|
Hey guys, so I have some cash to spend on gifts this holiday season and I'm asking for some advice on a nice DSLR camera that's suitable for taking really good looking pictures (IMO) that usually makes it to the front page on sites like Instagram, Pinterest, Flickr etc etc.
Something like this would be insane.
+ Show Spoiler +
I do plan on taking photography seriously so I'm kinda iffy on getting recommendations for "beginner" cameras especially since that investment would be somewhere in the hundreds.
My budget is $1000 USD. The only thing I have is a microSD card.
Feel free to post advice on how to get started. I am really clueless but extremely interested. I know nothing about lenses and the only camera I know is the Canon EOS T5i Rebel because it sounds cool.
Any links to photography enthusiasts website would be great too.
|
Get a used t3i or t4i and get two solid prime(non zoom) lenses, as well as an SD card(micro sd wont do). generally speaking if you can get an 85mm 2.8 and a 35mm 2.8 your in good business. Dont get anything under 2.8 aperture, you will struggle too much with lighting anytime your not outdoors. If you cant get two lenses - then just a good 35mm lens and a t4i will do just fine.
|
Aargh. I wrote a very long post and lost it in family Christmas chaos before I submitted it.
I'd advise you to consider one of two systems: Nikon DSLR or Micro Four Thirds (Olympus/Panasonic). They'll both give you excellent images, but Micro Four Thirds has a wider variety of affordable prime lenses. In general, Canon DSLR's, while competent enough, are better at video work; Nikon has better sensors and a wider variety of affordable and excellent prime lenses.
You want to spend as much of your budget on lenses as possible; lenses are the things that really let you do stuff. All modern cameras will take excellent images, and extra features are more conveniences than things that will truly improve your work. Really, when you're picking a camera body, you're picking which set of lenses you will be able to use on it.
Here's a quick primer on lenses: they've got two numbers you should pay attention to, focal length and maximum aperture.
Focal length is, basically, how wideangle or telephoto a lens is. 35mm on Nikon (or Canon) or 25mm on Micro Four Thirds roughly corresponds to the way the eye sees the world; bigger numbers are more telephoto, smaller numbers are more wideangle. Zoom lenses are lenses that can change their focal length; for instance, Nikon likes to include an 18-55mm lens with their cameras.
Maximum aperture is the amount of light a lens can gather. It's measured in f/numbers; lower numbers gather more light. Wider apertures do two things: they gather more light, letting you shoot in lower light conditions with less grain, and they give you a narrower depth of focus. Sometimes this is annoying, but often it can be used in dramatic ways to throw a background out of focus for things like portraits.
Lenses that don't zoom ("prime lenses") tend to have wider maximum apertures. For instance, the Nikon 18-55 that comes with their cameras is f/3.5 at the wide end and f/5.6 at the long end, but there is also a Nikon 35mm f/1.8 that gathers far more light. (It's $150 or so; if you go Nikon, you probably want to get this lens. It's excellent.)
My advice would be to get a used Nikon or Micro Four Thirds camera body along with its kit lens. If you go Micro Four Thirds, be aware that some of the bodies available don't have viewfinders; you probably want a viewfinder. If you can find a used E-M5 or E-M10 (Olympus) for $500 or so, this is excellent; the E-M5 is an older high-end camera body that is just excellent in a great many ways. For Nikons, look for a D5100, D7000, D3200, or D3300. (The D3100 might also have a modern sensor; I'm not sure. I can find out later if you find a good deal on one). On the Nikons, the first digit of the model number is the "tier", where D3xxx is entry-level, D5xxx is mid-tier, and D7xxx is high-tier. They'll all take the same images, though: the higher tier cameras are a bit bigger and have more buttons for direct access to things so you don't need to use the menus as much. From your description, I'd look at the D5100 first and see if you can get a good deal on one.
