|
Im on my 3rd Nikon so far and choosing a DSLR is not as easy as i would have thought.
Im tossing up between the two cameras Nikon D3100 and Canon 550D.
Each has its own advantage:
Head to head specs
But leaning towards a D3100 due to better colour depth, lower noise at higher iso,larger sensor and better image quality.
Only attractive feature with the 550d is the auto-focus motor for the lazy "auto" days.
..help.... Need a pro opinion.
[UEGA] urban exploration group australia |
|
Snow, since the Nikon D3100 is one of the two that you're considering, I'm wondering, what were your first two Nikons, and what are you currently using?
What is a rebel? A man who says no. - Albert Camus |
|
They were all from coolpix series p&s.
E7600
L110
L23
[UEGA] urban exploration group australia |
|
Posted by Snow7
They were all from coolpix series p&s.
E7600
L110
L23 |
Ah, okay. Yeah, the D3100 wouldn't be a bad choice since this is going to be your first SLR. However, if you can afford a couple of hundred more, then I suggest going with a D5100. Alternately, get a D3100 without a kit lens, and look for an 18-70mm f/3.5-f/4.5 DX lens, which you should be able to get for less than $200.
[last edit 3/11/2012 11:43 AM by Shawn W. - edited 1 times]
What is a rebel? A man who says no. - Albert Camus |
|
I would most def like a nikon next again, but as stated the lack of autofocus, would that be a problem ? As i heard its something that would be of use 99 percent of the time?
[UEGA] urban exploration group australia |
|
Posted by Snow7
I would most def like a nikon next again, but as stated the lack of autofocus, would that be a problem ? As i heard its something that would be of use 99 percent of the time? |
..Wut?
With the D3100/5100 (and every Canon body made since 1987), there is no lack of autofocus.. as long as the lens you get has a focus motor inside it (or is of the 'AF-S'/HSM/USD/PZO/SD-M specification). With Nikon, the only time you'd run into a situation where you would not have autofocus is if you got A.) an older screw-driven AF lens (the cheapest 'little' bodies have no internal AF motor for these lenses) or B.) anything that's manual-focus to begin with.
[last edit 3/11/2012 6:22 PM by Byberrian Fanman - edited 1 times]
|
|
Posted by Byberrian Fanman
..Wut?
With the D3100/5100 (and every Canon body made since 1987), there is no lack of autofocus.. as long as the lens you get has a focus motor inside it (or is of the 'AF-S'/HSM/USD/PZO/SD-M specification). With Nikon, the only time you'd run into a situation where you would not have autofocus is if you got A.) an older screw-driven AF lens (the cheapest 'little' bodies have no internal AF motor for these lenses) or B.) anything that's manual-focus to begin with.
|
Fantastic  !
Thanks so much for clearing this up. So i have decided to stay true to Nikon and will go with 3100 or will try and see if i can get the 5100.
Thank you Shawn also for your help.
[UEGA] urban exploration group australia |
|
I have been told that one of the worst investments you can make as a photographer is a top of the line camera. Due to the rapid pace at which camera technology is evolving. That is certainly no reason to not buy a quality camera, but more than not most people end up spending waaaaay too much money for features that they hardly ever (if never) use. The best place to sink your money (IMO) is in your glass (lenses). As long as you stay within the same brand (and to a certain extent with adapter rings, other brands) your lenses can continually be used again with your new and upgraded cameras. Also (again IMO) lens quality will continue to affect your picture quality more than the type of camera you buy.
Just my 2cents any thoughts?
|
|
Posted by jovialhavoc
I have been told that one of the worst investments you can make as a photographer is a top of the line camera. Due to the rapid pace at which camera technology is evolving. That is certainly no reason to not buy a quality camera, but more than not most people end up spending waaaaay too much money for features that they hardly ever (if never) use. The best place to sink your money (IMO) is in your glass (lenses). As long as you stay within the same brand (and to a certain extent with adapter rings, other brands) your lenses can continually be used again with your new and upgraded cameras. Also (again IMO) lens quality will continue to affect your picture quality more than the type of camera you buy.
Just my 2cents any thoughts? |
I agree. Sometime in the near future, I'm going to upgrade my camera, but my top priorities are lenses and a new tripod, as well as a new external hard drive to store the photos, as I really don't want to store them on my laptop.
What is a rebel? A man who says no. - Albert Camus |
|
OK, it's time I think...
I'm looking for my first full frame camera. For first time, cheapest one will be OK.
- I have some Nikon full frame lens
- In studies working with Canon 5D Mk II
- I've never heard about Pentax full-frame cameras. Does they manufacturing it?
- Same with Sony cameras (never used them)
|
|
Posted by /dev/nox
OK, it's time I think...
I'm looking for my first full frame camera. For first time, cheapest one will be OK.
- I have some Nikon full frame lens
- In studies working with Canon 5D Mk II
- I've never heard about Pentax full-frame cameras. Does they manufacturing it?
- Same with Sony cameras (never used them)
|
You do know that you are going to need more expensive glass to take advantage of the full frame sensor? Many people jump ship to FF and discover their "good" glass is complete mush on full frame because when they were shooting at crop, they were using the best part of the glass.
