Help choosing a new camera

[jaedaliu]

Massachusetts is having a tax free weekend coming up, and I am hoping to buy a camera to take advantage of the savings.

I don't have a hard budget, but looking at DSLRs, $1000ish for the Nikon D5200 kit or the Canon EOS Rebel T5i kit at Costco is what I was looking at. Both cameras seem fairly similar in size. Asking around my photo friends, they said that it didn't really matter which I picked. However, they recommended choosing the brand that would let me borrow lenses and ask questions to my more patient friends.

However, the last response from my friend that has a 1 year old was that he wished that he had a mirrorless camera because the bulk of his Canon 50d makes it difficult to grab and carry all the time. And frankly, I like the idea of a smaller bag or camera around my neck.

There seem to be a lot more players in the mirrorless camera game, and I can't figure out what may work best for me. Every review I read on dpreview.com makes the camera seem great. I guess I'm hoping for a recommendation on a mirrorless camera (with lenses) in my approximate price range, or a reason why the DSLR is superior for me.

The new Panasonic GX7 looks great (a lot like the other cameras) and if that's the best for me, I can wait until it hits the street.

Thanks for the feedback!

UPDATE:

Borrowed a nikon d5200 for a week in Canada, and it was really fun. Then I picked up a GX7 in a local store that had a nice return policy in case we didn't like it.

I chose the GX7.

what I don't like about it:
1) glass is expensive when compared with canon&nikon crop frame lenses
2) kit lens is a little big(it's small, but I'm buying the 20mm f/1.7 soon)
3) electronic viewfinder felt strange at first, but got used to it.

what I like about it:
1) the size! the quality is good enough for me
2) touch screen focusing/shooting
3) silent mode - this is awesome because without any lights or sounds, people don't react to the camera.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

It's very tough. I would recommend going much cheaper. You can find good mirrorless cameras for $500 or less, easily.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mera_with.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html

You can buy a used DSLR for $300 or less on Craigslist. You will save much more buying used than you will not paying sales tax. (No sales tax on online sales BTW, and no sales tax on used gear from individuals.)

You will be out less money, and that will enable you to buy a camera, use it for a while, figure out what you like and don't like about it, and move on to another camera in due time. You will be able to sell the other one for not much less than you paid for it. There is no need to shell out $1000 on your first quality camera.

Your photo friends are right, sticking with a DSLR from Canon or Nikon will let you borrow gear and tips from your photographer friends. This can be invaluable. It is less likely that you will have any photographer friends with (say) Sony or Pentax DSLR's, or with any kind of mirrorless camera.

However, the size and weight benefits of mirrorless cameras are hard to deny. I know that I myself have been leaving my 5D at home and carrying around a P&S more and more. Mirrorless, I would stick with Micro 4/3rds (Panasonic and Olympus) unless you already had an investment in Canon or Nikon lenses that could be adapted to their mirrorless systems.

 

[jaedaliu]

online purchases don't have sales tax added, but I need to report it to the state and pay a use tax on my annual tax return. But that's just a minor point, as my budget isn't really fixed, and I can pay more if it's worth it.

I guess I have a fool's errand of trying to find a "permanent" camera at a "reasonable" price without having extensive hands on experience with what's out there.

I'll keep this in mind as I browse the camera store and craiglist ads. Thank you for the insightful reply.

Will update with whatever it is I end up getting.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I guess I have a fool's errand of trying to find a "permanent" camera at a "reasonable" price without having extensive hands on experience with what's out there.

I wouldn't say it's a fool's errand... I'm sure you'd be pleased with either of the 2 cameras you mentioned. However, it is hard for me to recommend anybody to spend $1000 on an item that they don't really know that much about.

I own roughly $5000 in photo equipment at the moment (bodies, lenses, lighting, tripods, other equipment) but I started with a basic P&S (Nikon Coolpix 2500), moved to a better P&S (Panasonic DMC-FZ20), moved to a used starter DSLR (Canon Digital Rebel, $300 on eBay) and then upgraded bodies and lenses from there. At each point I was able to say what I didn't like about my existing camera or lens, and why/how the new one would be better. Each time I never laid out all that much money out-of-pocket, because I could sell my older gear to help offset the costs of the newer gear. I think I sold that original Rebel for $225. So it cost me $75 to use it for 6 months or so and help me to grow my photographic knowledge.

