Camera recommendation

[Little Dragon]

Any good sales on beginner SLRs, DSLRs?

Looking to get more involved in photography and would like to get something decent that will last a while.

[dragonone]

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/04/nikon-d5100-dslr-surfaces-with-16-2-megapixel-sensor-1080p-vide/

this looks to be an interesting price point if it's the same sensor as D7000. i went with the 550D when it came out because it shared a similar sensor as a 7D. and now the 60D and T3i too.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Little Dragon
Any good sales on beginner SLRs, DSLRs?

Looking to get more involved in photography and would like to get something decent that will last a while.

Pick up a Nikon D90 while you still can for $679. Overall it's the best bang for the buck body if you want it to never hold you back (as long as you don't get into anything too crazy). Full lens compatibility, several higher end features, etc. The D5100 was just announced too for almost the same price, it's better in some areas but it's a bit less of an "all rounder". Not sure what your budget is but that is pretty much the sweet spot right now assuming you don't have a huge budget.

No actual "big sales" or anything on right now that I am aware of though.

[Little Dragon]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Pick up a Nikon D90 while you still can for $679. Overall it's the best bang for the buck body if you want it to never hold you back (as long as you don't get into anything too crazy). Full lens compatibility, several higher end features, etc. The D5100 was just announced too for almost the same price, it's better in some areas but it's a bit less of an "all rounder". Not sure what your budget is but that is pretty much the sweet spot right now assuming you don't have a huge budget.

No actual "big sales" or anything on right now that I am aware of though.

Thank you.
I am still looking around but the D90 looks good. Also looking into the T2i.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Little Dragon


Thank you.
I am still looking around but the D90 looks good. Also looking into the T2i.

They are pretty close in price but a few points to consider for comparison. You can judge for yourself how important they are to you.

Rebel T2i
- Better video recording capabilities
- Better live view implementation with better AF while in live view
- More megapixels (18 vs 12) but slightly worse high ISO performance as a result

Nikon D90
- Better AF
- Better viewfinder (glass pentaprism vs pentamirror)
- Shorter viewfinder blackout time and shorter shutter lag
- Wireless flash control without buying an expensive accessory
- AF assist light does not require raising the built-in flash
- More durable shutter (rated to higher actuations)
- Faster continuous shooting with a larger buffer (4.5fps/11RAW vs 3.7fps/6RAW on the T2i)
- Has a top LCD to display settings (HUGE advantage IMO - I will not buy a camera without this)
- Double the battery life of the T2i

Anyways IMO the D90 is clearly superior as a photographic tool, but if video is of the utmost importance to you the T2i deserves a close look.

Also remember camera bodies get replaced every year or two so it's always easy to upgrade or have the latest and greatest. Lenses, flashes, etc. do not get updated nearly as often so it's important to consider the entire system when buying. Make sure you look into lenses you may want in the future, etc. and see which company offers the ones that appeal to you most.

[dirtsniffer]

Hey I've been super happy with my D90.One thing I noticed that the t2i feels like a dinky toy in comparison.
On the D90 you can pretty much change any setting without having to access the menu. like ISO, file format, continuous shooting, metering and focus type. All this info is also always displayed on the top mount lcd. It also has primary and secondary wheels for easier shutter and aperature adjustments in manual mode.
In body auto focus is a huge advantage too, it allows you to buy much cheaper used lenses. I bought a 50mm lense for 100 bucks off kijiji, to get one with in lense AF, it would have been 300.
I'm sure the cannon has its perks too, but im completely satisfied with the d90. and ive seen some on kijiji from 600

[Little Dragon]

Thanks for the information guys.
Video is pretty important to me, so I am leaning towards the T2i at this point in time.
D90 definetely looks like it is great for everything else though. Maybe I should take a look at how it's video quality is. If it's not much worse than the T2i then I might get it instead.

I will continue my research.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Little Dragon
Thanks for the information guys.
Video is pretty important to me, so I am leaning towards the T2i at this point in time.
D90 definetely looks like it is great for everything else though. Maybe I should take a look at how it's video quality is. If it's not much worse than the T2i then I might get it instead.

I will continue my research.

The difference is the D90 will shoot 720p/24 and the T2i will shoot 1080p/24/25/30. Nothing wrong at all with the D90's video, the T2i is just better. Neither AF during video.

