New Camera Ideas?

[bushwalker zane]

Hello everyone.

I am wanting to get a DSLR to get some photos of my walks and work. I have done photography courses in college and always loved mucking around with cameras. I think it's time I move on from my horrid little 4 year old, $100 point and click thing. I want to get a DSLR, but not something with all the options that I would never use. I have had a look at something like a Nikon D3100 and think that could be the way to go as far as entry level cameras go.

I was wondering if anyone could offer me some advise or ideas? I have medium knowledge when it comes to photography and would love to learn more, hence why I would like to move on to a more versatile camera.

Thanks for reading!

Zane.

[ninjapuppet]

I have a 40d and a 5D canon but recently got a sony nex-7 and quality is amazing. Much lighter than a slr but similar quality. You can get adapters to use slr lenses too. The nex5n is even lighter so if I buy again, I would get that one.

[wayno]

why do you specifically want an SLR camera over other formats?
you can get smaller cameras with the same quality sensors and lenses in smaller cameras now...
the intechangeable lens cameras can be up to slr spec. such as the nex mentioned...
i've got a canon gx1, small and great quality camera,
i've used slrs but i'm not a fan or their weight..

[Hallu]

Try this great website, it's got all the info you need : http://www.digitalversus.com/digital-camera.html . First think at your budget, and then think about how it would be to work for hours with this thing. It depends if you're the type of guy that will be able to carry all his equipment to a specific spot then stay here for hours for the right shot, or if you're more of a guy that'll get some shots while walking, depending on what inspires him and what luck he has in terms of animals. Then think about what kind of zoom you'd like, if you'd like a polarizer to make those colors shine, has it got a good optical stabilizer, does it work fine in low light, does it apply too strong numeric filters that will denature the photo etc...

As Wayno said, you can get good quality from smaller cameras, such as the Sony NEX-5N : 210 g versus 505g for the D3100. Also, be careful about the lenses in bundle with the camera : more often than not, they're rubbish, so if you can get the naked version it's usually better, and then you buy a lens on your own.

[wayno]

i wouldnt go so far as to say the lenses bundled with SLR's are rubbish, if you want the best quality shots then they are not necessarily going to be the best lenses. depends how fussy you are and how much you want to spend, canon and nikon glass is pretty good. depends on how well you want it to perorm in low light , zoom lenses are a compromise in quality, you can still get reasonaby good shots from them but if you want the best shots then you'll be looking at fixed length lenses, but do you want to change lenses every time you want a different magnification?
depends what you're going to do with your photos as to what lenses you'll get.. i was happy with a zoom lens, i dont want to be changing lenses and i like the flexibiity of the zoom.

[wildernesswanderer]

From having over 15 years in photography and also working in a major photographic store I would not point someone towards a entry level DSLR, simply put until you hit the advance semi pro cameras the smaller cameras are just as good and in some cases better than the entry DSLR cameras. The lenses that come with the Camera your looking at are plastic, very cheaply made and not of good optical quality. To give a idea of lenses my cheapest lens I have for my DSLR camera is $1300.00. Good quality unfortunately for DSLR cameras are expensive like the cameras themselves.
What is the budget your thinking of spending and I can give you a few recommendations from my own testings as well. I know what problems certain cameras have over others.

[wildernesswanderer]

Primes vs zooms now day are not that big a difference, I own three zooms and four primes and yes the primes are sharper but it's more for me being able to shoot at 1.4 and not 2.8 like the zooms are. Most people no matter how fussy will never pick a prime lens shot over a zoom except the DOF is obviously shallower on the prim if shot wide open. Primes though cost a lot of money for the best quality, Mine range from $2000 to $3300 for each lens