Shoot with the kit lens for a few weeks, getting to know your camera and figuring out what other lens you want. Do you want to shoot in lower light with less depth of field, or want absolute maximum pin sharpness [this is less important than you might think]? You want a prime lens. On Nikons, the main options are a 35 f/1.8, 50 f/1.8, or 85 f/1.8 (a little pricier). On Micro Four Thirds, you can choose between a Panasonic 14 f/2.5 or 20 f/1.7, or Olympus 25 f/2.8 or 45 f/1.8. (All of these are excellent.) Choose the focal length based on what you like to shoot. For portraits you want the longer end of this range (50 or 85 on Nikon, or Olympus 45, which is the best portrait lens I have ever used).
Do you want to shoot wildlife? You probably want a longer focal length telephoto lens. Nikon makes 55-300 f/5.6 or 70-300 f/5.6 zoom lenses, or a 55-200 for a bit less money. On Micro Four Thirds, your options are an Olympus 40-150 (really not a bad lens) or Panasonic 100-300; keep in mind that the same focal length is about 30% more "zoomy" on Micro Four Thirds due to the smaller sensor. (Some people will tell you that smaller sensors give you lower image quality. It really doesn't make much difference at all.)
There are lots of options out there. Both of these systems will also let you use ancient manual focus lenses, many of which are quite good optically. Modern Nikons can use any Nikon lens ever made, while Micro Four Thirds cameras can use basically *any* lens ever made with an inexpensive adapter.
Some good sites you can poke at are:
www.dpreview.com (camera reviews)
www.slrgear.com (lens reviews -- it's easy to get overwhelmed by the choices)
www.fredmiranda.com (buy and sell forum)
or you can ask me here if you have any questions about something.
|
Keep in mind half of what you see on pinterest, flickr, instagram etc is heavily edited. Your example photo is basically showing off photoshop skills - there's no way you would get an image like that straight out of the camera.
Photography is an expensive hobby. $1k is beginner level - an entry level DSLR and a prime lens is about all that will get you. If you're planning on a lot of indoor or sports shooting that probably won't be that great. Buy it anyway, learn how to use it, learn how to post-process, photoshop, composition, etc then if you enjoy it you'll know by then what you want to upgrade to.
|
Oh yeah, sorry I forgot to mention that I do have experience with photo/image editing using PS CS6.
|
Entropius summed up photography very well.
Wider apertures do two things: they gather more light, letting you shoot in lower light conditions with less grain, and they give you a narrower depth of focus. Sometimes this is annoying, but often it can be used in dramatic ways to throw a background out of focus for things like portraits.
Throwing background out of focus is called bokeh effect. Essentially with a wider aperture (smaller f/number) you can let in more light without affecting shutter speed, but your depth of focus becomes quite small. So things in the foreground or background will become blurry. With a narrow aperture (large f/number) you don't get as much light in, but your depth of focus is much larger. This puts everything in focus.
I would suggest you get a cheap body, but spend more money on the lenses. Once you are satisfied with your first body, upgrade it to a better one, but keep the lenses.
|
My primary focus for photography is interior decor and secondary would be portraits. I love the suggestions for getting used equipment but as a very green beginner I'm a little cautious in case something goes wrong and I need to return it or have to RMA something.
I have some simple questions:
1. What is a prime lens? Is that like a premium lens you have to buy separately depending on the focal length and max ap. you want?
2. What lens specifications would you recommend for shooting primarily the depth of a wide/long living room?
|
1. prime means fixed focal length (as opposed to zoom which is variable) and generally higher quality / faster / cheaper.
2. for interior decor you'll want a wide lens, so a low focal length such as the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM (~$450, although ideally a lower length). since your subject is stationary, you can probably use a tripod and a slower / cheaper lens too.
|
On December 26 2014 17:52 R1CH wrote:
1. prime means fixed focal length (as opposed to zoom which is variable) and generally higher quality / faster / cheaper.
2. for interior decor you'll want a wide lens, so a low focal length such as the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM (~$450, although ideally a lower length). since your subject is stationary, you can probably use a tripod and a slower / cheaper lens too.
Awesome thanks!