You might also consider the brand new Nikon D5100. It matches the T2i's video capabilities (resolutions and frame rates) and pairs them with the best sensor currently available in the APS-C market. The D5100 will also AF while shooting video, and will accept an external mic to avoid any AF noise entering the video. It's contrast detect AF though, and it's not as good as the phase detect AF it uses for regular picture taking.

If you are THAT serious about video maybe you should also be looking at true video cameras.

[Little Dragon]

^
Thanks for the suggestion, I never looked at the D5100 before. That definitely would be what I want. Swivel LCD screen is bonus for filming.

Is the D5100 better than the T3i in your opinion?

I am into mostly video, but I also enjoy photography so that is why I am looking to get a DSLR. Seems they can take both great photos as well as great HD videos. Camcorders on the other hand just take great videos, not very good for great photos.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Little Dragon
^
Thanks for the suggestion, I never looked at the D5100 before. That definitely would be what I want. Swivel LCD screen is bonus for filming.

Is the D5100 better than the T3i in your opinion?

I am into mostly video, but I also enjoy photography so that is why I am looking to get a DSLR. Seems they can take both great photos as well as great HD videos. Camcorders on the other hand just take great videos, not very good for great photos.

Well if you are now looking at the T3i ($880) you put yourself into an interesting price bracket. There is nothing else in that price bracket at all, so you need to go slightly up or slightly down to look for competition.

Looking up, you've got the Nikon D7000 at $1099. Quite possibly the best APS-C camera on the market right now. It has absolutely no competition near it's price bracket, and competes with more expensive cameras. This is the ticket right now if it fits your budget. For $200 more than a T3i you are getting WAY more than $200 more camera. You get 1080p/24 video but it does not have a swivel screen. The T3i will shoot 1080p/30 video, which is the only area in which it bests the D7000. The D7000 is better in literally every other way including build, ergonomics, AF, etc. etc.

A quick note on the Canon 60D, it is almost exactly the same price as the D7000 and is once again bested in every way except video, which it shares with the T3i. So, it's kind of a strange camera. If you just want the video, you can save money and buy the T3i. If you want the much better *camera* you just buy the D7000. The T3i and 60D are almost identical, and within $100 of each other. I have no idea what Canon's plan with that was, but the T3i shouldn't exist and the 60D should be well under $1000 IMO. That would balance their lineup and make it more competitive.

Looking down a price bracket you have the Nikon D5100 and Nikon D90 which we've already talked about. The T3i compares most closely with the D5100, however the D5100 is better in almost every way I can see so far. It has a much better sensor, faster continuous shooting, better battery life, better AF, and AF during video. It does all that for $200 less than a T3i. Neither have top LCD's. Keep in mind with the D5100 it will not auto focus with screw drive (AF-D) lenses - this isn't really a problem though as there are incredibly few lenses left that have no AF-S alternative.

T3i compared with the D90 - the T3i will have 1080p/24/30 video vs the D90's 720p/24 video. The difference there mainly being the D90 is 2 years old, so what you are seeing is the progression in video technology in DSLRs over the last couple years. As a camera, the D90 is still better no question. The D90 does not have a swivel LCD. The T3i also feels like a toy in comparison to the D90 which is built much better (as dirtsniffer also mentioned above).

You may want to have a quick look at the Panasonic GH2...it has some of the best implemented video features of any DSLR but falls short in most other photographic areas. It's worth mentioning, but I also think the better overall compromise is a APS-C sized sensor DSLR with good video.

To put it more simply:

Best bang for the buck DSLR with good video (1080p/24/25/30) - Nikon D5100

Best Bang for the buck DSLR for taking pictures - Nikon D90

Best Bang for the buck DSLR, period - Nikon D7000

You mentioned video was very important to you, but what I don't know is how much you are willing to compromise on that front in order to get a better camera for picture taking. If you absolutely must have 1080p/30 your only choices near this price range are the T2i, T3i, 60D and D5100. If you are ok with 1080/24p frame rates and/or 720p, you have a lot more choices and will also get a much better camera for picture taking.

Canon has kind of been relying on their superior video implementation lately as their competitive advantage, but now the D5100 seems to match it in that area so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Anyways that's how I see it - I encourage you to also do your own research, go out and handle these cameras to see what feels best in your hand, and look at each company's lens/accessory lineup to see if there are any glaring omissions based on your requirements or future requirements.

[gogreen]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
If you are THAT serious about video maybe you should also be looking at true video cameras.

The Canon 5D Mark II seems to be a popular choice among pro videographers, so it's not absolutely necessary to abandon photography in favour of video. Going with the T2i and investing in good glass would definitely offer a nice full-frame upgrade path.