[wayno]

bear in mind the weight of the gear you will be having to carry, esp if you get an slr with all glass lens the weight mounts up...
its about quality photos versus comfort while walking whats your priority...
i see a lot of tourists walking around with SLR's i winder how many of them really need an slr or know they can get comparable quality photos from something a lot smaller and lighter...
i have two cameras, the canon gx1, but also a compact sony rx100, i'm more likely to take the rx100 with me because it's more compact, so i end up taking more photos with the compact. .... just like i was more likely to take my gx1 over my slr again because it was more compact...
in the end i just didnt enjoy carting the slr with big zoom lens around, it distracted from my enjoyment of tramping a bit, as much as it took fantastic photos. i'm now carrying between a quarter and an eighth of the weight and size of the camera with me and i'm happier for it and still taking pretty good photos.
i actually bought an slr in an emotional reaction when the retractible lens on my point and shoot camera failed in the middle of a hike, the array of cameras available today werent around back then, it was either point and shoot or slr for reasonable quality... so i opted for slr... i can now take a small backup camera if i really wnt to make sure i dont have to worry about camera failure and i'm still carrying a total camera gear weight a third of what it was with the slr

[wildernesswanderer]

I agree, most people today don't need a big heavy DSLR camera. How many print their images to 40inch plus. In fact how many print the images at all? That's what you need to consider when buying a camera for your needs, It might be nice having a top DSLR and all lenses but my standard kit is also 15kg, without flash gear. certainly wont be hiking with all that.
You need to work out what quality you want, want system will give you that, and then decide if for that quality is the weight going to be something you want to carry and carry with easy access, no good having it all packed up in your pack where you can't get at it either.

[wayno]

i saw one guy on a trip. took him and his dad and mum to carry all his camera gear on top of his walking gear guess it was a cheaper option than porters...... seemed the only thing he wanted to talk about too was photography photography photography....

[ninjapuppet]

Zane, another camera you could maybe consider thats abit cheaper than a nex-5n is the olympus TG-1. My mate has one and has found it to be very tough, and only about $350 on ebay. I have been finding that I keep borrowing it when I go fishing and its been Pi$$sing him off abit. I might have to get one myself if he gets any more annoyed at me borrowing it.

the cheapest I have found for the nex-5n is $200 off from amazon - $400 for body only, and $600 with the kit lens.
I havnt had the nex-7 for long, but generally only take the 16mm lens with me.

[MichaelP]

Canon 550D is fantastic for hiking. Takes great photos/videos and is VERY light. 520g compared to the 860g 5D.

[wayno]

yup but with an slr you have to tack on the weight of the lens on top of that 500gm

[nickthetasmaniac]

If you want the versatility of a system with interchangeable lenses, I'd look seriously at the new mirrorless options, particularly the NEX system from Sony and the Micro Four Thirds system from Olympus and Panasonic. These will offer basically identical image quality as a dSLR (unless you're going full-frame) but are much more compact. I've been using Micro Four Thirds for 18 months and found it fantastic.

If you're not bothered with changing lenses and ultimate image quality I'd look at the Sony RX100 - very compact but with an excellent lens and a sensor much, much bigger than a normal point and shoot. I've been seeing some fantastic samples floating around

[wayno]

yeah second the rx100 for image quality, has a better sensor than any micro four thirds camera.. it's amazing, no viewfinder though, hard to see screen in bright light. if you're doing long trips the batteries don't last as long. so might need a spare.... but you can still get several hundred shots off a charge

[bushwalker zane]

Pweee! What a lot of suggestions, I now have many tabs open on my browser with all these cameras to look at. Thanks for the ideas guys, you've sparked my interest. I'll have to troll through some of these reviews now

[wildernesswanderer]

One thing I hate are manufactures that state lens on their cameras as being a german manufactures as in the Sony RX100, don't worry Panasonic do it with Leica and Samsung with Schneider. If these were real German made lenses the cameras would cost hundreds if not in some case thousands more.

Also if you go the fixed electronic zoom lens route be aware that as you are probably going to use it all over the place, dust and sand kill the micro gears on the lenses that move them in and out. manual zoom lenses don't have this problem, also in the waterproof compacts that they are ok until dust, dirt or sand is in the seals and you forget to clean it before using it underwater, you will flood the camera. Seen heaps of these cameras come into service water damaged.

Hard to recommend anything unless we know your budget.