 

[iGas]

I wouldn't say it's a fool's errand... I'm sure you'd be pleased with either of the 2 cameras you mentioned. However, it is hard for me to recommend anybody to spend $1000 on an item that they don't really know that much about.

I own roughly $5000 in photo equipment at the moment (bodies, lenses, lighting, tripods, other equipment) but I started with a basic P&S (Nikon Coolpix 2500), moved to a better P&S (Panasonic DMC-FZ20), moved to a used starter DSLR (Canon Digital Rebel, $300 on eBay) and then upgraded bodies and lenses from there. At each point I was able to say what I didn't like about my existing camera or lens, and why/how the new one would be better. Each time I never laid out all that much money out-of-pocket, because I could sell my older gear to help offset the costs of the newer gear. I think I sold that original Rebel for $225. So it cost me $75 to use it for 6 months or so and help me to grow my photographic knowledge.

I have to agree that the 2 cameras that the OP mentioned are excellent starter. However, a used DSLR & 50mm would do wonder for a person that seriously wanted to get into photography.

Not to blow my own horn, but I have won 4 photo contests (1 was city wide, and the other was Canada wide) that worth a total of $5500 in the late 80s and early 90s with the lowly used Canon AV-1, A-1, and 50mm f/1.8 that picked each for $100 lens/body combined. The other 2 contests was won was the Canon EOS 10s and 28-105mm, as well as the 50mm f/1.8.

 

[Moonrise]

If he is just starting, I see no reason to purchase anything more expensive than the Rebel T3i. He can get one used for much less and it can use many of Canon's excellent lenses as well to get very high quality pictures. From there he can choose to sell down the road for a decent price and buy a higher end camera if he so desires. Basically, I am with you guys on that assessment. OP, though it is tempting, you don't really need to go all out with your budget on buying a quality DSLR.

 

[gevorg]

As a starter, I wouldn't spend more than $500. Checkout Sony NEX-3N with kit lens for just $400. APS-C sized sensor with great dynamic range. Built-in flash that can be tilted to bounce it off the wall. Small and easy to carry. For even more portability, checkout Sony RX100. You'll be paying big premium though, since similar or better IQ can be achieve with a cheaper and bigger camera.

If you really want to splurge, yes, the Panasonic GX7 is very promising but it will arrive at the end of next month or so.

 

[jaedaliu]

Well, the weekend came and went. I didn't buy a camera. Though, I did visit Best Buy with my wife and got some other stuff there. The tethers made it difficult to really get a good feel for the weight of the cameras, and there was limited selection of the mirrorless cameras.

I am in love with the lower size and weight of the NEX-3 when compared with the t5i/d5200 they had on display. I'll need to go to a real camera store to get my hands on some cameras to feel the weight and practice operations before I decide. Maybe I'll go with a lower end body when I start and trade up, but not sure if I want to spend extra money if I'm going to end up in the same place.

Thanks for the input and guidance.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The thing about the Sonys that keeps me from recommending them as a compact alternative to a DSLR is that they use the same size sensor as a DSLR, which is about twice as big as the sensor in a m4/3 camera. While this is good in many regards (it is easier to get better image quality out of a larger sensor) it means that the lenses have to be large as well. Each lens that you can put on a NEX will be almost the exact same size as the equivalent lens on a DSLR. The m4/3 lenses, while they might not really look that much smaller, actually are quite a bit smaller in practical terms (fitting in pockets, etc.). Sony has good tech, and I wouldn't knock somebody picking a NEX, especially if they already had other Sony compatible lenses and they were just looking for a compact body for when they didn't want to carry their full DSLR load. However, for someone starting from scratch, m4/3 is pretty hard to beat IMO. I'm pretty sure that it's what I would go for, if I were starting from scratch today.

 

[Gintaras]

I have to agree that the 2 cameras that the OP mentioned are excellent starter. However, a used DSLR & 50mm would do wonder for a person that seriously wanted to get into photography.

Not to blow my own horn, but I have won 4 photo contests (1 was city wide, and the other was Canada wide) that worth a total of $5500 in the late 80s and early 90s with the lowly used Canon AV-1, A-1, and 50mm f/1.8 that picked each for $100 lens/body combined. The other 2 contests was won was the Canon EOS 10s and 28-105mm, as well as the 50mm f/1.8.

Is it good to recommend cameras and more important LENSES without knowing what OP would like to take pictures of...?
You can NOT take pictures of Wildlife with 50mm...

I have to agree that the 2 cameras that the OP mentioned are excellent starter.

