Can I vent a bit?

Linkovicha · Jan 11, 2012

If anyone can follow my ramblings here...I feel sort of stuck here. Currently I have a Nikon D60, with a 18-55 mm lens. I do a fair bit of travelling, but really don't take a lot of pictures, as it is difficult to haul a larger camera around with me. Unless I am specifically going out to take pictures, it stays at home. And even then I am limited because I have only the one lens. I love wildlife photography and macro, but for those I would have to invest in some new lenses. Is it worth investing in a new lens to try and maximize the camera I have now? It's hard to justify a 3 or 400$ expense at the moment, and I have no intention of ever going professional, or having a studio, so is it worth the upgrade? Or is it perhaps a better suggestion to buy a cheaper camera, say a coolpix which has the zoom and macro functions, and the ability to be carried around with me? Video is also a bonus.

Some have reccommeded me to sell the D60 and upgrade to a camera that will be more versatile, with built in AF and video. Then there's also the issue of pride- it's kind of nice owning a better camera than most of your friends do.

So if I get a compact, will the quality be considerably reduced from the D60? Would perhaps another company offer good quality at a cheaper cost? Any suggestions on certain cameras? Or for anyone who has been there and taken the plunge with cost, was it worth getting an upgrade or added lenses to maximize your camera?

blackrose89 · Jan 11, 2012

I only have had P&S so I can't comment on the lense part, but I can offer compact advice lol. I got a Nikon coolpix L120. Pretty good for a compact if you decide to go that route.. It's been working well for me. Only costs around $150 (at most $200). Has a very good macro setting.

Here are some photos I have been able to capture with it, and I'm pretty new so they could be better I'm sure
Flickr: blackrose1981's Photostream

Some example of what the camera is capable of
Bumblebee close - close up | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
(look in the comments for a lot of pictures) Green on Green. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Specifications Nikon | Imaging Products | Specifications - COOLPIX L120

Also if you like having a nicer camera then most, it "looks" nicer then most and will fool your friends :lmao:

c.cloudwalker · Jan 11, 2012

Please do.

kundalini · Jan 11, 2012

Have you considered the Micro 4/3 format? I was tired of hauling my gear around all the time and missing the fun part of events..... participation. The sensor size is smaller than your D60, but larger than a P&S. However the IQ (image quality) is pretty damn good. It also gives you the interchangeable lens system as opposed to a fixed lens of a P&S. It has all the shooting modes for total control. It is also a 2x crop factor where your D60 is a 1.5x.

I bought an Olympus PEN EP3, but the physically smaller (same sensor) EPL3 had not been released at that time. Panasonic has similar bodies and Sony is another option. The lens availability of the OLY/Panny lineup are ever increasing to better quality glass.

If you don't take your camera out much because of the bulk, the m4/3 is worth a look. Seems you might just have an expensive paperweight otherwise.

Size comparison of a D700 w/70-200mm and the Oly EP3 w/40-150mm.

Just some food for thought.

enzodm · Jan 11, 2012

If you want to experiment with macro at low cost, there are some possibilities, ranging from decent to good quality (macro lens -> extension rings, inverter ring, possibly with some cheap old manual lens). However, if your really do'nt take a lot of pictures, it is not buying a new lens that will make you shoot more. The camera will be large as before, and if this is a barrier, will still be.
A compact camera may however help in resuscitating some passion (because the problem is there). Although quality will be lower, if you exploited your dSLR in the right way.

iresq · Jan 11, 2012

$300 or $400 is not going to get you into macro or wildlife. Pride? Pfft. Can't write a check with pride.

MLeeK · Jan 11, 2012

Instead of investing in one lens that won't cover everything when you aren't incredibly interested in DSLR photography I'd go to a bridge camera that will give you everything from manual to auto. That way you will have everything including macro and mega zoom with the manual controls of a dslr and not the price.
I would recommend going to the Nikon P500. It will enable you to use the full manual controls that your DSLR does, have incredible amount of zoom that costs thousands and thousands of dollars on a DSLR, allow for macro close up and everythihing between that and being a peeping Tom.
The L120 that blackrose89 has is only a point and shoot and does not afford you the manual control that a DSLR does. If you are just shooting in auto? It's a phenomenal camera for the money. It has the typical assisted modes of any point and shoot camera like the macro that she mentions, but no full manual control. It does have a beautiful amount of zoom as well. If auto is your thing? It's awesome. If you want to have any control of your own? The P500.