Another thing, how does lens compatibility work? Do certain brands only work with each other? Or is it something like a motherboard (in this case a camera) that supports a specific amount of pins a CPU has?
|
On December 26 2014 18:02 wptlzkwjd wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2014 17:52 R1CH wrote:
1. prime means fixed focal length (as opposed to zoom which is variable) and generally higher quality / faster / cheaper.
2. for interior decor you'll want a wide lens, so a low focal length such as the Canon 24mm f/2.8 IS USM (~$450, although ideally a lower length). since your subject is stationary, you can probably use a tripod and a slower / cheaper lens too. Awesome thanks! Another thing, how does lens compatibility work? Do certain brands only work with each other? Or is it something like a motherboard (in this case a camera) that supports a specific amount of pins a CPU has?
lens selection is absolutely the #1 thing you should look at. most lens systems you buy into (nikon, canon, etc) are not cross compatible.
if you really want to dive into it as a hobby i'd recommend going with the cheapest camera that gives you as much manual control as possible so you don't have to dive through menus to change settings and from there it's all about acquiring lenses.
unfortunately, good quality wide lenses are pretty damn expensive. it may actually be cheaper for you to take the full frame route just so you dont have to spend more on extremely wide lenses to get the equivalent on a crop sensor
i would also not recommend a m4/3 for indoor use. the iso performance will be subpar compared to dslrs at a comparable price.
side note that there are also very good mirrorless cameras to look at. sony a7, fuji x series, and such
|
Finland926 Posts
Three quick notes
#1: Eye up various camera bodies, then go to a physical store and fondle them. Feel them in your hands. See how they handle. Your choice of camera brand will usually lock you into that ecosystem, and you better like the ergonomics.
#2: See if you have any relatives or friends who are into photography. Can you borrow gear from them? Even better, maybe an older relative has a collection of film cameras that they'd be willing to part with.
#3: Once you have your first camera body, go read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It will teach you the basics of photography to get you started.
Bonus #4: Buy a used Fuji X100 (or X100S/T) and never worry about buying another camera body ever again.
e: It might not be a bad idea to start out with a point-and-shoot camera that offers manual controls. Small size, can get you decent image quality, is not such a huge investment, and not such a burden to slug around.
|
On December 27 2014 00:58 hexhaven wrote:Three quick notes #1: Eye up various camera bodies, then go to a physical store and fondle them. Feel them in your hands. See how they handle. Your choice of camera brand will usually lock you into that ecosystem, and you better like the ergonomics. #2: See if you have any relatives or friends who are into photography. Can you borrow gear from them? Even better, maybe an older relative has a collection of film cameras that they'd be willing to part with. #3: Once you have your first camera body, go read Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. It will teach you the basics of photography to get you started. Bonus #4: Buy a used Fuji X100 (or X100S/T) and never worry about buying another camera body ever again. e: It might not be a bad idea to start out with a point-and-shoot camera that offers manual controls. Small size, can get you decent image quality, is not such a huge investment, and not such a burden to slug around.
This is pretty much all the advice you're gonna need  . I've been wanting to get an X100s for ages now, soon... soon.
But if you still want to blow your money on this expensive drug:
Get a d700 or the classic 5d used. Get the cheapest prime you can (don't go manual focus, at least not initially, by default the focusing screen of even high end modern cameras are useless for precise MF) which is the 50 1.8 of the brand you chose. The pair will net you about 1200. I know this is over your budget but this is really all you need. I am a working professional (I mainly work editing jobs but shoot occasionally), I also have a hi speed wide angle zoom and a hi speed tele in my bag but when I'm not working all I have is a 50 (granted a 1.4). Some people prefer the 35 or the 28 as their go to prime, but I suggest going with a narrower lens first because wide angle makes you lazy.