Neither camera is a winner of Camera Of The Year 2012 on dpreview

Not to blow my own horn, but I have won 4 photo contests

I've participated in dpreview photo challenges, as for me - an amateur, results are pretty good - highest 29 out of 100, never last...all together - about 50%....

I've printed some of my photos on 20x30 size, who saw or friends say - they look very good...

But, don't need to forget, photography is not a sport and some people can view your photos on artistic level, some on technical...There's actually can NOT be a winner - just a matter of taste.
Who's better: Leonardo Da Vinci or Rubens? Or Rembrandt?

If OP not familiar with DSLR, I'd suggest, to buy any ENTRY LEVEL camera...Then...you go....

 

[jaedaliu]

Is it good to recommend cameras and more important LENSES without knowing what OP would like to take pictures of...?
You can NOT take pictures of Wildlife with 50mm...



Neither camera is a winner of Camera Of The Year 2012 on dpreview

Good point, I've never talked about what I want to take pictures of. Most likely people when we have our parties and on vacation, mostly scenery, dinner, and fun stuff. No safari plans any time soon, no plans to head to a ball game and take pictures of the action on the field.

And for the best cameras of 2012..... the 2 DSLRs are full frame $3500+ bodies vs. the $500ish bodies I was originally considering. Quite different.

 

[jpeyton]

With $1000 budget, I would recommend $500 for a body with kit lens (D3200/18-55mm), $200 for a fast prime (35mm/1.8), and $300 for a speedlight (SB-700).

/thread

 

[Gintaras]

Good point, I've never talked about what I want to take pictures of. Most likely people when we have our parties and on vacation, mostly scenery, dinner, and fun stuff. No safari plans any time soon, no plans to head to a ball game and take pictures of the action on the field.

And for the best cameras of 2012..... the 2 DSLRs are full frame $3500+ bodies vs. the $500ish bodies I was originally considering. Quite different.

I don't suggest those for you...
I posted that for Cannikons - so are called people who always argue which camera is better - Canon or Nikon...Just like there were no other cameras that you could take good photos...

And my suggestion for you, try to get 2 lense kit camera, entry level DSLR....not necessary Nikon or Canon...it can be Panasonic, Olympus, Sony(Sony DSLR is actually - Minolta)

Canon/Nikon - most popular cameras, neither is or can be best one...

A lot depends of a photographer - how he/she could handle this or that camera...

 

[Syborg1211]

If you're looking at making this a lifetime hobby, the brand you buy into is actually the more important decision than what specific model you get. When you buy a camera, you're buying into a particular camera system, ie the camera, plus lenses, plus accessories.

Lenses/optics last a lot longer than camera bodies because lenses are pieces of glass manufactured based on the laws of physics and bending light. Camera sensors are limited by technology and are improving constantly with larger margins than lenses ever do these days.

So why are Canon and Nikon the most popular? Their lenses offer the best quality to price ratio of any of the systems. This is due partly to their popularity since they can build in mass quantities and pass those savings off to the buyer. On top of this, both Canon and Nikon have a much more complete library of lenses with different focal lengths and for different uses than the other brands.

Just go and compare any given focal length lenses and see which lenses are higher rated for picture quality while having lower pricing - it will become obvious why people tell you to get Canon or Nikon.

Gint is right that the camera won't make an impact on how good of a photographer you are in terms of composition and creativity. He is absolutely wrong that the camera brand you choose has no impact on your photography experience though. Canon and Nikon make the photography experience easier by offering you better availability of anything you'll ever need.

Go check out a local camera store and compare how much Canon/Nikon gear they have to every other brand and tell me that you wouldn't be disappointed if you walked in there looking for only Olympus gear.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk5IMmEDWH4

Something else to consider. A cheap body and a good lens can be a smarter choice than a $800 body and kit lens when you are starting out.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

I just sold off all my nikon gear (d5100, 18-200, 35mm 1.8, sb400) after using an Olympus E-PM2 for a few months with the kit lens. I also got the evf (you really need it when the sunlight is very bright).

Really impressed with the camera....and its so compact and light! Fast focus, fast shutter, and fairly easy to use.

I loved the Nikon, but I'm willing to compromise to have something I can drag anywhere and honestly, I can barely tell its in my bag.

Also want to echo the other sentiments around investing in lenses. I have kept my lenses through 3 camera bodies...and more importantly they keep their value.

