What do I have to spend to replace my Canon A95?

[phucheneh]

I know that probably seems like a silly question. The camera is like twelve years old, I think. Maybe more.

But all the newer point and shoots I've used just don't cut it. Doesn't matter is they're 5MP (like the A95), 8MP, or even more...the detail is just not there. I really hadn't even noticed how bad it had gotten until I was browsing some old pictures and realized how superior this little camera was...just a larger and/or more sophisticated imaging sensor, I guess?

If there a basic ~$100 point and shoot (I think the Canon was more like $300, but that was ~2003) that will actually take good pictures? Especially in lower light? So many new cameras are absolutely worthless without being overlit by a flash...they basically require direct sunlight to take good pics without one.

Or should I just give in and finally buy an SLR? I can recall being in a Best Buy like a year ago and being surprised that the entry level had fallen to as low as $400-500.

 

[phucheneh]

Hell, DSLR's are even cheaper than I had thought...I guess there's really no reason to spend $200 or more on a high quality point and shoot to replace my old pal (RIP, A95, you were so good) when an SLR can be had for 3-400.

So I guess I'm asking: what entry-level SLR should I buy? I'm not an aspiring photographer, I just like to be able to take pictures that don't suck.

Alternatively, I could also be persuaded to save my money and just buy a $100 (or less) P&S for now, but it would have to match the quality of the Canon.

 

[el-Capitan]

I don't own one, I've never used one, but from what I read, the Nikon D3300 is great entry level DSLR.

 

[radhak]

Yes, the D3300 is the latest entry-level from Nikon. But its predecessor the D3200 is every bit as great, for much less now.

Actually, I'd say you should look for used. As of now on my local Craigslist, I can see a D5100 for $239, and a D7100 for $400 (both are much ahead of the entry level)!!! Yes, they'll need a lens, but again, CL has lens at dirt cheap too. And I can also see a D3300 with lens and extras at $350.

Try your local CL. Or you can buy used at Amazon.

 

[Berliner]

I think I could live very comfortably with any Nikon and the 35mm f/1.8. The D3200 is a good choice for beginners, the D7000 or D7100 have much better AF and controls.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Get a better camera or a DSLR only if you're going to use it for photography rather than snapshots. If you want something you can toss in a jacket pocket, take out to a ball game or to a bar and beat up a little, get another point and shoot. I'm not sure if you're comparing apples to apples when you say point and shoot cameras more than decade newer can't compare, but you may have to spend a similar amount on a new camera to get the same sort of features.

Great web site:

http://www.dpreview.com

There are very few questions that you could ask that wouldn't be answered there.

 

[turtile]

While sensors and electronics have gone down in price, lenses have not. So those cheap cameras have even cheaper lenses.

Just remember that the kit lenses with DSLRs aren't the greatest lenses. They won't let a lot of light in. So a lens like the 35mm F1.8 is a must if that's what you are looking to shoot.

You might also want to consider one of the 1" or 4/3" systems if size/cost is an issue.

 

[wasabiman123]

Pentax K50, dirt cheap hella good

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Whatever DSLR model and make you choose, remember you'll be locked in whatever lens ecosystem they have available...

 

[phucheneh]

Size isn't really a factor for me. I just want to be able to snap decent pictures.

Is there any reason I should avoid the D3100? I'm looking on Craigslist, as someone recommended, and the D3200/3300 don't seem have much in the way of great deals- most people want 400+, with the 300's being camera bodies only. I've seen what lenses cost...seems like it behooves me to at least get a starter lens with the camera, as even they are pretty good money when bought separately.

3100's, though, seem to be available all day long in the 200-300 range. With at least one lens included.

As a bonus, a good friend has a Nikon DSLR, so we'd be able to share lenses. I think his is a D90...that thing is plenty of camera for me. Would a D3100 give me the same level of capability? I know it's ~14MP to the D90's ~12...but the D90 was a higher-end camera from the last gen, whereas the 3100 is the entry of the current gen...sometimes that kinda thing matters; but I'm not camera-savvy enough to know exactly what the newer model might lack.

 

[zCypher]

you can take great pictures with the d3xxx/d5xxx cameras. if you get a cheap bundle, go for it! the features vary a little from model to model, but most of these ones employ the same sensor, so all very similar in terms of actual picture quality.

I don't know about a $100 one that doesn't suck though. If you care about taking good pictures, and low-light matters at all, don't go with something with a tiny sensor.

 

[Carson Dyle]

As a bonus, a good friend has a Nikon DSLR, so we'd be able to share lenses.

Would have to be a very good friend to consider that.

 

[CuriousMike]

The jump from the 3100->3200 is large. From the 3200->3300 is modest.
If you're patient, you'll find a 3200 in your price range.

Also consider the D5100 which should sneak in the $300 range.

Or, get the refurb 3200 from Cameta for $290 - http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3200-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-Black-Factory-Refurbished-69675.cfm
You can find kit lenses on ebay for practically free to start with.

 

[wasabiman123]

Pentax... best value

 

[phucheneh]

I might just give in and buy new. This stuff has gotten so much cheaper over the past few years.