As for learning:
At first, force yourself to be aware of what's on the picture. When you look through the viewfinder and you concentrate on an object, your mind will make it fill the picture but in reality most of the times it will be small, in the wrong place and the picture that comes out in the end will have loads of needless visual information. So my advice would be is to really concentrate on clean compositions initially. Flickr used to be a good resource but now for me it's way too much about handing out complements and sticker whoring. Look at news images, portraits and cutting edge documentary photography. Check out the Leica Oscar Barnack and World Press Photo winners. Also consider Magnum, Agence Vu, or VII. Also Time, while they have gone off the social media deep end in recent times have a very good photo department and showcase good photography often.
Try and look at these pictures without their context. They are amazing because they manage to convey their message very effectively using a refined, clean visual style.
All digital images have some degree of post process, but these will have the least in terms of cloning and crazy unreal gimmickry.
Learn to use the light meter and how your particular camera gets exposures wrong (mine tends to overexpose by 1/3 of a stop). You don't need to go full manual all the time, but if you know what's going on, you'll be more effective at using the camera on semi-auto modes.
The sooner your camera becomes an extension of your brain, the sooner you'll free yourself of the gear fetishism prevalent in most forums and just enjoy shooting.
Photography by itself is just a tool, like the alphabet, so getting strong basics will make it easier to get into whatever you wish to use it for.
Good luck and happy shooting!
|
Finland926 Posts
Getting just a good basic body (Nikon D700 and Canon 5D are good choices), and a single prime will be challenging and requires a ton of discipline, but it will make you a better photographer in the end. If you use the combo for say, a year, you'll learn more about photography, both the technical and the artistic side, than going with just a consumer kit combo.
e: Also check out The Atlantic's In Focus for more photojournalism. It's useful to look at tons of images from varying genres.
|
On December 27 2014 10:51 hexhaven wrote:Getting just a good basic body (Nikon D700 and Canon 5D are good choices), and a single prime will be challenging and requires a ton of discipline, but it will make you a better photographer in the end. If you use the combo for say, a year, you'll learn more about photography, both the technical and the artistic side, than going with just a consumer kit combo. e: Also check out The Atlantic's In Focus for more photojournalism. It's useful to look at tons of images from varying genres.
I would advise you away from either of those bodies. They certainly aren't bad ones, of course, but they are still likely to be more expensive than much more recent crop-sensor bodies (D5100 or Olympus E-M5). While they have the advantage of fullframe sensors, the lower noise level from the larger sensors is mostly outweighed by the fact that the newer Sony and Toshiba-designed sensors (D7000/E-M5 vintage and more recent) have much lower read noise and will make up much of the gain from going to fullframe.
Older fullframe is only worth it if:
1) You need to shoot in very low light, and are willing to tolerate the extremely narrow depth of field that comes from maxing out a fast prime on fullframe, or
2) You want the extremely narrow depth of field that comes from maxing out said fast prime, or
3) You want to use the ultrawide primes that don't exist for crop sensor (except Four Thirds), and
4) You are willing to pay the higher cost and deal with the lower pixel counts.
I do agree with using primes. You could shoot for a year with only the E-M5 and Olympus 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 lenses or be delighted in the results and your knowledge (or the Nikon 35/1.8). I advise you to get a kit combo first, though, just to see what focal length prime you want: if you want to do portraits, for instance, you probably want the 45/1.8 instead of the 25/1.8.
|
On December 26 2014 18:02 wptlzkwjd wrote:
Another thing, how does lens compatibility work? Do certain brands only work with each other? Or is it something like a motherboard (in this case a camera) that supports a specific amount of pins a CPU has?
Modern Canon DSLR's work with Canon's electronic lenses (EF lenses). Fullframe ones (the 5D people are talking about) will work with only EF lenses; crop-sensor ones (the ones I advocate you look at) will work with EF or EF-S lenses.
Nikon DSLR's will work with any Nikon lens ever made (except Nikon 1 lenses, but that's obscure). Nikon fullframe cameras (which Nikon calls FX) will give you funny results with DX lenses; DX cameras (Nikon's crop bodies) will work with DX or FX lenses. If you get early Nikon autofocus lenses (marked AF, not AF-S), they will only autofocus with some Nikon camera bodies (the higher-end ones).
