Camera Recommendations

[Janner13]

We're looking to purchase an SLR. We'd like something that is user friendly for beginners and isn't too heavy. Any recommendations?

[BlueSkySailing]

I use and love my Sony a33 for so many reasons. Great sensor chip, continuous auto focus, nice menu display. And shoot in 16:9. I don't print pictures so when I look at them on my TV or computer it fill out my screen. But I still can turn it to the standard 4:3. The only draw backs that I have had using it for the past 4 years is shooting video outside in the Florida sun. It over heats fast. Most cameras do just not Sony. I've found ways to keep it from happening as quickly but it can still happen. Inside it shots fine. And the lens selection. Sony doesn't have as many as Canon and Nikon. But they all have some nice high end lens that you cant tell one lens from another. When buying the camera, don't buy the stock lens. NOT worth it. Buy the camera body and a nice lens. I bought my body and a 18mm-250mm lens. I like this lens. It's a nice over all lens. I don't have to carry and change out the lens. No worries of dust. But my biggest advice for you is to go to a camera shop or a BestBuy and pick them up. See how they feel and see what you like. Best of luck and Happy Sailing!!!!!

[c230k]

Might have a look at the Sony NEX camera as an option. Are smaller and can do just as well. Go to Dpreview.com to review all cameras great place to start.

Tom :cool:

[hattack]

Nikon D3200 with a DX 55-200 lens..I have the older D3100 and is very easy to use for a camera rookie like myself

[travlnblueberries]

I would suggest going to a store where you can hold it in your hand and get a feel for it. I really thought I was going to get one camera when I went shopping, but when I had it in my hand, it didn't feel right. I still went with the same company (Nikon) but just a different model. I think you should go and try a few different brands and see what feels good for you. What may seem good for someone else, doesn't mean it's a right fit for you. Best of luck:)

[Sandi3667]

I would suggest going to a store where you can hold it in your hand and get a feel for it. I really thought I was going to get one camera when I went shopping, but when I had it in my hand, it didn't feel right. I still went with the same company (Nikon) but just a different model. I think you should go and try a few different brands and see what feels good for you. What may seem good for someone else, doesn't mean it's a right fit for you. Best of luck:)

 

I heartily recommend this method. When I was buying my first SLR, I had the Canon Rebel series as my preference. However, after playing with the different cameras in the store, the Nikon was more natural to me, so I went with the Nikon line, and have been very happy. Different lines work for different people, so it boils down to what works best for you. Any of the large DSLR lines will be comparable, so it comes down to what works best for you.

[fiedav]

We're looking to purchase an SLR. We'd like something that is user friendly for beginners and isn't too heavy. Any recommendations?

 

I think you'll find that apart from personal tastes most SLRs are the same. I would suggest that you buy a body and an 18-55mm lens (wide angle to tele) and see what you think. I did this with a Pentax K2000 and eventually got a 55-200 Sigma zoom.

 

I would have recommended that you got a body and an 18-200 lens, but I think you'll find that too heavy.

 

I presume you realize that if you buy a make of camera you have to have lenses to fit that make (either manufacturer's or independent lens). It is becoming difficult to find Pentax-fit lenses, so although I'm very happy with my choice so far, I think you should stick with a camera from one of the "Big Two" - Canon or Nikon, with possibly Sony.

 

One reason to pick Pentax or Sony is that they have image stabilization built-in to the camera, so just about any lens you buy is image stabilized. Canon and Nikon have image stabilization in most lenses, but it's always handy to check that Canon lenses are "IS" and Nikon lenses are "VR."

 

Don't worry about quality. Although Canon and Nikon are the choice of professional users the cheaper cameras and lenses in each range, the lower-priced equipment they make is, like all cameras in this range, built down to a price.

 

So . . . what to recommend? I'd go with a Nikon or Canon refurbished. You can either find them on the manufacture's site, or at reputable mail-order companies like B&H, Adorama, or Cameta. Look for Cameras like the Nikon 3100 or the Canon T3. They'll cost you between $300-$350 with lens. Oh. and don't buy any "kits"!;)

[havoc315]

Honestly, in terms of entry level.... All 4 major camera makers --- Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax --- Will offer cameras of similar overall quality, similar ease of use, and similar pricing.

Each has some unique pros and cons, and each may feel a little different in your hand.

So you may simply go with what feels best in the hand.

