Help me choose a DSLR

PUCampin wrote:
Thank you all for your suggestions. Well, found a deal I could not pass. Got a Pentax K-30 with the weather resistant 18-55 DA lens for $500. No tax, no shipping. (If you want to know where PM me) DW would have liked a new k-50 with all the color options, but it was beyond the budget.
!

Seems that that is a great price from glancing around the web.
bumpy

Thank you all for your suggestions. Well, found a deal I could not pass. Got a Pentax K-30 with the weather resistant 18-55 DA lens for $500. No tax, no shipping. (If you want to know where PM me) DW would have liked a new k-50 with all the color options, but it was beyond the budget.

I had been leaning toward the k-30 for a couple reasons. The ability to use in inclimate weather, the exceptional low light / high ISO performance, pentaprism viewfinder, Autofocus is still in the camera body and will work with any auto focus K mount lens, new or old. Image stabilization built into the body, so ANY lens you attach is stabilized. Family has a couple k mount lenses floating around I could borrow. Very good full automatic mode for my wife until she can learn a bit more, and more than enough controls to keep me busy. I am really looking forward to playing with it!

wintersun wrote:

Bumpyroad wrote:

RFCN2 wrote:


Now here is the rub. The best pictures of Grand Teton park were taken with my almost two year old Motorola Droid one morning when I was out bike riding. The light was just right and the pictures were taken on that camera because I had it with me in my pocket. Nikon back in coach.

that is one of the reasons that I don't recommend a DSLR, now that ILCs have "exploded" on the scenes. my Nex 7 has the same size sensor as my Nikon with more pixels, half the weight and the size but same picture quality.
Years back I had a tiny Pentax SLR with an assortment of lenses that took 110 film. A friend had one and didn't like the picture quality and my question to her is would she rather have a picture that was not "perfect" or no picture at all.
bumpy

People look at the pictures on a 4 inch screen and judge the quality. I want a picture that at a bare minimum I can blow up to 20x30 inches for a print. I also want the ability to take pictures in dim light or indoors and this is where P&S cameras and smartphones are not up to the job.

I carry a Lumix point and shoot camera that is OK up to ISO 800 and use it for snapshots where I simply want a record of something, like a plant I am going to ID later or similar purpose. It is a little bit thicker than a smartphone but it has a zoom lens and much larger sensor for less noise in the picture.

I disagree completely about the need for prime fixed focal length lenses. With digital cameras one of the biggest differences compared to film cameras is the need to keep the sensor clean of dust. The more often the lenses are changed the more often the sensor will need to be cleaned. Also modern zoom lenses are very good and some are outstanding in terms of image quality provided.

There is also the benefit of having one zoom lens like the Nikon 24-120mm or Canon 24-105mm zoom lens in place of 4-5 prime lenses. And many zoom lenses have optical stabilization so slower shutter speeds can often be used an not have image blurring from movement of the camera.

A small bit of advice. The DSLR type cameras are much easier to hold steady and focus and shoot than the mirrorless type that need to be held away from your face while taking a picture, and the mirrorless are more difficult to use in bright sunlight. My wife has an Olympus Pen camera that is a great camera but she has learned to use very high shutter speeds to get sharp pictures.

I agree with most of your post but my Nex 7 has a viewfinder in addition to the 3 inch screen.
bumpy

Bumpyroad wrote:

RFCN2 wrote:


Now here is the rub. The best pictures of Grand Teton park were taken with my almost two year old Motorola Droid one morning when I was out bike riding. The light was just right and the pictures were taken on that camera because I had it with me in my pocket. Nikon back in coach.

that is one of the reasons that I don't recommend a DSLR, now that ILCs have "exploded" on the scenes. my Nex 7 has the same size sensor as my Nikon with more pixels, half the weight and the size but same picture quality.
Years back I had a tiny Pentax SLR with an assortment of lenses that took 110 film. A friend had one and didn't like the picture quality and my question to her is would she rather have a picture that was not "perfect" or no picture at all.
bumpy

People look at the pictures on a 4 inch screen and judge the quality. I want a picture that at a bare minimum I can blow up to 20x30 inches for a print. I also want the ability to take pictures in dim light or indoors and this is where P&S cameras and smartphones are not up to the job.

I carry a Lumix point and shoot camera that is OK up to ISO 800 and use it for snapshots where I simply want a record of something, like a plant I am going to ID later or similar purpose. It is a little bit thicker than a smartphone but it has a zoom lens and much larger sensor for less noise in the picture.

I disagree completely about the need for prime fixed focal length lenses. With digital cameras one of the biggest differences compared to film cameras is the need to keep the sensor clean of dust. The more often the lenses are changed the more often the sensor will need to be cleaned. Also modern zoom lenses are very good and some are outstanding in terms of image quality provided.

There is also the benefit of having one zoom lens like the Nikon 24-120mm or Canon 24-105mm zoom lens in place of 4-5 prime lenses. And many zoom lenses have optical stabilization so slower shutter speeds can often be used an not have image blurring from movement of the camera.