Sony is a complicated mess, but you probably don't want to go Sony.
Olympus and Panasonic have gone in together on a system called Micro Four Thirds. Any Micro Four Thirds lens (Olympus or Panasonic) will work on any Micro Four Thirds camera. Older "plain" Four Thirds lenses will work on them with a cheap adapter, but may autofocus slowly.
i would also not recommend a m4/3 for indoor use. the iso performance will be subpar compared to dslrs at a comparable price.
This is true only of some Panasonic models and the older (12MP) Olympus ones. Most of the bad reputation of m4/3 in low light comes from the garbage performance of the old 12MP sensor, which was pretty much unrelated to its size. They are *much* better now. Any Olympus model with the 16MP Sony-made sensor will give you very good performance at high ISO, despite the smaller sensor. (I've shot an E-M5 and currently use a D7100. The D7100 is about the best DX camera made at high ISO; the E-M5 is about 1/3-1/2 stop worse. It's very, very close, and the differences in low light capability come down to other things, like lenses. In the price range that the OP is looking, though, Olympus gives you IS on primes where Nikon doesn't, and frankly the Olympus primes are better: their 45/1.8 blows Nikon's 50/1.8 out of the water. Nikon 35/1.8 and Olympus 25/1.8 are very close, but the Olympus gives you IS and the Nikon doesn't. Honestly, for indoor shots of slowly-moving targets, I'd take the m4/3 camera over my Nikon, just because of the IS on primes. (I bought the Nikon because of the 80-400G, which is an entirely different beastie than what the OP is after.)
This isn't to say that Nikon isn't a reasonable choice. (I *don't* think Canon is, if you're interested in stills.) Nikon makes exceedingly fine cameras and some very nice lenses (the 35/1.8 is the top of the heap. So's the 85/1.8. The 50/1.8 is also good but not superb. The 18-105 is very good for a kit lens. Etc.) But don't dismiss m4/3 just because of the reputation it acquired from the old crappy sensors; the modern sensors are very good, the built-in IS on Olympus works wonders, and the lenses are quite frankly amazing.
The sooner your camera becomes an extension of your brain, the sooner you'll free yourself of the gear fetishism prevalent in most forums and just enjoy shooting.
This is definitely true. While it's a good idea to think carefully about what to buy *now*, once you get your stuff (whatever you decide on), you'll be able to make brilliant images with whatever you choose, and at that point you should stop worrying about gear and just go shoot. The best investment you can make to improve your photography is a day spent behind the viewfinder.
|
oh no, i'm not saying it's bad by any means. it's just if you're looking to purchase a new om-d m1 for example there are plenty of mirrorless crop sized sensors that are at a comparable price that offer better iso performance (fuji x system comes to mind). if you're shooting mostly indoor that extra iso performance will definitely be welcome.
really though, most modern systems are very close in performance so you really just have to pick the camera that has lenses that you need and, most importantly, makes you want to go out and shoot more :D
ergonomics plays a huge role in this so make sure you're comfortable with the control layout!
|
The fuji x series is a great experiment and kudos to them for making an effort, but the high end body of the family and the lenses are ridiculously overpriced for what they do (not that any other first party lenses are cheap  ).
True, I guess you could go with a d7x00/5x00/3x00 and the 35/1.8 dx and save some money. I keep forgetting how much sensors have evolved in the past years, guess it's time to dive into the dpreview sample galleries again . The 35/1.8dx is a fantastic lens, very light and pretty good at wide apertures, only caveat is it's mostly plastic so won't take that much of a beating.