The specs on the D7000 and D5100 are impressive though. Definitely a lot of bang for the buck there. The nearest competition in a Pentax would be the K-5, currently at $1498 (16.3 Mp sensor plus 1080p video at 25 fps, plus full weather sealing).

[msommers]

If photography isn't the main focus, I'd suggest something cheaper. Sure it wont' have all the bells and whistles but it won't suck or hinder your abilities. Hell, even getting a used D90 won't be that much these days and will be more than enough for someone just getting it. Even for experienced users, it's a fantastic camera.

I'm with Mark on this one, get a dedicated video camera if the primary use is for video. Canon, Lumix, Panasonic all make fantastic video cameras in that price range.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by gogreen
The nearest competition in a Pentax would be the K-5, currently at $1498 (16.3 Mp sensor plus 1080p video at 25 fps, plus full weather sealing).

Yeah the K5 is pretty good but it has 3 major flaws in my opinion.

1) It's overpriced at $400 more than a D7000. The D7000 is better in many areas, but the K5 is built better and can shoot 1fps faster (but worse buffer). It's not worth $400 more at all IMO.

2) The Pentax system as a whole (lenses, flashes, etc.) is very lacking when compared to Nikon or Canon.

3) They have implemented a very noticeable amount of high ISO noise reduction to their RAW files, meaning you cannot disable that. This is how it gets artificially high ratings on websites like DXO that measure noise compared to the D7000 that uses the same sensor. Having unwanted noise reduction with no way to turn it off at higher ISO's would be a deal breaker for me, anyways.

[Ashkente]

Something to consider, for Canon video shooters:
http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/FAQ

Runs like CHDK. Looks interesting!

[Little Dragon]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


You mentioned video was very important to you, but what I don't know is how much you are willing to compromise on that front in order to get a better camera for picture taking. If you absolutely must have 1080p/30 your only choices near this price range are the T2i, T3i, 60D and D5100. If you are ok with 1080/24p frame rates and/or 720p, you have a lot more choices and will also get a much better camera for picture taking.

Video is quite important to me so I'd rather not sacrifice the frame rate.

Right now I am tight on cash so looks like the T3i is out for sure.
D5100 looks to be the winner at this point in time. Great features for less money. Can't seem to find one used anywhere though.
T2i is my second choice if I find a really great deal on one.

I will have to go out and play around with these cameras soon though.
What're the best camera stores in Calgary?

Thank you for all your help!

:thumbsup:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Little Dragon


Video is quite important to me so I'd rather not sacrifice the frame rate.

Right now I am tight on cash so looks like the T3i is out for sure.
D5100 looks to be the winner at this point in time. Great features for less money. Can't seem to find one used anywhere though.
T2i is my second choice if I find a really great deal on one.

I will have to go out and play around with these cameras soon though.
What're the best camera stores in Calgary?

Thank you for all your help!

:thumbsup:

The D5100 isn't even out yet, it should be in Canada by the end of the month though - that's why you can't find a used one. It was only announced last Tuesday. It certainly appears to offer a ton of bang for the buck.

The T2i is not built as well, and has a worse sensor than the D5100. Comparing the two, I really don't see any reason a person would take a T2i over a D5100, especially with the D5100 being the same price. It wouldn't be worth it to take a used T2i just to save $100 over a D5100 in my opinion.

Definitely check them out in person as something might jump out to you as being a deal breaker for one of your choices. Also look at the entire system. Nikon has a much better flash system in general, but make sure you also look at lenses currently offered and make sure you are covered for what you think you will need now and also down the road. Both companies have a pretty huge selection though, I don't imagine you would find any issues. Nikon has a lot more "entry level" and "budget" choices, though. Their lens lineups mach up more closely as you get into the more expensive stuff.

As for stores, The Camera Store and Memory Express probably offer the best prices. I would avoid Blacks and especially Seneal. Vistek is good if you get them to match or beat prices, as they always list things at full MSRP. Vistek always seems to have stock though, so it's not bad if you get them to match a price. I'd also not recommend not making a decision based solely on anything the salesperson says, and make your own decision. I've heard some pretty outlandish statements listening to various sales people at various camera stores. Also if anyone tries to sell me a UV filter for a digital camera I instantly assume they are just trying to make the most money possible off of me and don't care what I buy.

