First Camera: Mirrorless or DSLR? (Or just SLR?)

[whitetshirtguy]

Hello, everybody!
I'm new here, so please be patient and forgive me for any out-of-place threads and dumb questions (though as a teacher of mine used to say, there are no dumb questions, just dumb persons).

I want to get a little more serious about photography, and I don't know if I should buy a DSLR (I'm thinking maybe a Sony DSLR-A580 or a Nikon D90) or a Mirrorless camera (Sony Nex-5?).

I want to spend at most U$ 1000, but it'd be great to spend less!
With U$ 800 I could buy a Sony Nex-5 body with 2 lenses, and with U$ 900 I could get a Sony DSLR-A580 with one lens.

If I get the DSLR I'll take a long time to get enough money for more lenses, and when I do, this camera will probably be obsolete. Besides, I'm still a beginner, so I don't need super awesome quality, and I don't think I'll ever shoot in a studio, so portability is important, though not strictly necessary.

On the other hand, I really want to learn all about photography and to get really good at it, so some things put me off in the Nex-5, like the absence of manual exposure control and the fact that the lenses will become obsolete as soon as the camera does (I think).


So... Which do you think is a better option?


Another idea I'm considering is to get an old all mechanical film camera from ebay, like an Olympus OM 1 (< U$ 200 for a near mint one). The price is great in comparison with the digital options and it seems to me they won't become obsolete as soon (but could that be because they're already obsolete?).


Any thoughts are really appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

 

[Trever1t]

In my opinion you need to decide if you want to go film or digital.

If you go digital I would suggest you look on your local trader boards like Craigslist or Ebay for a used D90 (rather than the Sony), I see them in the 6-700 dollar range.

 

[skieur]

I would suggest the Sony A580 which according to reviews is better than the A55, with excellent video and faster autofocus than either Canon or Nikon which extends to video as well as stills, and that is only with Sony.

skieur

 

[whitetshirtguy]

Thanks a lot for the answers!

So you both agree that it'd be better for me to get a DSLR, even if I'll be stuck with just one lens, rather then a mirrorless camera with 2 (or even three) lenses?

 

[skieur]

Well with the Nex 5 you have the advantage of perhaps 3 lenses and something to learn with. If you follow that by moving up to a DSLR, then you would have to sell both the Nex 5 and the 3 lenses, since the lenses would not fit a regular DSLR.

If you bought a DSLR like the Sony A580, it would not be necessary to upgrade to a different camera for a while and you can pay attention to purchasing lenses and these days you can purchase lenses that cover a lot of focal length in one lens such as 18mm to 200mm.

Related to lenses, by the way, you can lose the shot time-wise while you are changing lenses and a few photographers have dropped lenses.

So, the answer is rather a personal one for you to figure out. Either approach will work for you at this stage in your learning.

skieur

 

[Trever1t]

-1

I respectfully disagree with the advice given above.

Nikon or Sony? Nikon is a leader in optics. Sony? Nikon bodies are compatible with a long historical line of lenses. Sony?

One lens to do all will sacrifice some quality for versatility.

I don't drop lenses and I haven't missed a shot yet because I was changing a lens, that's just ridiculous.

Not knocking the Sony, I know nothing of it but Nikon and Canon lead the industry for a reason.

 

[skieur]

-1

I respectfully disagree with the advice given above.

Nikon or Sony? Nikon is a leader in optics. Sony? Nikon bodies are compatible with a long historical line of lenses. Sony?

One lens to do all will sacrifice some quality for versatility.

I don't drop lenses and I haven't missed a shot yet because I was changing a lens, that's just ridiculous.

Not knocking the Sony, I know nothing of it but Nikon and Canon lead the industry for a reason.

Actually Zeiss and Leica are the leaders in optics, which explains their cost and use on some of the best cameras in the world.

Sure one lens will sacrifice quality to some degree but for a beginner the difference is not major and not important even in some areas of pro photography such as public relations and event photography. Getting the shot in some situations is more important than the ultimate in visual quality.

Nikon and Canon lead the industry because they have been in it, longer than Sony. That is the simple reason. On the other hand, Sony has reached number 3 in a rather short time taking market share from the others.