Personally out of mirrorless cameras I like the new Fuji cameras The X-E1 without the viewfinder is nice but the reason I really like Fuji is for two reasons, Fuji use a modified bayer sensor that has a 6x6 pixel array than the standard 2x2, basically the channel that gets lost most is the green channel in a sensor and they use more green pixels than a normal sensor, this gives very natural looking colour
And the second reason is that Fuji have by far the best lenses for their system, not cheap but brilliant primes. Fujinon lenses are superb and worth it. The new 14mm lens coming has me interested as this is equivalent to 21mm in 35mm format terms, that and the 35mm and 60mm macro would make a great hike kit. Maybe a little more than you want to spend though

[nickthetasmaniac]

yeah second the rx100 for image quality, has a better sensor than any micro four thirds camera.

That's flat out wrong. The RX100 is comparable to the old 12mp Micro Four Thirds sensor (four years old now), but it's not even close to the 16mp sensors used in almost all of Panasonic and Olympus' current models.

[wayno]

sorry if i was wrong about my comment, the RX has a 20mp sensor that is larger than a four thirds sensor

[photohiker]

Hard to recommend anything unless we know your budget.

Personally out of mirrorless cameras I like the new Fuji cameras The X-E1 without the viewfinder is nice but the reason I really like Fuji is for two reasons, Fuji use a modified bayer sensor that has a 6x6 pixel array than the standard 2x2, basically the channel that gets lost most is the green channel in a sensor and they use more green pixels than a normal sensor, this gives very natural looking colour
And the second reason is that Fuji have by far the best lenses for their system, not cheap but brilliant primes. Fujinon lenses are superb and worth it. The new 14mm lens coming has me interested as this is equivalent to 21mm in 35mm format terms, that and the 35mm and 60mm macro would make a great hike kit. Maybe a little more than you want to spend though

Agree with this, and we do need a budget.

I've got that Fuji 14mm on pre-order. I'd also suggest the Olympus EM-5 because it has weathersealing and a good range of micro 4/3 lenses are available from Olympus and Panasonic. The Fuji has better output IMO but I'm probably biassed because I have one

You can get a good idea of camera sizes on camerasize.com. For instance here is the Olympus EM-5 vs the Fuji X-E1

[wayno]

i used to carry around $4000 worth of camera and lens, it was pretty good gear.
but the danger is you fork out big money and you have high expectations. you can still take bad photographs with expensive gear
because i'd spent so much money i had high expectations of the quality of photos and it was really down to me in the end if the photos were good or not,.
now i've traded down to cheaper gear , my expectations arent as high and i'm happier with the photos i take even though the cameras can't take photos of the same image quality as my more expensive kit....
until you're experienced in how to take good photos, expensive kit is a waste of money.
i did tramping trips with my expensive kit and i wanted to make the most of it, and i found all i was doing was focusing on taking photos all the time and looking for the next shot, it was taking over my tramping, its up to you what you want out of your walking and where you want the focus to lie,
i still like taking photos and try to frame them up so they are above average but its less of a focus than it was, i have lighter more unobtrusive gear that does a reasonable job, my photos come out fine for viewing on computer screens and on the internet. you can poke holes in them but i'm happy enough and i'll get on with enjoying bush walking.
also as mentioned before you can get a good quality slr and lenses but unless you're going to blow your photos up to large size you'll never really get the true value of the quality of the images it can produce
same with computer screens.
computer screens can't do justice to the images from good quality camera gear. something like the latest apple pc's have better quality screens than the average microsoft pc's , but a lot of people are just viewing their photos at two megapixels or less.... and dont see anywhere near the detail the camera has captures. megapixel dont mean much if the lkenses arent very good, it's a gimmick to buy a high megapixel camera without a decent lens on it.

[MichaelP]

The trick is to find a hiking buddy with all the gear. That way you get great trip photos but they carry it all!

[wayno]

The trick is to find a hiking buddy with all the gear. That way you get great trip photos but they carry it all!

either that or google....
aparently the internet has done a lot to erode the available work for landscape photographers since so many images are now available free online...

[nickthetasmaniac]

sorry if i was wrong about my comment, the RX has a 20mp sensor that is larger than a four thirds sensor

I don't like being pedantic but when a newbie askes the question i think its important to to give correct information.