Lastly, if you end up buying something, do not buy UV filters. Every camera shop in town tries to sell them to you because they make good margin on them. Digital SLRs have absolutely no need for a UV filter as all modern lenses and even the sensor have UV coatings on them. UV coatings on filters are designed for film cameras and can cast unpleasant hues on your digital images. If you want protective filters buy specific protective filters like Nikon NC filters or similar. They are designed specifically to have absolutely no effect on the image.

[gogreen]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Yeah the K5 is pretty good but it has 3 major flaws in my opinion.

1) It's overpriced at $400 more than a D7000. The D7000 is better in many areas, but the K5 is built better and can shoot 1fps faster (but worse buffer). It's not worth $400 more at all IMO.

2) The Pentax system as a whole (lenses, flashes, etc.) is very lacking when compared to Nikon or Canon.

3) They have implemented a very noticeable amount of high ISO noise reduction to their RAW files, meaning you cannot disable that. This is how it gets artificially high ratings on websites like DXO that measure noise compared to the D7000 that uses the same sensor. Having unwanted noise reduction with no way to turn it off at higher ISO's would be a deal breaker for me, anyways.

You're certainly up on your specs! :thumbsup:

1) I agree that the price advantage definitely goes to Nikon at the moment. It should be interesting to see if Pentax drops the price of the K-5 in response, although they're more likely marketing it as an upgrade for current Pentax users.

2) Canon and Nikon definitely have advantages in their flash and autofocus systems. I'm going to agree to disagree with you on the lens selection though because I think it's a bit subjective. Nikon offers more focal length ranges in their zooms, but Pentax covers the range from 16-135 with two 2.8 zooms that have excellent IQ and cost considerably less than similar offerings from Canon or Nikon. So I think it definitely depends on what you're shooting.

3) Good info, I wasn't aware of that. Although I thought the two sensors were similar but different. At any rate, I agree that may be an issue for someone who regularly shoots at ISO 3200 or higher.

I agree 100% with you on your advice to check everything out in person, and also recommend The Camera Store. :)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by gogreen


You're certainly up on your specs! :thumbsup:

2) Canon and Nikon definitely have advantages in their flash and autofocus systems. I'm going to agree to disagree with you on the lens selection though because I think it's a bit subjective. Nikon offers more focal length ranges in their zooms, but Pentax covers the range from 16-135 with two 2.8 zooms that have excellent IQ and cost considerably less than similar offerings from Canon or Nikon. So I think it definitely depends on what you're shooting.

It's kind of subjective, but kind of not :). It's a fact that Nikon and Canon make far more lenses that cover a far broader range overall. Their systems as a whole are simply more complete. If you don't need anything that Pentax doesn't offer, then I agree it has no effect on the consumer, but they are missing some very key lenses, and particularly past 200mm.

Pentax's 16-50/2.8 zoom is $1028 n Canada. Nikon's 17-55/2.8 is $1299 and Canon's 17-55/2.8 IS is $1199. Before Japan's Tsunami, the Nikon and Canon versions were both $1099. Not a big price difference, even post-tsunami. Optical performance is good on all 3, but the Nikon is fully weather sealed, and made of magnesium. The Canon and Pentax versions are made of plastic. The Canon version has IS, however it is very prone to failure on that particular lens. The lens was annonced more than 5 years ago and Canon hasn't bothered to fix the issue yet. LensRentals.com publishes their failure rates as they deal with a ton of different lenses, and Canon's 17-55 IS happens to have the second highest failure rate of any lens they rent at ~29%, citing "IS failure" and "AF electronics" as the reasons. That lens is very poorly built. I do wish Nikon added VR II to their 17-55 lens though. It's been out since 2003 and I'd buy it in a heartbeat if they updated it with a 17-55/2.8 VRII N version. It's due for a refresh too, but has no common issues or problems.

Pentax's 50-135/2.8 zoom is indeed something that nobody else makes, so I can't really compare it with anything. I don't know what it costs considerably less than in the Nikon or Canon lineups, because neither company makes a lens covering a similar range. Sigma makes a 50-150/2.8 which is probably the closest thing. A 50-135 falls well short of Nikon & Canon's latest 70-200/2.8's in both performance and build quality, as it should as it's half the price. What Pentax doesn't make, however is a 70-200/2.8 lens of their own. That is the bread & butter lens of a huge number of working professionals, wedding photographers, hobbyists, etc. IMO that is a glaring omission in the Pentax lens lineup. Pentax also doesn't offer a single lens beyond 300mm, and nothing beyond 200mm that is faster than f2.8. Those particular omissions ignore many sports photographers, bird/wildlife photographers, etc. Pentax also doesn't play the full frame game, however they are into medium format.