 

Overall, some of the key differences:

Canon is generally the most "popular" and often has the most consumer-friendly features. For example, the newest consumer models-- The t5i has a touch screen. It's often considered the highest video quality, though the newest cameras need the newest lenses to get the best video results. The downside, Canon hasn't much upgraded their sensors for a while, so the image quality is starting to slightly lag competitors. (Though most people won't see a difference 99% of the time).

 

Nikons are generally considered the highest image quality. The newest entry level has tried to appeal to more general consumers, I believe it has incorporated wifi. Typically, Nikons have the best low light performance.

 

Sony -- I can speak most knowledgeable here, as it's what I use. Sony stopped making true dSLRs. Their current "dslrs" are actually "dslts" --- From a consumer standpoint, the main difference you will notice is that they have an electronic viewfinder as opposed to an optical viewfinder. Some traditionalists miss the optical viewfinder which tends to be brighter and cleaner. Some modernists really like the electronic viewfinder, so "what you see is what you get" pictures. Because of the way the camera is designed, it's the only dSLR to allow full-time video autofocus with all lenses. It's the only camera to allow perfect instant switching between the viewfinder and the LCD screen, and to use full autofocus while using the LCD screen. (with the competitors, if you compose your photos on the LCD screen, you can't use the best possible autofocus).

One other key difference -- Canon and Nikon rely on lens based image stabilization. Meaning some lenses are stabilized, some aren't. Pentax and Sony use camera based image stabilization. Meaning you can stick on a $75 20-year-old Minolta lens onto the Sony, and it turns into an image stabilized lens.

 

Pentax -- Image quality is quite similar to Nikon. Has the in-camera image stabilization like the Sony. And the plus side, it's the only entry level dSLR to be weather sealed. (Go ahead and use it on a rainy day).

[lamchops]

One other key difference -- Canon and Nikon rely on lens based image stabilization. Meaning some lenses are stabilized, some aren't. Pentax and Sony use camera based image stabilization. Meaning you can stick on a $75 20-year-old Minolta lens onto the Sony, and it turns into an image stabilized lens.

 

 

Because of Sony's built in stabilization, I believe Sony's entry level cameras are better suited for the novice on a budget IMHO. Sony bought out Konica Minolta's camera division. You can get Minolta Maxxum AF lenses for as low as $10 at thrift shops. A lot of the early (1985) Maxxum lenses are superior to the kit and entry level lenses of todays current brands.

 

Canon and Nikons pro gear is fantastic but their entry level has tough competition from Sony.

[havoc315]

Because of Sony's built in stabilization, I believe Sony's entry level cameras are better suited for the novice on a budget IMHO. Sony bought out Konica Minolta's camera division. You can get Minolta Maxxum AF lenses for as low as $10 at thrift shops. A lot of the early (1985) Maxxum lenses are superior to the kit and entry level lenses of todays current brands.

 

Canon and Nikons pro gear is fantastic but their entry level has tough competition from Sony.

 

That's a bit of exaggeration. I'm speaking as a Minolta/Sony shooter, with a pretty big collection of Minolta lenses. There are a few bargains, but even old high quality glass gets pricey. And there are some flaws to the older glass as well. They use older coatings, not as well suited to digital photography.

 

For example... I have the Minolta beercan. 70-210 f4 lens. It's a truly legendary lens. And fairly cheap -- around $120-150 for a high quality copy.

In that price range, "new" lenses will be inferior. And any telephoto zoom lens under $1000 will be slower. But the lens is very heavy, loud focusing mechanism. And shots can suffer from pretty bad chromatic aberrations.

I got the Tamron 70-300 usd, for $300. Cost a bit more, and slightly slower, but an overall much better lens.

 

So shooting Sony isnt going to let you pick up $10 lenses that out perform modern $1000 lenses. But you can find some good values as long as you understand the limitations. ( one of my favorite outdoor lenses is the Minolta 35-105 which I got for $90. )

[lamchops]

For example... I have the Minolta beercan. 70-210 f4 lens. It's a truly legendary lens. And fairly cheap -- around $120-150 for a high quality copy.

 

In that price range, "new" lenses will be inferior. And any telephoto zoom lens under $1000 will be slower. But the lens is very heavy, loud focusing mechanism. And shots can suffer from pretty bad chromatic aberrations.