The RX100 sensor is not 'larger' than a Micro Four Thirds sensor, it's actually considerably smaller. What it is is higher in resolution, which is very different - many point and shoots with physically tiny sensors still stick 14mp+ on them, but image quality remains average at best. As a general rule of thumb, a physically biter sensor will have much more affect on image quality than a few extra pixels.

Not dismissing the Sony in any way - it's a fantastic cam, but credit where credit is due.

[wayno]

yes your'e right i confused it with the sensor size on my canon g1x. apologies
to back up when nick is saying heres an image of compartive sensor sizes overlayed
note the aps-c sensor is used on entry to mid level SLR cameras and is also being used on some interchangeable lens cameras such as the sony nex.

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/previe ... png?v=1707

[wildernesswanderer]

Hard to recommend anything unless we know your budget.

Personally out of mirrorless cameras I like the new Fuji cameras The X-E1 without the viewfinder is nice but the reason I really like Fuji is for two reasons, Fuji use a modified bayer sensor that has a 6x6 pixel array than the standard 2x2, basically the channel that gets lost most is the green channel in a sensor and they use more green pixels than a normal sensor, this gives very natural looking colour
And the second reason is that Fuji have by far the best lenses for their system, not cheap but brilliant primes. Fujinon lenses are superb and worth it. The new 14mm lens coming has me interested as this is equivalent to 21mm in 35mm format terms, that and the 35mm and 60mm macro would make a great hike kit. Maybe a little more than you want to spend though

Agree with this, and we do need a budget.

I've got that Fuji 14mm on pre-order. I'd also suggest the Olympus EM-5 because it has weathersealing and a good range of micro 4/3 lenses are available from Olympus and Panasonic. The Fuji has better output IMO but I'm probably biassed because I have one

You can get a good idea of camera sizes on camerasize.com. For instance here is the Olympus EM-5 vs the Fuji X-E1

I would still pick a Fuji over a Olympus any day. I have a major reason for it and Sony are exactly the same. Image Stabilisation was originally done in lenses ie Canon and Nikon. Olympus came out with stabilisation in the body of the camera and this mechanical mechanism is attached around the sensor of the camera, Sony followed suite and did the same. Their reason was that now any lens could be fitted to the body of the camera and would be stabilised, far enough seemed like a good idea. apart from the motors in Canons and Nikons lenses are different for each stabilised lens, can't do this with a Olympus or Sony, they have one motor, so the motor has to be made to work differently for each lens you stick on the camera, still not a problem BUT this is why I won't touch them. Working in a Camera Repairer for quite a while the biggest and most common fault with in body stabilisation is a failure of the motor, it jams, throws the sensor out of whack and you can't even just turn it off and keep using the camera as the motor if jammed off centre, off centres the sensor as well. Now of all my time working in repairs the most common lens problem we ever saw had nothing ever to do with the motor in the lenses. Usually someone dropped the lens.
Second problem with in camera stabilisers is that usually when they go they are part of the whole sensor and more times than not if the camera is cheap it's a right off but if it's expensive the replacement cost and repair is in the $700 mark.

I also personally don't think that either Olympus or Sony's mirrorless cameras lenses are anywhere as good as their DSLR ones far from it and is the main reason I prefer Fuji

Again all pointless and useless like Wayno said if you don't know how to use the camera you have. Cameras don't make a photographer.

[nickthetasmaniac]

I would still pick a Fuji over a Olympus any day. I have a major reason for it and Sony are exactly the same. Image Stabilisation was originally done in lenses ie Canon and Nikon. Olympus came out with stabilisation in the body of the camera and this mechanical mechanism is attached around the sensor of the camera, Sony followed suite and did the same. Their reason was that now any lens could be fitted to the body of the camera and would be stabilised, far enough seemed like a good idea. apart from the motors in Canons and Nikons lenses are different for each stabilised lens, can't do this with a Olympus or Sony, they have one motor, so the motor has to be made to work differently for each lens you stick on the camera, still not a problem BUT this is why I won't touch them. Working in a Camera Repairer for quite a while the biggest and most common fault with in body stabilisation is a failure of the motor, it jams, throws the sensor out of whack and you can't even just turn it off and keep using the camera as the motor if jammed off centre, off centres the sensor as well. Now of all my time working in repairs the most common lens problem we ever saw had nothing ever to do with the motor in the lenses. Usually someone dropped the lens.
Second problem with in camera stabilisers is that usually when they go they are part of the whole sensor and more times than not if the camera is cheap it's a right off but if it's expensive the replacement cost and repair is in the $700 mark.