 

[Syborg1211]

I just sold off all my nikon gear (d5100, 18-200, 35mm 1.8, sb400) after using an Olympus E-PM2 for a few months with the kit lens. I also got the evf (you really need it when the sunlight is very bright).

Really impressed with the camera....and its so compact and light! Fast focus, fast shutter, and fairly easy to use.

I loved the Nikon, but I'm willing to compromise to have something I can drag anywhere and honestly, I can barely tell its in my bag.

Also want to echo the other sentiments around investing in lenses. I have kept my lenses through 3 camera bodies...and more importantly they keep their value.

Just curious - do you have a lens for the E-PM2 that covers the same focal range of the 18-200? The 18-200 is a massive lens that is definitely contributing to your lack of ability to keep with you at all times. The D5100+35mm or just the 18-55 kit lens isn't tons less portable than an m4/3 system unless you're talking a pancake lens. I'm not trying to criticize you, but I've always genuinely wondered why certain people consider m4/3 to be vastly more portable than dslr's. Sure, there are huge lenses available for dslr's, but you don't have to use them to get equivalent quality as m4/3.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Just curious - do you have a lens for the E-PM2 that covers the same focal range of the 18-200? The 18-200 is a massive lens that is definitely contributing to your lack of ability to keep with you at all times. The D5100+35mm or just the 18-55 kit lens isn't tons less portable than an m4/3 system unless you're talking a pancake lens. I'm not trying to criticize you, but I've always genuinely wondered why certain people consider m4/3 to be vastly more portable than dslr's. Sure, there are huge lenses available for dslr's, but you don't have to use them to get equivalent quality as m4/3.

No I have not purchased an equivalent lens...yet

the d5100 plus the 18-55 is about 800g.

The e-pm2 with equiv lens is about 400g.

I just did a week of hiking the North Rim and Zion and the weight difference is striking.

The camera barely feels like its there and you don't even need a special bag to carry it in.

You are definitely giving up some performance switching to the e-pm2, but for me the weight difference more than makes up for it.

Also, I cannot believe how fast it focuses or how many shots it can fire off in a row.

Being able to point at something on the touchscreen to focus on a specific object is also really handy.

 

[AViking]

Mirrorless is obviously lighter but the issue I had with it was the menu diving. Photography is really not that fun if you have to be in a menu all the time. The same could be true of it not being that much fun if it weighs too much but for me I can deal with weight but not the menus. I'm sure you get used to it (I got used to some menu diving on my first DSLR) but it's a rather dramatic difference between a budget DSLR and a mirrorless when it comes to ease of use. I now have a D600 which is miles ahead since just about everything is accessible without going to menus and there's really no going back. I want to take pictures and not screw around with the menus.

One thing I do with my camera and its heavy lenses is have a couple different bags to choose from when taking it out. A simple over the shoulder messenger bag or whatever came free with the camera is fine for the camera and 2 lenses. It weighs very little then - relatively speaking. If I need the full kit I have a backpack. I've taken the backpack into the jungle overnight trekking and it was fine although I would have obviously have preferred less weight.

If I want something super light I use a mobile phone. You might not get the greatest pictures but a mobile is versatile. Nobody is going to bust out a D600 let alone a mirrorless at a bar but a mobile is fine.

 

[Smoove910]

Sheesh, no Pentax love here? You can get a sweet K5 (full magnesium body and weather sealed) with a weather sealed kit lens for less than $1000. Can't beat the sensor (same as Nikon D7000) and it can take a helluva beating. Plus, you get over 30 years of lenses that have not changed their mount, so a lens from 1970 will work on your modern day DSLR. Oh, did I mention in-body stabilization, electronic level, shake reduction, etc, etc....

 

[Gintaras]

Sheesh, no Pentax love here? You can get a sweet K5 (full magnesium body and weather sealed) with a weather sealed kit lens for less than $1000. Can't beat the sensor (same as Nikon D7000) and it can take a helluva beating. Plus, you get over 30 years of lenses that have not changed their mount, so a lens from 1970 will work on your modern day DSLR. Oh, did I mention in-body stabilization, electronic level, shake reduction, etc, etc....

My penis is bigger and better than yours...No Photoshop..- No "Viagra"....

 

[radhak]

Sheesh, no Pentax love here? You can get a sweet K5 (full magnesium body and weather sealed) with a weather sealed kit lens for less than $1000. Can't beat the sensor (same as Nikon D7000) and it can take a helluva beating. Plus, you get over 30 years of lenses that have not changed their mount, so a lens from 1970 will work on your modern day DSLR. Oh, did I mention in-body stabilization, electronic level, shake reduction, etc, etc....