I got the Tamron 70-300 usd, for $300. Cost a bit more, and slightly slower, but an overall much better lens.

 

So shooting Sony isnt going to let you pick up $10 lenses that out perform modern $1000 lenses. But you can find some good values as long as you understand the limitations. ( one of my favorite outdoor lenses is the Minolta 35-105 which I got for $90. )

 

I agree with your comments but a beginner will not be looking at big $$$ lenses. Most novices (myself included) will use the kit lens until they are comfortable with the camera. They will then start looking for a longer zoom and get "sticker shock". My feeelings towards Sony is that it gives access to older Minolta telephotos in the lowest Sony price range.

 

I also love the 35-105 which I had 2 copies of at $15 (thrift store) and $65 (camera store). I sometimes think I like the hunt for lenses as much as using the camera. I tend to use the camera mainly while on vacation and shortly after a lens find.

 

Most novices venturing into an entry level dslr want better photo than the inexpensive Point & shoot that they've been using but have no plans to make it a hobby. Those that progress to "hobby level" will eventually be dissatisfied with their original beginner set-up. IMHO

[havoc315]

 

I also love the 35-105 which I had 2 copies of at $15 (thrift store) and $65 (camera store). I sometimes think I like the hunt for lenses as much as using the camera. I tend to use the camera mainly while on vacation and shortly after a lens find.

 

Yes, the hunt is fun. But $15 for the 35-105? Is it a good copy? The original version or the RS? I have the original version, which is generally rated slightly better optically, and has the macro switch.

 

But a good example of the limitations of using older lenses. It really is great glass and can produce wonderfully contrasty images. But it's very heavy compared to modern lenses, with a slow loud focusing mechanism (screw focus). And, it has a ridiculous minimum focusing distance. Unless switching to the "macro mode" (which is only manual focus), you need to be at least 4 1/2 feet from your subject. That makes it nearly useless indoors. So while I love the lens, I really only use it in rare situations. (outdoors, when I don't need to go especially wide and don't need much reach. So basically, if I want to use zoom for outdoor portraits. Though if I'm really focusing on just portraits, I likely use a prime lens).

 

Right now my Minolta collection is:

-50mm 1.7 --- Used to use a lot when I was a novice, it was my first prime lens. Now, I seldom ever use it. Been replaced by the Sony 35/1.8, and a Tamron 17-50 2.8. Cheap lens and very useful for a novice though.

 

50mm 2.8 Macro (RS) -- Use this lens quite a bit. Mostly for real macro. But it's a nice sharp lens, with narrow depth of field, very useful overall. Though it wasn't especially cheap. Even being about 15+ years old, the lens was around $200. But certainly cheaper than "new" alternatives. And thanks to Sony SteadyShot, it becomes stabilized. True macro lenses rarely have built-in image stabilization.

 

70-210mm f4 beercan -- For a while, it was my go-to telephoto lens. There is no modern equivalent made for Sony. Beautiful bokeh. Faster than kit telephoto lenses. Very affordable. But for just slightly more now, you can get the Tamron 70-300 usd, or the Sony 55-300. While slightly slower lenses... they aren't that much slower. They are optically superior, with more reach. I still use the beercan sometimes, if I really want the fastest lens. But most of the time, I reach for the Tamron 70-300 usd.

 

35mm-105mm, original version --- As said, this lens is really fantastic, but it's usefulness is really limited. Not enough reach for a true telephoto. Not wide enough for wide angle (definitely not on a crop body). And because you need to be at least 4.5 feet from your subject, you can't use it in a lot of "in between" situations.

 

The lens I'm searching for, but I don't want to spend too much on, is the Minolta 135mm 2.8. I want a fast telephoto prime lens.

[Steviewonder1]

Go to Best Buy and look at their large selection of cameras with lenses and powered up so you can play with them. You can get realtime side by side fit and feel to what feels good to you. First thing to purchase after choosing a camera is a second battery and more than 1 memory stick.

[lamchops]

Yes, the hunt is fun. But $15 for the 35-105? Is it a good copy? The original version or the RS? I have the original version, which is generally rated slightly better optically, and has the macro switch.

