to start.
Hz so good wrote:Sounds like Nikon might be the way to go at the beginning. Once I get comfy taking photos again, I can start considering the Canons. Thanks!
SnowboardingTobi wrote:Pro tip: if you start with Nikon, then stick with Nikon.
PenGun wrote:Those Nikon sensors are Sony sensors and Sony just got serious. They blindsided both Canon and Nikon with the a7R which I am slowly shifting too. A monstrous thing that ways 465g ... with a battery.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... amera.html
End User wrote:PenGun wrote:Look at the Fuji X Cameras. They kinda kill.
Is there a tilt shift lens for Fuji X cameras?
End User wrote:PenGun wrote:Those Nikon sensors are Sony sensors and Sony just got serious. They blindsided both Canon and Nikon with the a7R which I am slowly shifting too. A monstrous thing that ways 465g ... with a battery.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... amera.html
So anything YOU use is awesome. Noted.
PenGun wrote:End User wrote:PenGun wrote:Those Nikon sensors are Sony sensors and Sony just got serious. They blindsided both Canon and Nikon with the a7R which I am slowly shifting too. A monstrous thing that ways 465g ... with a battery.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1 ... amera.html
So anything YOU use is awesome. Noted.
Whoa, where did that come from? I was just pointing out where Nikon sensors come from and pointing at why it's now a problem for them.
A few people here at least know I have been trying to get an a7R together for a while now. I have a lens for it.
End User wrote:How soon you forgot. You were droning on about your awesomeness in a previous post.
End User wrote:PenGun wrote:End User wrote:How soon you forgot. You were droning on about your awesomeness in a previous post.
Could you link that for me?
Search your posts. You know it to be true.
Airmantharp wrote:Back on subject, both of you :-p
Sony makes some of Nikon's sensors- Toshiba makes some, and some are of Nikon's own design. They're all very good.
The A7(r) puts out great quality images, and is flexible, but native glass is very slim and very expensive, as is Sony glass in general. That's why I didn't mention them; even Fuji makes more sense here, as they have better lenses, but I'd hesitate to recommend either to the budget conscious.
And no mirror-less setup rivals a good DSLR for focus speed, especially at the high end; but the 85/1.8 in my signature, for example, is very quick, and makes an excellent budget action lens.
Airmantharp wrote:Back on subject, both of you :-p
Sony makes some of Nikon's sensors- Toshiba makes some, and some are of Nikon's own design. They're all very good.
The A7(r) puts out great quality images, and is flexible, but native glass is very slim and very expensive, as is Sony glass in general. That's why I didn't mention them; even Fuji makes more sense here, as they have better lenses, but I'd hesitate to recommend either to the budget conscious.
And no mirror-less setup rivals a good DSLR for focus speed, especially at the high end; but the 85/1.8 in my signature, for example, is very quick, and makes an excellent budget action lens.
PenGun wrote:The X Trans sensor is perhaps the best APS-C sensor for sheer IQ.
End User wrote:I don't always agree with you but I appreciate your balanced viewpoint in this discussion especially when one considers your investment in Canon hardware.
Airmantharp wrote:The A7(r) puts out great quality images, and is flexible, but native glass is very slim and very expensive, as is Sony glass in general. That's why I didn't mention them;
Rectal Prolapse wrote:Canon 60D + Magic Lantern firmware mod.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/
The Canon 60D is inexpensive. Not the best camera in the world or anything, but I have one and I got some very nice pictures from it. I think, right now, it is one of the best starter DSLR cameras you can get, since it is reasonably priced due to its age, yet has more than enough features for the interested amateur. Magic Lantern firmware mod lets you try out very advanced features (HDR, focus bracketing, and more!).
PenGun wrote:A lot of people are hanging those nice Minolta's on the a7R and getting some great results.