A small bit of advice. The DSLR type cameras are much easier to hold steady and focus and shoot than the mirrorless type that need to be held away from your face while taking a picture, and the mirrorless are more difficult to use in bright sunlight. My wife has an Olympus Pen camera that is a great camera but she has learned to use very high shutter speeds to get sharp pictures.

actually just saw two extended zoom cameras at Sam's club for about $230-250 that make a DSLR sort of excessive unless you have special needs for mirror lenses, etc. A Canon SX500 and Nikon L820, 16 mpix and 30 x zoom. various comparison articles seem to favor the Nikon.
bumpy

RFCN2 wrote:


Now here is the rub. The best pictures of Grand Teton park were taken with my almost two year old Motorola Droid one morning when I was out bike riding. The light was just right and the pictures were taken on that camera because I had it with me in my pocket. Nikon back in coach.

that is one of the reasons that I don't recommend a DSLR, now that ILCs have "exploded" on the scenes. my Nex 7 has the same size sensor as my Nikon with more pixels, half the weight and the size but same picture quality.
Years back I had a tiny Pentax SLR with an assortment of lenses that took 110 film. A friend had one and didn't like the picture quality and my question to her is would she rather have a picture that was not "perfect" or no picture at all.
bumpy

X4 for the Nikon D3200. I just bought one to replace my D60 which I gave to my daughter when she graduated from college. The D3200 kit I bought came with the 18 - 55mm Standard Nikon AF lens and a 55 - 200mm Nikon AF lens. Much like RFCN2, I have hardly used the telephoto lens for most of my "touristy" pictures. It is a faster camera than the D60 and takes quality photos for the money.

havasu wrote:
If you are really serious about photography then spend money on the body but if you just want to take nice pictures then spend the money on the fastest lens (smaller F number in the name) - any DSLR body will be more than adequate.
The glass is what makes the photo - the body simply gives you more options and control.

Also a zoom lens is convenient but a major compromise on quality. A good one is really expensive and a cheap one is terrible.

I have the Nikon D800 and a selection of prime lenses - the glass is good quality but to get closer to a subject I have to walk towards it. Because of the super high definition of the D800 sensor I can afford to crop the photos and retain the detail, but the cost of the lenses are significantly less than buying a zoom of the same quality. For example I have a 24mm F1.4 that cost me $180, a 50mm F1.8 for $120 and an 80m F2 for $140, all Nikon and bought used from eBay.

So if you are looking for an expandable system that you can grow with then the Nikon D5200 would be a great starting point and a couple of prime lenses.

If you want to stay with the convenience of the P&S but have more control over your pictures then I highly recommend the Sony NEX as others have mentioned.

However, the camera does not make the photographer - as you move away from P&S then you will need to start to learn about the science of photography (there are some great DVDs out there).

I agree, I run a Nikon D90 with a 18-200 3.5-5.6 Good starter lens but now I want to expand to more lenses, now that I have really learned what the camera can do.

PUCamping - I just bought a Nikon 3200 before the start of our current six week motorhome trip after an EXHAUSTING consideration of all options. I got the 3200 with the kit lens 18-55, 55-200, and prime 33mm f1.8. Here is what I think after having the Nikon for seven weeks.

Works well out of the box. Standard kit lens by far the most useful. I used the telephoto maybe 10 times in the last 6 weeks. I have not used the prime lens once. Of course I am shooting landscape and not indoor people shots. Nikon fires up and is ready to go quickly. The image stabilization on zoom lenses very useful. It focuses rapidly. Picture quality is good as far as looking at the results on my Macbook Pro with 13" retina screen. Flash on Nikon annoying. Pops up all the time when camera is in auto.

Now here is the rub. The best pictures of Grand Teton park were taken with my almost two year old Motorola Droid one morning when I was out bike riding. The light was just right and the pictures were taken on that camera because I had it with me in my pocket. Nikon back in coach.

I also took some sample pictures using my 32 year old Olympus OM2n with Velvia 50 film when I bought the Nikon seven weeks ago. Without a doubt the color and tiny details better on the film. When you looked at the results magnified the Nikon looks like a fine art print and the Velvia looks like an artist painted the picture with a brush and oils.

I would have bought an Olympus OMD instead of the Nikon if I could have found any dealer in San Diego that actually had a chrome one in stock I could touch and feel. I loved the look of the Oly. I looked like my 32 year old Olympus. Now after seven weeks I am glad I went with the Nikon. Nikon half the price and likely a better picture taking machine. I would get 3200 and not 3100. 24 mega pix better than older camera.

I still think film gives a better result when you want to take the time, but the Nikon is a very good camera.

wintersun wrote:


I buy my camera equipment from B&H in New York for 30 years. Very reputable company and great website for online ordering and good for the customer review of the equipment as well. Low shipping costs and a no questions asked 30 day full refund policy which is very rare.
.

yep, I agree get the D3200 if you can afford/justify it. or better yet the D5200.
another advantage in mail ordering from B&H is that on expensive items you avoid the state sales tax (for now). also B&H has a lot of items with free shipping. they also give you a fair deal on buying your used equipment. sent in 5 Nikon SLRs a while back to get my 8-16 zoom for my Nikon D5100.
bumpy