 

 

Both copies were the original version and I ended up selling them on ebay for $130 and $120 as I wasn't using them much. I kept the more reasonably priced 28-85mm. My cruise port walkabout lens is a Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 (model 185D)

 

My Minolta keepers are: (for now):)

 

50mm f1.7

28-85mm f3.5-4.5

70-210mm f4

 

(undecided):confused:

 

35-70mm f4

100-200 f4.5

 

(for sale):D

 

35-70mm f3.5-4.5 RS

35-80mm f3.5-5.6 Power Zoom

[kdrake1007]

Not sure if the OP has checked back on this, but I'll put my 2 cents in. There seem to be a lot of Sony shooters on this thread, at least, and I'm one of them with an A700!

 

Janner, if you have the time, you might also consider renting a camera to give you some "real world" experience with a camera you're serious about. lensrentals.com rents many different brands of camera for various durations and very reasonable prices. I rented a 2nd camera to shoot my sister's wedding a couple of years ago (got an A580) 7 days for $130 (included round-trip shipping). It came with a battery & charger.

 

If you want to just check them out at a camera store (which I did before purchasing my Minolta 5D years ago) be sure to take the appropriate data card so you can take some photos and then take them home to look at on your computer. Helpful if you're comparing brands, because they all have slightly different color casts in their default jpg's.

 

Good luck!

[TruckerDave]

I heartily recommend this method. When I was buying my first SLR, I had the Canon Rebel series as my preference. However, after playing with the different cameras in the store, the Nikon was more natural to me, so I went with the Nikon line, and have been very happy. Different lines work for different people, so it boils down to what works best for you. Any of the large DSLR lines will be comparable, so it comes down to what works best for you.

 

this is exactly what happened to me. researched for months and months was all set to get a t2i and went to the camera store and it just didn't feel good in my hands. (felt cheap and plastic to me) tried a nikon (d90 at the time) and was hooked. just felt better in my hands. (since upgraded to a d7000 and debating on going with a d600 or d7100 next)

[Nole0202]

Because of Sony's built in stabilization, I believe Sony's entry level cameras are better suited for the novice on a budget IMHO. Sony bought out Konica Minolta's camera division. You can get Minolta Maxxum AF lenses for as low as $10 at thrift shops. A lot of the early (1985) Maxxum lenses are superior to the kit and entry level lenses of todays current brands.

 

Canon and Nikons pro gear is fantastic but their entry level has tough competition from Sony.

 

Do NOT believe this.

 

Canon and Nikon control the DSLR market. Sony is a small DSLR player, as was Minolta.

 

The Sony NEX series is a better optiuon than a DSLR.

 

Do you really want to carry a suitcase and camcorder sized camera????

 

A mirro-r-less system makes sense for most people looking to upgrade from a point & shoot.

[wmjivey]

Of course once you have decided on what you want, please check out B&h photo used site.

You can have what you want a even greater discount, for an slightly used body and lens

[highgrovemanor]

Nole0202 may be on to something, given your "not too heavy" opening post. So are you using the SLR term generically for a nice camera?

 

As long as you are wanting travel and landscapes, and NOT sports, mirror-less will save you tons of weight. But not a whole lot of money, unless you go previous model.

 

Besides Sony, there is also Olympus/Panasonic (interchangeable lenses), Nikon 1 and whatever the Little Canon is.

 

They won't be cheap, unless you go previous generation. Both of my current Panasonic's can be had for 200-300 body only new since new models are about to hit.

 

Sony has biggest sensor that may hive better image quality, but biggest lenses size wise.

 

Panasonic and Olympus have mid size sensor, but TONs of lens options. From ultra wide angle and fish eye to 600mm telephoto.

 

Nikon 1 will focus fastest, but has limited lenses and smallest sensor.

 

Happy shopping!

 

 

 

Canon mirrorless may be like the Sony size wise, but I don't know for sure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent using the Cruise Critic forums app

[lovemylab]

I would suggest going to a store where you can hold it in your hand and get a feel for it. I really thought I was going to get one camera when I went shopping, but when I had it in my hand, it didn't feel right. I still went with the same company (Nikon) but just a different model. I think you should go and try a few different brands and see what feels good for you. What may seem good for someone else, doesn't mean it's a right fit for you. Best of luck:)

 

I also agree with this method. I ended up with a Nikon simply because I liked how it felt the most.

[ikirumata]

When I went hunting for my first DSLR, I was all ready to go Nikon.

 

My thinking (why I wanted Nikon):

- what do I need with all those pixels...Im not printing posters. Besides, I need bigger higher quality pixels, not more noisy pixels.