My penis is bigger and better than yours...No Photoshop..- No "Viagra"....

I don't know him (Smoove), nor you, but your post is crass.

In a thread that has a good discussion about cameras and recommendations based on personal experience, he has put forward the validity of a Pentax DSLR. If you don't agree, you could post a cogent argument against it; don't hide behind the internet's anonymity to replace debate with vulgarity.

 

[NAC]

I had a Nikon V1 - which is one of the smallest mirrorless cameras. I sold it, and upgraded to a Canon T4i. My reasons:

The DSLR has superior low light capability (admitably the Nikon 1 series weak point).

The DSLR has cheap and very powerful flash options (Nikon 1 only has expensive, weak options)

Similar lenses for the DSLR are cheaper, or you can spend more and get superior ones.

The DSLR is better for sports/action. The Nikon 1 has great frame rate, and decent focus ability on moving target (best of all mirrorless). But the DSLR I can time shutter actuation very precisely (say on a baseball swing). With the Nikon V1 I could not. Also, the optical viewfinder was easier to follow moving targets. The V1 can do it - but it is just a tick below the DSLR.

The DSLR can have narrower DOF (but the same as the NEX).

Neither the V1 or the Canon DSLR are pocketable. In both cases, I need to strap it around my neck, and a bag for extra lenses / flash. If I want something small, then I want something really small and light - a compact camera. To me - the slightly smaller size / weight didn't overcome the deficiencies I listed above. If I could justify spending the money - perhaps I'd want a DSLR, mirrorless and a compact. But since the DSLR was more capable and basically cheaper - I'll be lugging it around.

Whatever route you take - I highly recommend you try to include a powerful flash you can bounce or a cheap low light / high aperture lens in your budget (or both). Or plan to get them within 6 months of getting the camera. They really work wonders compared to the kit lens and built in flash.

 

[JerryOneMillion]

You say the glass for m4/3rds is expensive compared to APC..? I don't find that to be true. The Panny 100-300 zoom gives you a 600mm lens. Compare the price of that focal length for your DX or even worse FX. The crop factor of m4/3rd has some advantages and some disadvantages, you have to decide which is relevant to you. Weight, 'subject isolation', convenience, low light shooting... One often overlooked aspect of m4/3rds is its ability to shoot at 0.95, 1.4, 1.8, 1.7, 2.2 in low light situations HAND HELD at ISO 100 while still giving you a wide enough focal plane to 'get the shot'. In FX and to some extent DX, the narrow depth of field means you can't get sharp focus on more than one person in a shot at 1.8 - This is much less the case with m4/3rds where as I say, you can shoot wide open with a fast lens much more often than you could with a FX/DX camera. On a DX you might need 4.5 or even 5.6 to 'get it all in focus' which means you'll need to push the ISO up pretty high in low light scenes. Of course when you want 'subject isolation' the m4/3rds gives you less of it.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

I had a Nikon V1 - which is one of the smallest mirrorless cameras. I sold it, and upgraded to a Canon T4i. My reasons...

I was going to suggest the V1 as it is still a super deal at firesale prices. I don't consider it a pocket camera, but I can carry ALL my V1 gear in a really small bag and the camera is very crisp in actual use. It has super-fast AF and makes getting shots of the kids in action a snap.

Here is a link to Craig Litten's photobook Microcosm: http://www.craiglitten.com/microcosm#1
Craig shot Microcosm entirely with the Nikon V1 and the 10mm f/2.8 prime.

V1 with kit lens $289 (27mm-81mm equivalent)
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-1-V1-Di...m-VR-Lens-Black-Factory-Refurbished-69688.cfm

10mm f/2.8 prime $140 (27mm equivalent) - Refurbished by Nikon
18.5mm f/1.8 prime $190 (50mm equivalent) - New

Also available
30-110 zoom (80-300mm equivalent) $100-$220 by color - Refurbished (available from Adorama)

Best lenses for the system are the 10mm f/2.8, the 18.5mm f/1.8, the 6.7mm-13mm f/3.5-5.6 VR wide zoom, and the 32mm f/1.2 portrait lens (2.7x crop factor).

I almost never carry my Nikon D7000 anymore. The Nikon V1 is light and fast.

All that being said, the vast majority of my snaps are on my Canon S95 that is always with me in it's custom semi-rigid case on my belt.