As for the stabilization side of things, in-lens stabilization is definitely superior to in-camera stabilization from a technical standpoint. Not only is it simply more effective, but it also stabilizes the viewfinder which is a huge bonus. The trade off, of course, is that in-body stabilization also works on very old lenses and primes which do not have stabilization. So, if you had a huge collection of old primes or something the in-body stabilization may be very attractive.

Anyways, I don't really see a single thing in the Pentax lens lineup that there isn't a similarly priced alternative for in the Nikon/Canon lineups except the 50-135/2.8. I personally find that range to be far to narrow but I certainly don't speak for everyone! I just don't think they have the company size or budget to compete with the big two.

Again, nothing wrong with Pentax at all, but if you want to invest in that system you had better take a close look at the lenses, consider your current as well as possible future needs, and see if you're covered. That goes for any of the manufactures.


Originally posted by gogreen

3) Good info, I wasn't aware of that. Although I thought the two sensors were similar but different. At any rate, I agree that may be an issue for someone who regularly shoots at ISO 3200 or higher.

I agree 100% with you on your advice to check everything out in person, and also recommend The Camera Store. :)

Yes unfortunately Pentax applies high ISO NR to their RAW images that cannot be changed by the user. In some situations this may be an advantage, but overall it is far better to have the option to control NR and remove it with a dedicated noise reduction program in post processing rather than be stuck with it when you don't want it. This is only really at the higher ISO's though. I personally still view this as a fairly significant disadvantage, but to some users it will make absolutely no difference whatsoever.

You are right in that the 2 sensors are very similar, but different. Sony makes the sensor for both companies, then each company puts their own personal touch on it with processing, the AA filter, etc. Sony and Nikon share a few sensors too and they end up having quite different performance after each company adds their personal touches.

[Dj_DLX]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Pentax's 50-135/2.8 zoom is indeed something that nobody else makes, so I can't really compare it with anything. I don't know what it costs considerably less than in the Nikon or Canon lineups, because neither company makes a lens covering a similar range. Sigma makes a 50-150/2.8 which is probably the closest thing. A 50-135 falls well short of Nikon & Canon's latest 70-200/2.8's in both performance and build quality, as it should as it's half the price. What Pentax doesn't make, however is a 70-200/2.8 lens of their own. That is the bread & butter lens of a huge number of working professionals, wedding photographers, hobbyists, etc. IMO that is a glaring omission in the Pentax lens lineup. Pentax also doesn't offer a single lens beyond 300mm, and nothing beyond 200mm that is faster than f2.8. Those particular omissions ignore many sports photographers, bird/wildlife photographers, etc. Pentax also doesn't play the full frame game, however they are into medium format.

Isn't the 70-200 range the bread and butter for professionals using full frame cameras moreso than ones using crop sensor cameras? So for a comparison of two crop sensor cameras, shouldn't the 50-135 range be more optimal, since that is equivalent to 70-200 on a full frame camera? I rarely hear full frame camera users complain about the 70-200 range on their cameras, so it seems like Pentax is catering their lens selection to crop sensor users more than Nikon is. This makes sense since Pentax doesn't offer a full frame camera as you mentioned and medium format lenses are not interchangeable with slr lenses. I frequently use a 70-200/2.8 lens with a crop sensor camera but I find the range a tad long when taking indoor pictures, so I find myself changing lenses more often I would prefer. This wouldn't be an issue if I had a full frame camera, but since that's beyond my budget I would definitely purchase a 50-135/2.8 if my camera system offered one.

[Xtrema]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I find continuous AF on DSLR to be crappy for videos. So if your video is on fixed AF, you're ok. Otherwise, any $500 camcorder can do WAY better job.

[gogreen]

Originally posted by Dj_DLX

Isn't the 70-200 range the bread and butter for professionals using full frame cameras moreso than ones using crop sensor cameras?

That's my understanding as well, that the 70-200 is more suited to full-frame as it was a popular focal length on film bodies. I do find the 50-135 to be an optimal range for portraits, and it works out very close to 70-200 with the crop factor.

So I don't think they've omitted that range, they've just adapted it to crop sensors. So for my needs, the 50-135 is equivalent to a 70-200 on a full-frame body at a much more affordable price. That, along with the in-body stabilization, is my means of comparison.