I also personally don't think that either Olympus or Sony's mirrorless cameras lenses are anywhere as good as their DSLR ones far from it and is the main reason I prefer Fuji.

Interesting thoughts but this is one of the main reasons why I would buy Olympus (Sony doesn't have in-body IS in the mirrorless system - only their dSLR's). I've owned four dSLR's with in-body image-stabilisation (Sony A100, Pentax K20D/K-7 and an Olympus E-3) and I've extensively used an Olympus EPL2 and EM5 (mirrorless with in-body IS). In all cases I've found the system to work very well and without fault. The systems in the E-3 and EM5 have been particularly good. Fair call if you've had more in for repair - this isn't my experience and having spent a great deal of time on Pentax, Four Thirds and Micro Four Thirds specific forums it hasn't been a trend that I've noticed...

Claiming that in-lens IS is better is a fair call, but it's worth pointing out that at the moment only one of the five Fuji X-system lenses actually has optical stabilisation. For the others, nothing.

In regard to your comment re: lenses. Have you used the Panasonic 7-14/f4, Olympus 12/f2, Panasonic 12-35/f2.8, Panasonic 20/f1.7, Panasonic 25/f1.4, Olympus 45/f1.8, Olympus 60/f2.8 or Olympus 75/f1.8? Because these are all Micro Four Thirds lenses (both Olympus and Panasonic lenses are interchangeable within the system) that are definitely equal of the legendary Olympus Zuiko Digital lenses. Certainly in all cases where there is an equivalent, they are as good if not better than the new Fuji X lenses.

Anyway, at the end of the day I'm with Wayno and Wildernesswanderer on this - going for a 'bigger and better' camera is definitely not necessarily going to get you better photos. Think very carefully about what your needs are

[wayno]

sometimes i wonder if the most reliable way to go with cameras is with a box brownie.....

[nickthetasmaniac]

sometimes i wonder if the most reliable way to go with cameras is with a box brownie.....

High iso sucks and there's no liveview...

[photohiker]

In regard to your comment re: lenses. Have you used the Panasonic 7-14/f4, Olympus 12/f2, Panasonic 12-35/f2.8, Panasonic 20/f1.7, Panasonic 25/f1.4, Olympus 45/f1.8, Olympus 60/f2.8 or Olympus 75/f1.8? Because these are all Micro Four Thirds lenses (both Olympus and Panasonic lenses are interchangeable within the system) that are definitely equal of the legendary Olympus Zuiko Digital lenses. Certainly in all cases where there is an equivalent, they are as good if not better than the new Fuji X lenses.

I have a foot in both of these camps, and I agree that some of the u4/3 lenses are of great quality. The lenses you speak of (I have a couple of them) are (apart from the kit 20mm) not lenses that people generally use on their u4/3 cameras. One of the reasons is price - you can easily drop more than the price of the camera on a single lens. As a result, the cheaper kit lenses rule that space. Fuji hasn't gone down that path, they don't offer a cheap and cheerful lens at all. Also, don't underestimate the Fujinion lenses, Fuji knows this business backwards. Not only have they built lenses for Hassleblad and their own cameras for many years, they are seriously into the video lens segment. Did you know that they just about own the broadcast video lens market? If you watch movies and TV, chances are you are probably watching through a Fujinon.

Compared to the slow start with micro 4/3 lens options, Fuji is single handedly charging ahead populating their lens range - within a year of entry into the market it looks like they will have 5 lenses on the market and a bunch more in the pipeline. Pretty amazing, especially compared to the Sony NEX lethargic lens timetable.

As for IS, I had it on my Canon gear, it's neat, but I don't miss it. Especially for landscape shots. I had a mate whose Pentax killed it's in-body IS, was without the camera for ages while they sourced a new sensor module for it. That's the only case I know of though.