TheEmrys wrote:Airmantharp wrote:The A7(r) puts out great quality images, and is flexible, but native glass is very slim and very expensive, as is Sony glass in general. That's why I didn't mention them;
I would have to disagree here. Sony A-Mount is just about the cheapest system to get into. Shoot, I could put together a pretty sweet setup for $200 or less.
Minolta 50/1.7 - $60 (awfully sharp and extremely cheap. There are literally millions of them out there)
Minolta 70-210/4 - $100 (awfully sharp and very nice bokeh, some of the best you will find on a zoom. Does some awesome portraiture)
or
Minolta 100-300 APO - $140 (great lens, and incredibly small. Easily fits in a pocket of a jacket or cargo pants)
Spend $100 more an an upgraded kit lens (either the 16-105 or 18-135). And with IBIS, all are image stabilized, and all of these are pretty sharp lenses. But, just as any non-top level glass, you may not get sharpness in the corners, but your centers and middles will be spot-on. And they all will AF, something I learned about Nikon's recent bodies don't always do (which is a stunningly silly move, IMO). And if it sticks, you can upgrade your lenses to the f/2.8's. Also, the neat little Sony 35/1.8 makes a great indoor shooting lens that will give you the a normal focal length that the 50 just isn't quite at (too long). It runs about $170.
Slinky wrote:Have you looked at Olympus? The new omd is pretty good. Top end features in a $1500 body. Dials everywhere, fully customisable. Their 4/3ds system may not have the quality of a full frame SLR, but the ability to have high quality glass, that's at a decent price, and everything is smaller. It's easy to carry around all your lenses. And it shares lenses with Panasonic, and others. Spoilt for choice. Worth looking into.
Airmantharp wrote:There's a whole lot to like about using Sony's Alpha system, or what's left of it, but I hesitate to recommend relying on the availability of older/used glass as the basis of a system. There's a whole lot that can go wrong and a whole lot of potential frustration, but I do agree that I've been enamored by the combination of excellent Minolta lenses attached to Sony's sensors. Definitely a rewarding system for the frugal!
*I'll also chime in on the whole IBIS vs. OIS thing-
IBIS- or 'In Body Image Stabilization' is a wonderful technology for snap-shooters living in the shorter focal lengths (sub 100mm), but OIS or 'Optical Image Stabilization' (also just IS, or VR, VC, OS...) is much more effective for longer focal lengths. While having both would obviously be preferable, and that's actually possible with the Micro Four Thirds system, other systems allow for only one.
JustAnEngineer wrote:There are really just three significant players in the DSLR market. Canon and Nikon are #1 and #2 in a close race, followed distantly by Sony. All of the others are just fringe players. Choose one of these three, and you'll be on your way.
Don't get too hung up on the camera itself. You'll probably use it for five years and then upgrade to a newer camera body with better performance and features. Once you start buying professional-grade lenses, you'll keep using them for decades. All of the nearly 100 million Canon EF lenses sold since 1987 are still fully-functional with Canon DSLR cameras sold today.
If you were a professional sports photographer headed to Sochi to capture images of fast-moving athletes, you'd have a giant multi-kilobuck lens from Canon or Nikon and a camera that matched your lens investment. For less-challenging professional or amateur photography, the selection of lenses from Sony and third parties (Sigma and Tamron followed by a handful of smaller lens manufacturers) for Sony's α-mount is more than sufficient.
I'll suggest that non-technical factors may influence which of the DSLR brands you start out with. If you have friends or family who are heavily invested in one of the three major brands already, you may choose that brand so that you can borrow or swap lenses.
Don't be afraid to buy used or refurbished photographic equipment to keep your spending down. Most photographers are careful with their gear, so used equipment can be nearly as good as new. Watch for deals on new and refurbished cameras and lenses here:
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/prices/
http://www.nikonpricewatch.com/
(Sorry, there's no Sony equivalent.)
The best e-tailers for photo equipment are B&H Photo Video, Adorama and Amazon.
I like the reviews at The Digital Picture or Photozone.