The thing that I don't understand with the olympus/panasonic lines is the size. I believe you need a good grip on the body if you are shooting for longer periods. If the body is too small you have to keep hunting for buttons with you fingers it sucks. And even the new nikon slr-s are a bit small for me, my pinky and ring finger keep slipping off the d800 and the d7000 I tried for longer stints. The d70s, which came out in 2005, was perfect in terms of ergonomics (mine told me to go f myself at around 250k exposures, bless its soul), I don't get why manufacturers need to keep reducing body sizes for enthusiast cameras, people's hands aren't gonna shrink in the long run. It's like collapsible rocks with blizz .
|
Yeah, that's sort of my take on the Fuji series: it's too much of a "boutique artisan" product, the lenses are pricey, there's no IS (which really *does* help), and the lens selection doesn't include any true wildlife options (which is okay, since the AF is apparently a bit leisurely anyway). Sort of a shame, since their sensors are up there with the very best APS-C ones.
Sensors have gotten incredibly good, but the big leap happened when Sony came up with some magic that led to a huge leap; the first two using this were the D7000 sensor (which was a big gain over the D300 one), and the E-M5 sensor (which was a stupendous gain over the old 12MP Four Thirds sensor (which was awful). Canon has been making slower progress but still hasn't caught up to the Sony sensors.
On the m4/3 body size: My mother has a GH2, which is one of the larger m4/3 bodies. It's balanced reasonably well with her 100-300mm; while it's small it's fine for both of us. (We both have small hands, though. If you have giant hands I can see you having trouble) I was more skeptical about the E-M5, as it is truly tiny, but I found it easier than I thought. (I love my D7100, but rented an E-M5 once for a project, and it's still the best camera I've ever used.) Someone with giant Tolkien-dwarf fingers like my grandfather would hit about three buttons at a time, though.
I have a D7100 now and find it to be just about right; actually, the best ergonomics I ever used were on an old Olympus E-510 (the "non-micro" Four Thirds system). Everything was just in the right place.
There's definitely a history of small, extremely competent cameras: Leicas and the Olympus OM-system come to mind. (And now Fuji wants to be like Leica and Olympus wants to be like, well, they used to be...)
This whole discussion really underscores the importance of ergonomics over worrying about thirds of a stop of image noise: one of the problems with my advocacy of Micro Four Thirds is that it's harder to find a shop that has one you can handle.
|
Yeah i guess the micro 4/3 bodies are okay when your just touristing around.
I have a gang of oldschool cheap japanese rangefinders (minolta himatic G and olympus 35RC-s) and they are really fun to shoot (or rather used to be, getting film developed is financial suicide these days).
|
You guys are fucking incredible and I am loving all these great tips about various cameras and specifications. I'm currently on holiday right now on the west coast of Canada so I haven't purchased anything yet (my regular province has a far lower sales tax) but I plan to probably around the start of the new year.
Would it be possible for you guys to share some of the photos you've taken so I can get a better understanding, visually, of what the difference between a 28mm shot to a 100mm shot is and etc etc? Definitely throw up some copyrighted watermarks or something if you want.
|
This is a pretty complicated question you asked there...
And that pic you posted is mostly a mix of 2 special things: Photoshop and maybe some rather unsusual lens with a special feature (there are quite some unique ones out there)
I own a whole Nikon system: Nikon D7000/D5000/D50/F80 (analog) with 35 1.8/50 1.8/60 2.0/18-105/17-50 2.8/70-300mm lenses, flash etc etc.
You can visit my flickr via my signature and see which camera with which lense took which picture.
The biggest question: What do you plan to photograph?
This HEAVILY influences the focal length you will be using later and which lenses will be optimal. On top it will show if you need lenses with a high aperture or not (mostly: the lower the aperture number the pricier, except some nice nikon lenses).