If you have not come close to dropping a lens or missing a shot while changing lenes then I have to say that you do not do much photography or you work mostly in a studio or other very controlled environment.

skieur

 

[Trever1t]

neither, I just setup for the type of shooting I will be doing and if/when I swap lenses I do so in a controlled environment.


to each his own :cheers:

 

[Destin]

neither, I just setup for the type of shooting I will be doing and if/when I swap lenses I do so in a controlled environment.


to each his own :cheers:

Yeah, I'd agree with this. It's very possible to not miss shots due to changing lenses if you use a little common sense. Just think ahead. The only times I can see it being an issue is in weddings, sports, or wildlife. But if your really serious about it then you'll have 2 bodies so changing lenses isn't an issue.

 

[Garbz]

Then there's the moral ground to choose too.

Nikon is a company who have been in photography for the best part of 100 years.
Sony has been in photography for a few years because they saw the chance to make a quick buck.

Nikon in my experience puts customers first. The few warranty claims I've heard of have gone without a hitch.
Sony have a laundry list of customer abuse not limited to:
- Sneaking rootkits onto music CDs, claiming they weren't an issue when challenged about this highly dangerous (to computers and operating system integrity) practice, and then subsequently being exploited by virus writes who used it to bypass antivirus programs, releasing a removal tool which barely worked, all in the name of preventing one of it's paying customers from copying the CD in a computer.
- Loosing an arms race to HD-DVD and thus making a few key donations to studios to get my dodgy not finalised or ratified or superior bluray "standard" through the door.
- Making me download firmware updates / software updates everytime I *buy* a bluray disc because they assume I'm a thieving criminal.
- Releasing a device with features which are subsequently removed by a firmware update (PS3 removal of "Other OS" feature).
- When someone gets the "Other OS" feature working again releasing a firmware update which offers no value other than disabling this feature, and forcing it down people's throats so they either had the choice of not being able to play the latest game or log onto the PlayStation Network, or using a feature which people paid for.
- Issuing an illegal DCMA takedown notice to the person who published the PS3's root verification key despite it being perfectly legal to publish.
- Suing said person in a court conveniently in a different state so he couldn't show easily to defend himself.
- Not honoring warranty of equipment for the dubious fault of plugging this equipment into a powerboard rather than straight into the wall socket.

And my personal favorite from only 2 days ago:
- Subpoenaing Google for the IP addresses of every person who viewed a Youtube video containing nothing but the root key as well as asking Twitter to turn over info on everyone who had retweeted the original key.

By the way check out this:

erk: C0 CE FE 84 C2 27 F7 5B D0 7A 7E B8 46 50 9F 93 B2 38 E7 70 DA CB 9F F4 A3 88 F8 12 48 2B E2 1B
riv: 47 EE 74 54 E4 77 4C C9 B8 96 0C 7B 59 F4 C1 4D
pub: C2 D4 AA F3 19 35 50 19 AF 99 D4 4E 2B 58 CA 29 25 2C 89 12 3D 11 D6 21 8F 40 B1 38 CA B2 9B 71 01 F3 AE B7 2A 97 50 19
R: 80 6E 07 8F A1 52 97 90 CE 1A AE 02 BA DD 6F AA A6 AF 74 17
n: E1 3A 7E BC 3A CC EB 1C B5 6C C8 60 FC AB DB 6A 04 8C 55 E1
K: BA 90 55 91 68 61 B9 77 ED CB ED 92 00 50 92 F6 6C 7A 3D 8D
Da: C5 B2 BF A1 A4 13 DD 16 F2 6D 31 C0 F2 ED 47 20 DC FB 06 70

Sony will probably try to sue you now too.


Call me crazy but even if they release a camera with noise free images at ISO1024000, with an F/1.0 lens, which has the ability to perform fellatio on command I still wouldn't buy it.

 

[whitetshirtguy]

Well, I'm not too fond of Sony too, but I'm finding the A580 hard to resist. It looks like a great camera, and I see a lot of reviews saying very good things about it. Besides, for the same cost I could only get a used Nikon with a lot less features. The only thing that's making me consider it is the name...