I admit it's not a perfect comparison, given the differences in construction. But in all honesty the reason I chose Pentax was ergonomics, the weather-sealing and metal chassis of the K-7, and the option to use K-mount primes. So I'm probably a bit of a niche buyer. :)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Dj_DLX


Isn't the 70-200 range the bread and butter for professionals using full frame cameras moreso than ones using crop sensor cameras? So for a comparison of two crop sensor cameras, shouldn't the 50-135 range be more optimal, since that is equivalent to 70-200 on a full frame camera? I rarely hear full frame camera users complain about the 70-200 range on their cameras, so it seems like Pentax is catering their lens selection to crop sensor users more than Nikon is. This makes sense since Pentax doesn't offer a full frame camera as you mentioned and medium format lenses are not interchangeable with slr lenses. I frequently use a 70-200/2.8 lens with a crop sensor camera but I find the range a tad long when taking indoor pictures, so I find myself changing lenses more often I would prefer. This wouldn't be an issue if I had a full frame camera, but since that's beyond my budget I would definitely purchase a 50-135/2.8 if my camera system offered one.

Yes and no. Pentax is clearly trying to cater their lineup to match full frame equivalents because they only offer crop cameras. Anyone with a crop sensor camera has the option of buying Sigma's 50-150/2.8 which is a very good lens, or Tokina's 50-135/2.8. Nobody is confined to 70-200's on crop bodies, yet most people with a crop body still own the 70-200 in some variant. It is extraordinarily popular regardless of sensor size. The 70-200 also covers a much larger range than the 50-135. Having a zoom lens that maxes out at the full frame equivalent of 300/2.8 is pretty amazing when you think that you need to spend almost $5,000 to get that on a full frame body. If you forget about the focal length, Pentax's 50-135 does not match the build quality or optical quality of the latest 70-200/2.8 lenses by Nikon or Canon. Pentax doesn't really offer an equivalent, or even competition to those types of lenses. Again I am only one opinion, but I strictly use crop cameras and the 70-200 is on my camera 95% of the time. 135 or 150mm would be WAY too short for me as 200mm is barely long enough much of the time. If I need wider than 70mm I have a 50mm prime, but there are rarely situations where I can't just take 1 or 2 steps back with 70mm rather than change to my 50mm.

All I'm really saying is that unless you are an existing Pentax user heavily invested in glass, I find it very difficult to think of any reason a new customer should go Pentax rather than Nikon or Canon. The K5 would be an exciting camera to an existing Pentax user, but from a first time buyer's point of view, it's overpriced for what it is.

I am not trying to put down Pentax or say that they are bad or anything. Everything they do make is very good, but there are some obvious reasons why they aren't the most popular DSLR brand. They simply don't have the size to compete directly with Nikon or Canon in many areas.

Clearly personal preference comes into play as well. Using yourself as an example, you seem very happy with the idea of the 50-135. You should look into Sigma's 50-150/2.8 or Tokina's 50-135/2.8.


Originally posted by Xtrema
Correct me if I'm wrong, I find continuous AF on DSLR to be crappy for videos. So if your video is on fixed AF, you're ok. Otherwise, any $500 camcorder can do WAY better job.

You would be correct, the current AF during video is pretty average. We've yet to see how good it is on the D5100 but it's reasonable to expect it to be like the D3100. It works, but it isn't great. I believe the video AF on a cheap camcorder is better than anything any current DSLR can offer.

The new microphone, however, eliminates the complaint some people had of AF noise entering their videos.

Personally I'd rather have video than not have it in a DSLR, but it would never make or break my decision to buy.


Originally posted by gogreen
I admit it's not a perfect comparison, given the differences in construction. But in all honesty the reason I chose Pentax was ergonomics, the weather-sealing and metal chassis of the K-7, and the option to use K-mount primes. So I'm probably a bit of a niche buyer. :)

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I were you I'd stay Pentax as well (Not that it sounded like you were switching). You have absolutely no reason to switch and the K7 is very good. Having stabilization on all your K-mount primes is a nice bonus as well.

[gogreen]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Again I am only one opinion, but I strictly use crop cameras and the 70-200 is on my camera 95% of the time. 135 or 150mm would be WAY too short for me as 200mm is barely long enough much of the time. If I need wider than 70mm I have a 50mm prime, but there are rarely situations where I can't just take 1 or 2 steps back with 70mm rather than change to my 50mm.

Just out of curiousity, what kind of subject matter do you shoot?


Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt

All I'm really saying is that unless you are an existing Pentax user heavily invested in glass, I find it very difficult to think of any reason a new customer should go Pentax rather than Nikon or Canon. The K5 would be an exciting camera to an existing Pentax user, but from a first time buyer's point of view, it's overpriced for what it is.

I am not trying to put down Pentax or say that they are bad or anything. Everything they do make is very good, but there are some obvious reasons why they aren't the most popular DSLR brand. They simply don't have the size to compete directly with Nikon or Canon in many areas.
[/B]

No worries, I get that. You've backed up your viewpoints with solid evidence and I fully respect that. :thumbsup:

For what it's worth I agree that for a first time buyer the K-5 is a little overpriced and the D7000 looks really good. The current situation has changed a bit from when I bought my K-7. There wasn't really a direct competitor at the time as I believe the Nikon and Canon equivalents were more expensive (the K-7 was on sale as well).

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by gogreen


Just out of curiosity, what kind of subject matter do you shoot?


I shoot mostly wildlife (usually at zoos), which is why I can't ever have enough reach even with the crop factor. I also like macro a lot, and will take any DOF advantage I can get so for me, that is another reason to go crop sensor rather than full frame. I dabble in portraits and landscape. Really trying to get more into landscape this year, we will see what happens this summer :).

[Roarasaur]

Since we are on the subject of camera recommendations, what would you guys recommend for an P & S or micro 4/3. One that preferably has a raw file format and that you can slip in and out of your pocket, for those days that you just dont want to carry your slr everywhere. Last time I looked at this, it seemed like the Canon G12 was the winner in this category but with the introduction of micro 4/3 I'm not sure anymore (with a pancake lens, because those other long range telescopic ones seem HUGE, much bigger than any pocket I have).

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Roarasaur
Since we are on the subject of camera recommendations, what would you guys recommend for an P & S or micro 4/3. One that preferably has a raw file format and that you can slip in and out of your pocket, for those days that you just dont want to carry your slr everywhere. Last time I looked at this, it seemed like the Canon G12 was the winner in this category but with the introduction of micro 4/3 I'm not sure anymore (with a pancake lens, because those other long range telescopic ones seem HUGE, much bigger than any pocket I have).

First of all you need to decide on your definition of pocketable. To me, pocketable means a front shirt pocket, or I can put it in my front jeans pocket without it looking much worse or being more uncomfortable than a cell phone. The only camera on the market that does that with RAW capability is the Canon S95. I'm of the opinion that your "go everywhere" camera should be as small as possible, because as soon as it's even the tiniest inconvenience, you might as well just have your SLR with you.

The S95 has 3 main features that make it so portable. First, it is simply physically smaller than the rest. Second, it has no hotshoe. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it has no lens cap. The XZ-1 and LX5 use lens caps which are extremely annoying (IMO), especially when taking the camera in and out of pockets or tight spaces. You also must have a place for the lens cap when the camera is in use. Just another thing to lose or break.

If you want to go bigger than the S95, you pretty well have 3 options in the P&S category worth looking at with RAW capability and larger than average sensors. The Olympus XZ-1, the Panasonic LX5, and the Canon G12. They all kind of do one thing the best. The LX5 and XZ1 use the same Panasonic sensor, which is not bad but it is the worst in the segment for ISO performance. The G12 and S95 share a sensor which is the best in the segment for ISO performance.

Olympus XZ-1
f/1.8-2.5
28-112mm
fastest lens of the bunch

Panasonic LX5
f/2.0-3.3
24-90mm
your only option for 24mm wide, probably the fastest AF of the bunch

Canon G12
f/2.8-4.5
28-140mm
most features & external controls, but the bulkiest camera of the bunch

And for comparison:

Canon S95
f/2.0-4.9
28-105mm
tied for best image quality and by far the most compact, but slowest lens on the long end

Panasonic is well known for it's poor JPEG colors (cyan skies in particular). If you shoot RAW this is a non-issue. If you plan on shooting JPEG - something to think about.

The LX5 and XZ-1 do not have a reasonably priced options for an underwater enclosures. The G12, and S95 however do at $175 and $190 respectively (USD). The LX5 and XZ1 underwater housings are $550 and $300 respectively (USD). For me, this a key consideration when buying a P&S because I like to take them snorkeling. Underwater enclosures are a ridiculous rip-off in Canada, kind of like memory cards.

The bottom line is you can't go wrong with any of the above cameras, so you need to look more closely at their features and see which is the most important to you. They also all perform surprisingly well at higher ISO's with a lightly processed RAW file - MUCH better than they do in JPEG.