rambler · Jan 11, 2012

Good suggestion MLeek.
Two things jump out at me. First, you say you travel a "fair bit", but the DSLR stays home. So, look for a camera you will take along when traveling (Nikon P500). When you are home and go out to take pictures with your DSLR, do just that with the lens you have and get proficient with the camera settings. Do not buy a new lens yet. You can take fine landscape images with the wide angle lens you have. Learn about depth of field and how to get subjects focused sharply as you wish. Take a course in composition. If you really get into it, go for another lens to expand your options, or consider upgrading your camera and invest in lenses for the next camera.

Yet, I did not quite follow my advise. I got a camera that came with two lenses and used the 50-140mm almost exclusively. The I got a telephoto...etc...etc. I have yet to travel with the large DSLR, but now that I have learned a lot on how to use it, I am taking it on my next journey and that is saying a lot since I am a lightweight backpacker. No, I am not a lightweight and a backpacker, I am a backpacker that carries lightweight gear!

PS My camera is an Olympus e-620, a four thirds camera.

punch · Jan 11, 2012

i second the micro 4/3 idea. best of both worlds.

dxqcanada · Jan 11, 2012

I do agree with the Micro 4/3rds suggestion ... hmm, this reminds me of the APS cameras that came out to introduce a smaller SLR.

The Sony NEX cameras are good, though the lenses are not all that small (as the sensor is still APS-C).

GnipGnop · Jan 11, 2012

Get a Canon S90/S95/S100. You'll use it more, and you can take quiet solace in the fact that your little camera can take better pictures than most mid-level consumer-level dSLRs.

Ron Evers · Jan 12, 2012

kundalini said:
Have you considered the Micro 4/3 format? I was tired of hauling my gear around all the time and missing the fun part of events..... participation. The sensor size is smaller than your D60, but larger than a P&S. However the IQ (image quality) is pretty damn good. It also gives you the interchangeable lens system as opposed to a fixed lens of a P&S. It has all the shooting modes for total control. It is also a 2x crop factor where your D60 is a 1.5x.

I bought an Olympus PEN EP3, but the physically smaller (same sensor) EPL3 had not been released at that time. Panasonic has similar bodies and Sony is another option. The lens availability of the OLY/Panny lineup are ever increasing to better quality glass.

If you don't take your camera out much because of the bulk, the m4/3 is worth a look. Seems you might just have an expensive paperweight otherwise.

Size comparison of a D700 w/70-200mm and the Oly EP3 w/40-150mm.

Just some food for thought.

I too favour a Micro 4/3 (m4/3) or a bridge/super-zoom.

Here are two m4/3, a G1, the largest of them & a GF1 which is comparable in size to Kundalini's EP3. Both have 50mm lenses mounted but different ones. A P&S is in the background for comparison.

Diver_matt · Jan 12, 2012

I've got about $300 in lenses for my Sony alpha. Sony 70-200 4.5-5.6 - $170 on eBay. Minolta 50 mm 1.7 & 35 mm 2.8 - $130 for both on craigslist. Kit lens 18-55 mm came with it. The zoom also has a macro setting. As a beginner, quality certainly meets my needs. nikon might be a bit more but deals can be found. Shop around.

DiskoJoe · Jan 12, 2012

If you dont want to spend the money then get a Point and click. 4/3 is a nice way to go but in no way any cheaper then slrs.

DiskoJoe · Jan 12, 2012

Diver_matt said:
I've got about $300 in lenses for my Sony alpha. Sony 70-200 4.5-5.6 - $170 on eBay. Minolta 50 mm 1.7 & 35 mm 2.8 - $130 for both on craigslist. Kit lens 18-55 mm came with it. The zoom also has a macro setting. As a beginner, quality certainly meets my needs. nikon might be a bit more but deals can be found. Shop around.

Nikon and canon lenses will typically cost more if you get the ones with internal stabilization. This is why I like Sony. The stabilization is internal and thus the lens are usually less for the same quality glass.