Anyway... for approximately how long do you think the Nex-5 (or a similar morrorless) would be enough for me? And for how long do you think I could stick with the A580 (or a similar dslr) if I go with it? I think that is the main question for me, because for me to be able to "pay attention to purchasing lenses" a DSLR would have to last for a long time until I have enough money for that.

By the way, skieur, since you mentioned that "a few photographers have dropped lenses" and all that, what do you think of this camera?:
www [dot] finepix-x100 [dot] com
(I can't post links here yet, but I'm cheating)
I'm completely in love with it, though I confess it's mostly because of the design, and one thing that made me stop considering it is that it doesn't support interchangeable lenses. And the site says the lens that comes with it has a focal length of "23mm (135 equivalent: 35mm)", which seems pretty short (though I know really little about this stuff). With a lens like that I wouldn't be able to take those cool pictures with a blurry background and the subject in focus, would I?
Other than that, I don't think I'd have a problem with not being able to change the lens, as long as the one I had was pretty versatile. Is that the case of this one?
And it has complete manual controls. What bothers me the most about the Nex-5 is the absence of manual exposure control.
What do you think?

Thanks again for all the answers!

 

[skieur]

Well, I'm not too fond of Sony too, but I'm finding the A580 hard to resist. It looks like a great camera, and I see a lot of reviews saying very good things about it. Besides, for the same cost I could only get a used Nikon with a lot less features. The only thing that's making me consider it is the name...

Anyway... for approximately how long do you think the Nex-5 (or a similar morrorless) would be enough for me? And for how long do you think I could stick with the A580 (or a similar dslr) if I go with it? I think that is the main question for me, because for me to be able to "pay attention to purchasing lenses" a DSLR would have to last for a long time until I have enough money for that.

By the way, skieur, since you mentioned that "a few photographers have dropped lenses", what do you think of this camera?:
www [dot] finepix-x100 [dot] com
(I can't post links here yet, but I'm cheating)
I'm completely in love with it, though I confess it's mostly because of the design, and one thing that made me stop considering it is that it doesn't support interchangeable lenses. And the site says the lens that comes with it has a focal length of "23mm (135 equivalent: 35mm)", which seems pretty short (though I know really little about this stuff). With a lens like that I wouldn't be able to take those cool pictures with a blurry background and the subject in focus, would I?
Other than that, I don't think I'd have a problem with not being able to change the lens, as long as the one I had was pretty versatile. Is that the case of this one?
And it has complete manual controls. What bothers me the most about the Nex-5 is the absence of manual exposure control.
What do you think?

Thanks again for all the answers!

Well, I agree that Sony is a lousy company too, but their Minolta DSLR staff is quite good at designing cameras at a good price. With Sony G lenses and Zeiss lenses, Sony cameras are very competitive. I have seen a lot of successful pros using the A700 and A850.

I like the A580 for a lot of its features including continuous fast autofocus at 10 frames per second as well as autofocus during HD video shooting. Stereo sound, in-camera panorama and multi-shot noise reduction also sound interesting given its reasonable price. I will probably add one to my collection.

As far as dropping lenses and missing shots while changing lenses, the more lenses you have, the more it can be a potential problem for some. I only dropped a lens once as a teen standing on the edge of a canyon and I caught it before it and I almost went over the edge. Pro shooting on-the-move like a paparazi means that planning ahead is ideal but not always possible and this is where missing a shot while changing lenses happens. I do use multiple bodies at times, but in a crowd that is not always the ideal solution either. (You get bumped. Cameras get knocked. It is more difficult to move the right camera into position. etc.) When I am shooting while on skis, changing lenses can be less than ideal as well.

I certainly prefer manual exposure control for some situations and that would be a good reason to go for the A580 rather than the NEX 5.

skieur

 

[smeat]

-1

I respectfully disagree with the advice given above.

Nikon or Sony? Nikon is a leader in optics. Sony? Nikon bodies are compatible with a long historical line of lenses. Sony?

One lens to do all will sacrifice some quality for versatility.

I don't drop lenses and I haven't missed a shot yet because I was changing a lens, that's just ridiculous.

Not knocking the Sony, I know nothing of it but Nikon and Canon lead the industry for a reason.