I think it's pretty much down to the D3200 or Rebel T5/1200D. The Canon can be had new for $399; the D3200 is like 50 bucks more (D3300 adds another 50).

Everyone seems to say that the Nikons are superior. On paper, it sure seems like it. However, everything I can find that simply defers to a direct apples/apples comparison of photo quality sure seems to be making me heavily favor the Canon. Images of the same items just looks better...more clear/sharp/detailed. Colors seem more neutral. I can't help but feel that the 'superior' quality of the Nikon may just be people falling for the 'look, we totally have the most megapixels' gimmick...

 

[CuriousMike]

Your best bet at this point is to go to a store and hold both in your hand.
Whichever one "feels the best", go with it.
They're both going to give you great results.

 

[CuriousMike]

As a side note, if your friend has nice Nikon glass that he'll let you borrow, that should factor into your decision - heavily.

At the end of the day, technique and glass will stand out.

 

[wasabiman123]

I might just give in and buy new. This stuff has gotten so much cheaper over the past few years.

I think it's pretty much down to the D3200 or Rebel T5/1200D. The Canon can be had new for $399; the D3200 is like 50 bucks more (D3300 adds another 50).

Everyone seems to say that the Nikons are superior. On paper, it sure seems like it. However, everything I can find that simply defers to a direct apples/apples comparison of photo quality sure seems to be making me heavily favor the Canon. Images of the same items just looks better...more clear/sharp/detailed. Colors seem more neutral. I can't help but feel that the 'superior' quality of the Nikon may just be people falling for the 'look, we totally have the most megapixels' gimmick...

Canon literally has the worst sensors right now fyi, it'll work but you're handicapping your post process abilities.

 

[turtile]

I might just give in and buy new. This stuff has gotten so much cheaper over the past few years.

I think it's pretty much down to the D3200 or Rebel T5/1200D. The Canon can be had new for $399; the D3200 is like 50 bucks more (D3300 adds another 50).

Everyone seems to say that the Nikons are superior. On paper, it sure seems like it. However, everything I can find that simply defers to a direct apples/apples comparison of photo quality sure seems to be making me heavily favor the Canon. Images of the same items just looks better...more clear/sharp/detailed. Colors seem more neutral. I can't help but feel that the 'superior' quality of the Nikon may just be people falling for the 'look, we totally have the most megapixels' gimmick...

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-1200D-versus-Nikon-D3300___940_928

That's all a result of in Camera JPEG processing. If you shoot in RAW, it changes everything.

Even when Canon was ahead of Nikon in sensor technology, I still chose a Nikon because it had 1/3 stop setting vs 1/2 stop, better build quality and fit in my hand better.

 

[phucheneh]

Alright, I gave in...I now own a D3300.

...wow. This is pretty glorious.

I couldn't convince myself to spend any less than the $499 for this camera, given what it offers. Hell, I can remember when the D40 came out, and I was blown away that you could now (then) buy a DSLR, even an entry level one, for like 5-600 bucks.

 

[radhak]

Great choice - that camera will last you many more years than the memory of that $499!

Now show us some pictures!

 

[phucheneh]

I need some memory cards. Bad. I had one 512MB 'Extreme' card laying around that is working really well but only holds like 60 photos at full resolution (in 'normal jpeg' mode).

Do I need to spend money on the 'good' memory? I know older, simpler cameras faced the whole 'gimme a sec while I write that to memory' issue. But I guess current tech uses some kind of internal buffer that negates that? ...or...something?

Basically, will I notice a difference between generic SD and the high-speed stuff?

Will post some pics. I just now got a chance to go outside and start screwing around with it.

 

[phucheneh]

Okay, so a quick examination reveals that out of my first batch of sixty, most of the pictures suck.

Also I badly need to calibrate my monitor.

But shit, this camera is impressive. I just have to figure out why my lighting is so hit and miss...all my settings are stock, and I'm generally experimenting with either aperture or shutter priority modes (I know better than to try and control both unless I have lots of time to fiddle with the setup of a particular shot).

ISO 100 or 200 in sunlight...I am highly impressed with how clear pictures stay into those upper ISO ranges, BTW. Previously, I never saw the point of cameras touting their ISO 800+, as I always just thought 'meh, pictures are gonna be trash in those quadruple digits!' Eh...notsomuch nowadays, I guess.

Anyway, this was the only shot that I felt was pretty nice:



That's 100% as it came from the camera (besides resizing and a tiny bit of cropping).

 

[phucheneh]

The absurd depth of the blacks is a wee bit problematic, as evidenced by creepy zombie-eyed dog:



I'm not sure what I should be tweaking to try and fix that.

 

[phucheneh]

On the SD thing, it appears the camera does indeed have a sizable buffer, and pretty much any card should be fine as long as I avoid stuff like the old blue Sandisk cards (class 4). Luckily most places seem to have class 10 cards in stock (though I know 'class 10' encompasses a HUGE range of speeds).

...you can tell I'm a bit behind on this stuff.