 

- who needs video? If Im going to shoot video, I have a camcorder.

 

- my family shoots Nikon, I can borrow lenses and stuff from them.

 

- real photographers use Nikon...the Canon rebel is for hippy tennis players.

 

I ended up with a Canon T2i.

 

- Compared to the Nikon equivalent the T2i just felt better in my hand. I preferred the index finger wheel to the thumb wheel. It has to do with how I use my thumb to steady my camera.

 

- The back LCD screen was big and brighter than the Nikon equivalent.

 

- The body was light enough to take along all my excursions (I had a trip planned to Alaska).

 

- The fan support base is gigantic! I knew that if I was going to have a problem or buy used gear, it wouldn't be a problem. This decision was later quantified when I found out about Magic Lantern.

 

- The biggest reason I looked at Canon was the fact that Nikon was moving their autofocus motors from the body to the lenses. If you didn't buy an AF lens, you didn't get autofocus.

 

Believe you me, I scoured the internet looking for examples of photography using the two models I was searching for. Even though the Canon sensor was supposed to be inferior to the Nikon sensor, I could not tell one bit of difference. I really tried to change my mind and buy the Nikon, but ultimately, I had to go with the T2i.

 

Part of me still thinks that if I had waited 6 months, I would have gone with Nikon, as they released some more models that competed with the T2i, but you could play that game forever and never buy what you want, especially these days with camera bodies.

 

That was almost 2 years ago. I still love my T2i. Since Canon still uses the same sensor all the way up to its 7D, I don't have a pressing need to upgrade.

 

So basically in more words, Im supporting the idea of handling the cameras before buying. I went in thinking I was going to buy a certain brand, but after playing with them, I ended up with something different.

[knittinggirl]

Any teleconverters in the mirror-less camera systems?

[zackiedawg]

There aren't any teleconverters I know of within the mirrorless lenses designed for their systems. However, when using DSLR lenses via adapters, you can of course use teleconverters just as you would on the DSLR. Some more advanced adapters have electronic connections and can provide autofocus, you can even get specialized adapters like Sony's LA-EA2 for Alpha mount which provides a full translucent mirror, screw drive, and dedicated PDAF sensors with microfocus adjust that when attached to a NEX body becomes essentially a full Alpha camera, compatible with all Sony and Minolta A-mount lenses and teleconverters.

 

There are also tricks one can use to get more reach with native mirrorless lenses - teleEXTENDERS rather than teleconverters. These are the type that attach to the end of the lens, via the filter screwmount, and are afocal in design so they are not light-lossy, and do not affect the autofocus speed or stabilization...they simply magnify the lens. I use a 1.7x teleextender attached to my NEX 55-210mm lens for a backup wildlife and bird camera kit, and it gives me 357mm optically at F6.3, or 536mm equivalent, in a kit that's less than a foot long and weighs 2.5Lbs. Compared to my DSLR, which runs 8Lbs and several feet long when shooting 500-600mm equivalent, it's quite nice to have such reach in a smaller lighter package! Here's what the kit looks like with the extender:

[c230k]

Nice setup. I have the Tamron 18-200mm, so will have to wait until they come out higher than 200mm. Right now using my Panasonic FZ200 25-600mm for the long shots.

 

You would think Sony would develop a longer lens.

[highgrovemanor]

Any teleconverters in the mirror-less camera systems?

 

Of course, anything less than a full Frame has a built in teleconverter. :)

 

1.5x for dx/aps-c, or 2x for micro 43s.

 

I'm wondering if Nikon won't make anything above the nice d7100 in dx, as I only use DSLR for sports events as I hate the size.

 

I actually hope panasonic releases a teleconverter since next year they release a serious non-zoom tele, but its only 150mm which means it shoots like 300.

 

The bigger super zoom/bridge cameras do seem nice. That's what rekindled my photog bug since shooting high school yearbook on 35mm film. Now I've been through 2 generations of panasonics, and have from 15mm fisheye to 200-600mm zoom. I'm taking 2 cameras and 4 lenses to Alaska in a month, and the bag should be ender 7 lbs. my buddy with a Nikon d800 takes a 30 pound backpack on his trips!

 

It's all good. Just got to the store and see which one you can operate the best. Very rarely does new gear give bad results, unfortunately it's probably operator error. :o