You're right, Nikon is "A" leader in optics, but not "the" leader. That has been Leica or Zeiss for some time. And, oddly enough, Sony's high end lenses are Zeiss lenses. Also, minolta, in its time, was a great designer of lenses and has a "long historical line" of them to show for it, most of which work very well on the new Sony bodies and Sony designs are tweaked or sometimes not tweaked versions of Minolta lenses. AND they are competing in quality of optics GREAT with the nikons and Canons. If anything the other guys should be ashamed of making it so easy for Sony to ever match or beat their performance, which they do often.

I believe you don't know about the Sony. Many people don't, Sony's new to the camera building thing, but not new to the electronics game. And since that's mainly what new cameras are, much like the entry into laptops, they have done some industry leading innovations and they will get only better.

Sony is now making a large number of Nikon's best camera sensors, and yes, nikon has better electronics around those sensors right now, but how long do you think they can produce better electronics than Sony? Honestly?... think about this

Not to mention a Sony camera won camera of the year from popularphotography, not that it matters, BUT they aren't making junk, in fact they tend to make less gimmicky pro level cameras than canon or nikon (ie- video, toy camera settings, and other lame stuff) which is why a good number of professionals are slowly moving to Sony. Especially for a studio camera, the 850 is amazing, and easily the best image for your dollar, and it can be blown up to 2x3 foot sizes in its native resolution and still look good. (If you've ever hung prints in a gallery, getting things large and sharp as a big plus)

I'm not a brand name fan boy. Some people get too wrapped around a name and can't see the quality and innovation in front of their noses. And in another 5-10 years when Sony buys Nikon, well, that, as they say, will be that. Canon still has the best tilt/shift lenses which are invaluable for anyone who knows how to use them. For those who don't, they don't get it because they don't know what they're missing. They are the best thing Canon has going for them. Nikon has got rugged down to an art. Zeiss sells $2000 dollar lenses for $6000... and has a new larger format digital camera that's pretty slick if you're a millionaire. And Olympus has some digital bliss going on in its bodies right now that is top of the heap.

All in all, they all offer you great options, and they are almost all capable of taking a better picture than the person who owns it will ever take. So that being the case, save yourself some cash and get a Sony.

 

[smeat]

Call me crazy but even if they release a camera with noise free images at ISO1024000, with an F/1.0 lens, which has the ability to perform fellatio on command I still wouldn't buy it.

Garbz, you ARE crazy. And you illustrate what I'm talking about, brand loyalty over quality loyalty. You would send a new photographer after an inferior or equal but more expensive product simply because you own it or believe it should be supported. If you're really concerned about morality, that's just not good advice, it's almost a lie. Besides, since when is getting the best possible picture you can about morality? (insert paparazzi joke here)

 

[usayit]

By the way, skieur, since you mentioned that "a few photographers have dropped lenses" and all that, what do you think of this camera?:
www [dot] finepix-x100 [dot] com
(I can't post links here yet, but I'm cheating)
I'm completely in love with it, though I confess it's mostly because of the design, and one thing that made me stop considering it is that it doesn't support interchangeable lenses. And the site says the lens that comes with it has a focal length of "23mm (135 equivalent: 35mm)", which seems pretty short (though I know really little about this stuff). With a lens like that I wouldn't be able to take those cool pictures with a blurry background and the subject in focus, would I?
Other than that, I don't think I'd have a problem with not being able to change the lens, as long as the one I had was pretty versatile. Is that the case of this one?
And it has complete manual controls. What bothers me the most about the Nex-5 is the absence of manual exposure control.
What do you think?

Thanks again for all the answers!

Nitch product that goes head to head with the Leica X1... namely street photogs. The 35mm focal length is a popular focal length for that purpose. Many wished the camera had a slightly wider focal length. The design is especially interesting for rangefinder shooters (me included) because the hybrid viewfinder is the first real innovation to the viewfinder mechanism that we can see applied to the rangefinder mechanism. Other than that, there isnt enough about the package to tempt me to purchase. I have seen initial samples and they did not blow me away. Despite its shortcomings, I still edge out to the X1 even though i am not purchasing the X1 either.

Judging from the conversations in this thread, I am not convinced the fuji or leica are a good fit.