That's why I decided to stick with APS-C for the time being.
"No risk, no reward, no fun."
"Go all the way or walk away"
escensi omnis... |
|
Cheapest full-frame would be Canon 5D (the original one) they sell for around $800-900, not sure how well they handle low light though. Next up would be the 5D2 and D700 both sell for around $2000.
I don't do magic Morty I do science! |
|
Posted by Yeah_meoW
Cheapest full-frame would be Canon 5D (the original one) they sell for around $800-900, not sure how well they handle low light though. Next up would be the 5D2 and D700 both sell for around $2000.
|
I think D700 is the best for me... I have full frame Nikon lenses and really love Nikons for colors.
|
|
Looking for a good, cheap, low light camera that will help illuminate dark places without use of flash (rooftops at night, tunnels, etc.) Any suggestions? Are there even any good low light P&S cameras?
|
|
Posted by superphoenix
Looking for a good, cheap, low light camera that will help illuminate dark places without use of flash (rooftops at night, tunnels, etc.) Any suggestions? Are there even any good low light P&S cameras?
|
Not really. Smaller sensor = less light and more noise. For a point and shoot that is "ok" (and just ok at webres) for night shots you are looking at an enthusiast model at the minimum, so $200-500. I have a Panasonic LX3 and it just doesn't cut it at night. Even a rebel with a kit lens it's going to be superior to a $500 point and shoot that has a sensor that's 5x smaller. And with a DSLR or MILC you get bulb mode, the shutter will stay open until you close it or the battery dies. I don't know of a point and shoot with bulb mode.
Rebel XT ($150 body only @ adorama used)
Rebel XSI (possible for < $300). The XSI is the first rebel to offer liveview.
Sony NEX NEX-3($200 ebay b/o only) APS-C sized sensor in much a smaller body. Because of it's short flange distance you can mount any camera lens ever made to it with the appropriate adapter.
I wouldn't consider most 4/3 cameras only because they have a 2X crop factor and there are equivalent APS-C options available.
"No risk, no reward, no fun."
"Go all the way or walk away"
escensi omnis... |
|
Posted by TheVicariousVadder
I don't know of a point and shoot with bulb mode. |
They exist, but you're right about even the most basic SLRs with kit lenses being better.
What is a rebel? A man who says no. - Albert Camus |
|
Posted by Shawn W.
They exist, but you're right about even the most basic SLRs with kit lenses being better.
|
Name one with a true bulb mode. CHDK hacked firmware may allow a canon powershot camera to go for up to 2000 seconds or 30 minutes but it's not the same thing. And like we've already stated, the image quality is shit.
Even the GX1 Canon's $800 Flagship doesn't offer a bulb mode. You need a mirrorless or DSLR to get it.
"No risk, no reward, no fun."
"Go all the way or walk away"
escensi omnis... |
|
Posted by TheVicariousVadder
Name one with a true bulb mode. CHDK hacked firmware may allow a canon powershot camera to go for up to 2000 seconds or 30 minutes but it's not the same thing. And like we've already stated, the image quality is shit.
Even the GX1 Canon's $800 Flagship doesn't offer a bulb mode. You need a mirrorless or DSLR to get it. |
Pentax's IQ Zoom series.  I know because I owned a few.
What is a rebel? A man who says no. - Albert Camus |
|
Posted by Shawn W.
Pentax's IQ Zoom series. I know because I owned a few.
|
Film doesn't count, although not a bad suggestion if superphoenix was looking to go at it on the cheap. It's got a low startup cost though would get as expensive if not more so than going digital quickly.
And you have the advantage of shooting with 35mm film (albeit through a shit lens) which has more range and light gathering capacity than most of the DSLRs on the market. Though I think with RAW files and the latest canon sensors they've filled that gap.
Still can't name one Digital point and shoot with a real (and not simulated) bulb mode. I click the shutter it doesn't close until the batteries die or I click the button again. I think there were a few cameras that had a "bulb" setting but they too closed the shutter after 8 min or so. It's because there's not much point to having a bulb mode ... the small sensor is going to heat up quickly and become noisy as hell.
The LX5, one of the top point and shoot's on the market has a 1/1.63" sensor.
The G1 X canon's flagship has a 1.5" sensor, which is almost as big as the APS-C sensors but they still didn't put bulb mode in it.
here's another:
"No risk, no reward, no fun."
"Go all the way or walk away"
escensi omnis... |
|
Posted by Snow7
Fantastic !
Thanks so much for clearing this up. So i have decided to stay true to Nikon and will go with 3100 or will try and see if i can get the 5100.
Thank you Shawn also for your help.
|
I've owned a D3100, D5100, D7000 and now a D800.
All of them were amazing cameras for their given price points.
The D5100 is an excellent camera. Decent low light performance for a crop sensor, amazing dynamic range, etc. when I upgraded to the D7000, it was only for the built in focus motor. I had a lot of old Nikon D lenses I wanted to use.
I barely noticed any image quality improvements going from the D5100 to the D7000. I'd say waiting a little longer and skipping the D3100 might be something to consider. But either way, the D3100 is still a great entry level camera.
http://500px.com/Scott-G-Photography
http://www.flickr....otos/rdmsguy/sets/ |
Ethics