If you really want to take photography serious, you might want to first think about the thing you want to photograph. THEN decide on a system with a sight on the Lenses available. (e.g. Nikon DX/FX system: mm-> 100mm on a DX are equal to 150mm on a FX when comparing the picture angle (called "crop" factor)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Nikon-DX-vs-FX.jpg)
Here you can see how it turns out with different mm: http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-lenses/simulator
Nikon Cameras: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/index.htm (DX and FX labelled)
Nikon Lenses: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/index.htm
(Also labelled DX/FX. Important: All lenses with F-Mount work on all cameras. BUT: DX lenses on FX bodies will generate a round "shadow" on the outside as the lens isnt built for the FX sensor which is bigger as a DX sensor (You can run your FX cam in DX mode though and will have "normal" pics with reduced resolution though) not all features are always supported (e.g. AF-D lens on a D5000= no auto-focus)
If you want to take macros...you want some good macro lenses and you need to know which one goes with which camera (Nikon DX - smaller sensor vs Nikon FX bigger sensor). If you want to take people photography outside, you maybe want a portrait lens (35/50/60/85/105mm and all create different angles on different sensors =D). Ppl photography in a studio? you wont need high aperture (low aperture number 1.8 e.g.), as you will have your lights settled.
Picturing the starry sky? better Have FX with a high aperture and lower mm.
Zoo? Better DX with a high mm (I got a 300mm which is equal to 450mm on FX and sometimes it still isnt enough...) and maybe low aperture for darker days.
Wanna do video aswell?????
You see...lots of things... =D
Look at Pentax. Some nice cameras, but the lenses...dude...you will invest hundreds of dollars, the used market is shit aswell.
Nikon has pretty good sensors, a vivid used market and low budget (not equal low quality!) lenses. I buy all my stuff on the used market nowadays and I can sell the lens for the same price a year later, so I am doin absolutely fine with Nikon.
My advice: Go into a store, try all cameras and if they fit your hand etc.
For starters (as you want to take it seriously), I would entry with a used Nikon D7000 or D7100 (both awesome DX Cameras) and a kit objective like the 18-105mm (18-55 will limit you too much, though it can be used as a slight macro lens). If you got used to it and want something with lower aprture number (1.8-2.8) you can choose from 35 or 50 1.8 for a low price. and the more you get used to what you want to photograph you will know your needs when it comes to lenses.
Why no D3xxx/D5xxx you might ask? Well...they are good cameras, but they lack some features I never want to miss anymore. No intern Auto-focus engine, which means you will have to buy lenses with built in AF (AF-S in Nikon description). And manually focussing on a D3xxx/D5xxx isnt fun at all due to the really small viewfinder. So deciding on a D3xxx/D5xxx will make a lot of odler nice lenses rather unusuable. Also, the D7xxx has one more selecting wheel on the body, which really is handy, aswell as a small display on the camera body. D7xxx misses on a flippable Display though (only thing I miss from my D5000 times)
I know this is quite a lot I wrote and most likely a bit messy, but it is a real big topic one can talk about...body, lenses, etc etc
|
Finland926 Posts
|
On December 28 2014 01:34 d_runk wrote:The thing that I don't understand with the olympus/panasonic lines is the size. I believe you need a good grip on the body if you are shooting for longer periods. If the body is too small you have to keep hunting for buttons with you fingers it sucks. And even the new nikon slr-s are a bit small for me, my pinky and ring finger keep slipping off the d800 and the d7000 I tried for longer stints. The d70s, which came out in 2005, was perfect in terms of ergonomics (mine told me to go f myself at around 250k exposures, bless its soul), I don't get why manufacturers need to keep reducing body sizes for enthusiast cameras, people's hands aren't gonna shrink in the long run. It's like collapsible rocks with blizz .
ooo man. i love the idea of a smaller camera. easy to tuck away, less weight, etc. but the moment you get it in your hands you realize how cramped they are. i have a d7000 and really i'm just about holding that with my fingertips most of the time which makes one-handed shooting nearly impossible. it's a lovely camera and extremely good for the asking price right now but i can say i 100% prefer the ergonomics of my ricoh gr (it's tiny, but surprisingly comfortable and the control layout is almost perfect) over my d7000.
|
OMFG you have a ricoh gr? It is THE camera I'd buy if I had the money right now. I love the idea of a fixed focal length aps-c camera in a really unsuspecting housing. I'm scared that by the time I'll commit to picking it up it'll be discontinued and the used market will go crazy when it does
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://parisapartment.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/flickr-photo-by-i-anton.jpg)