You can forget the Nikon P300 as it uses a 1/2.3 sensor and has no RAW mode, but otherwise appears to be a direct copy of the Canon S95. The Nikon P7000 is a G12 clone, and I would have to give the edge to the G12 there even though the P7000 is actually pretty good.

If you want to bring something bigger around with you, you can look at M4/3. The key players there are the Panasonic GF1, Panasonic GF2, and Olympus E-PL2. All are good, and fairly compact with the pancake lenses. Image quality, response time, focus speed, and ISO performance will be superior to any of the P&S cameras but you gain physical size and lose the ability to zoom unless you put much larger lenses on them. They are also more expensive, and have no cheap options for underwater enclosures.

My opinion on M4/3 is that since they are not pocketable (by my definition), and you already own a DSLR, they are too big for a backup camera. You aren't going to put a M4/3 in your pants pocket, and you must once again deal with lens caps. Again, if it's at all an inconvenience to take it with me, I might as well throw a compact lens on my DSLR and take that instead and enjoy better everything. That is something that is totally up to you, however.

[dragonone]

this is obvious but i gotta point it out ...

i have a s95 and i wouldn't go with that unless you are really going to 'pocket' it. of all the people i know, they either baby their camera and put it in a case, which you cannot pocket, or put it in a bag that they carry around. i'm skeptical about putting it in my jeans' pocket tho ...

if my gf didn't want a smaller camera, i would've gone with the LX5. nothing wrong with the s95, but i just think i would enjoy some of the extra features on the LX5, like the closer macro or the hotshoe.

[gogreen]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


I shoot mostly wildlife (usually at zoos), which is why I can't ever have enough reach even with the crop factor. I also like macro a lot, and will take any DOF advantage I can get so for me, that is another reason to go crop sensor rather than full frame. I dabble in portraits and landscape. Really trying to get more into landscape this year, we will see what happens this summer :).

Makes sense. :)

[Kona9]

I have done a fair bit of reading in this thread. The OP is in a situation such as myself. Thank you Mitsu for all the info.

My main question is, would the D5100 be a good beginner camera for Automotive, video and stills, portrait and landscapes? Mostly the automotive aspect. I also have an interest in Macro shots. I need to learn more about lenses etc. Any suggestions if I should get anything past the kit lens at this point? Also perhaps a proper definition of kit lens.

So far, unless I learn more that sways me elsewhere, I think I am lined up for the D5100 from The Camera Store. I have heard about them a lot, as well positively. I initially started thinking I could be fine with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ40, but after watching a couple of reviews, I think it makes sense to spend the extra and get a proper camera with good video capabilities. Something to expand the learning process past a certain point without having to buy a new camera.

Any other suggestions?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Kona9
I have done a fair bit of reading in this thread. The OP is in a situation such as myself. Thank you Mitsu for all the info.

My main question is, would the D5100 be a good beginner camera for Automotive, video and stills, portrait and landscapes? Mostly the automotive aspect. I also have an interest in Macro shots. I need to learn more about lenses etc. Any suggestions if I should get anything past the kit lens at this point? Also perhaps a proper definition of kit lens.

So far, unless I learn more that sways me elsewhere, I think I am lined up for the D5100 from The Camera Store. I have heard about them a lot, as well positively. I initially started thinking I could be fine with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ40, but after watching a couple of reviews, I think it makes sense to spend the extra and get a proper camera with good video capabilities. Something to expand the learning process past a certain point without having to buy a new camera.

Any other suggestions?

There is nothing currently that can touch the D5100 in that price category, so yes it is a spectacular camera.

As for it being good at automotive, stills, landscape photos etc., that is entirely dependent on the user and the lens. So, nothing to worry about there. Macro shots, once again, are entirely lens dependent, so no worries there. It's not like a P&S camera where you just switch to "macro mode".

The kit lens (18-55VR) is fine for learning portraits, landscapes, etc. As you start to learn more, get into macro, etc. you will likely want to upgrade or buy some different lenses. The only thing I would suggest you get in addition to the kit lens is a polarizer IF you are wanting to remove reflections from the car paint in your car shots. Also, do not bother with UV filters - lots of stores try to sell them to you but digital cameras can actually be negatively affected by them (color cast). They are for old film cameras.

Assuming your budget is what a D5100 costs, there is nothing better I could recommend, especially for an entry level DSLR. It won't be holding you back anytime soon.

Any other questions let us know.