Looking to upgrade...help needed...

[Soulforged]

Hi, i know this question probably gets asked a lot, and i have tried searching for answers, but answers tailored to me might help my confused and undecided brain a little more.

I've been looking to upgrade from point and shoot camera for a while now. At first, I was adamant i wanted a dslr, but the size, bulk and weight of one, i'm not sure if it's the most practical idea for me, which is why i'm considering the CSC/mirrorless route. I'm not looking to go pro, or even semi pro, i've never even taken photos outside of say a holiday or concert setting for example. I'll mainly be using whatever camera i get for again, holiday shots (i plan on doing some traveling) gigs, just general stuff mainly, but i do hope to get into photography on the whole. I want good quality shots, and as i understand it, among other things, a big sensor is helpful, which is why ive been looking at the cameras i'll be listing which are within my budget.

If i go the DSLR route, i'll be getting the canon 600d.
If i go mirrorless, the only one i've really looked at, is the sony nex 5n, it's a similar price to the 600d, similar sized sensor, same magnification on the kit lens, just smaller in overall size, but i'm open to suggestions.

Portability is bit of a concern, how easy is it really, for the casual photographer, which will be me, on holiday or just out with friends, or at a gig (if they even let you in with a professional looking camera at concerts these days, some bands/venues really hate it), to use a dslr, always having to have a bag, the bulk of one, as well as the extra lenses, does it start to get to you. i know what question is kinda irrelevant to the keen photographer and geared more towards like i say the casual, but still.

Firstly, is the sony a good alternative/compromise or whatever you want to call it, for the canon if i decide to go that route, any opinion on that would be great, and also, just what should i do, would the canon really be the best thing or the smaller sony be better. im really torn, and like i said, massively confused, i don't know what's best as i know pretty much nothing about anything above a compact, unless last week, my knowledge was, lots of megapixels, and a big zoom....quite bad i know. I'm sure i've missed some glaringly obvious bit of information you'll be needing to help me, sorry, just mention it. Thanks.



ps. as for the lenses, 18-55mm, that works out to about 3 or 4 x magnification yes? until i can afford a bigger lens, will that be enough to get me through for a while, how far in the distance for example will that lens be able to show me?

 

[Canuk]

You could look at the Canon G12 or the new G1X. They are both bridge cameras that do not have interchangeable lenses but are easy to use and take great pictures. They are smaller than a DSLR and mirrorless, but are larger than most P&S with a lot more options.

 

[LightSpeed]

I think you meant a canon 60d.
If you don't get a DSLR, you will wish you had, at some point.
Spend your money once.

 

[MLeeK]

I am not a fan of the NEX/mirrorless, however they do have their uses and if you are crossing your fingers to get into a venue with a camera that would be a whole lot easier than with a DSLR. Personally, I am all for a bridge camera for that use.

Lightspeed-the 600D is the T3i in the US, so probably they do mean the 600D.

The kit lens-is NOT much if any zoom at all and it will definitely not get you much more magnification than the eye can see. It will be a little more on a littler sensor, but it's still not much. No matter which system you choose you sound as if you will WANT zoom almost immediately. A good zoom that is going to work in low light like a concert is going to run you on the lowest end between $700 and $800. A zoom that is not designed to perfrom in low light that will be GOOD will run you somewhere between $400 and $600 or so. A cheap zoom will run you a couple hundred and will suffice for a casual shooter, but not someone who cares in detail about the sharpness of the lens.

Which brings me to... If you are a casual shooter and you need zoom, you need ability in low light and you aren't ever planning on taking this to next steps, etc.. How about a bridge camera that includes the ability to shoot in manual like a DSLR, but also has all of the features of a point and shoot as well as a mega zoom? Do not go this way if you really do want to become more serious and take this far beyond, but if you are the average casual shooter with no real hook into this, it will be more along the lines of what you want for a whole lot less money than a DSLR and a few lenses.

 

[LightSpeed]

I am not a fan of the NEX/mirrorless, however they do have their uses and if you are crossing your fingers to get into a venue with a camera that would be a whole lot easier than with a DSLR. Personally, I am all for a bridge camera for that use.

Lightspeed-the 600D is the T3i in the US, so probably they do mean the 600D.

Good catch. I didn't know that.

 

[MLeeK]

WHY canon does that is beyond me. Maybe because us in the good Ol' USA think we are so special that we need to have a fancy name for it???

 

[GnipGnop]

I think you meant a canon 60d.
If you don't get a DSLR, you will wish you had, at some point.
Spend your money once.

You're so wrong on this. You don't need a dSLR to take dSLR photos. Super compacts of today take better pictures than some rebels of only a few years back. Combine that with shooting in raw and full manual control plus the diminutive size that really lets you take it anywhere and it becomes a pretty strong argument. Plus you don't get distracted by lenses. You learn the lens you have inside and out, and think more about the photo than making sure you have the right lens, which is more important when learning.

Spend some time on flickr and check out what people are producing with things like an S95. You can get them for around $250. Try and find a bad review on it as well.Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji and others make super compacts, but all cost substantially more.

 

[LightSpeed]

MLeek, I would still go Pentax.

lol

 

[zcar21]

If portability is a concern I wouldn't get the 600d. I found myself shooting less when I first got my dslr, but you'll get used as I did. I handled the sony at the store a couple days ago, and it was lighter and cool looking. If you want something even lighter and more portable (you'll save money but sacrifice image quality, although not a whole lot) I recommend one of this p&s.

Enthusiast Compact Camera Group Test (Q4 2010) Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

 

[GnipGnop]

Why do you think they'll want a good zoom lens right away? For concerts?

You know what's cheaper than a "good" $800 zoom lens? Good seats



Plus, bringing a S90 to a concert is a lot easier than trying to stuff a dSLR in your pants.

 

[LightSpeed]

I think you meant a canon 60d.
If you don't get a DSLR, you will wish you had, at some point.
Spend your money once.

You're so wrong on this. You don't need a dSLR to take dSLR photos. Super compacts of today take better pictures than some rebels of only a few years back. Combine that with shooting in raw and full manual control plus the diminutive size that really lets you take it anywhere and it becomes a pretty strong argument. Plus you don't get distracted by lenses. You learn the lens you have inside and out, and think more about the photo than making sure you have the right lens, which is more important when learning.

Spend some time on flickr and check out what people are producing with things like an S95. You can get them for around $250. Try and find a bad review on it as well.Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji and others make super compacts, but all cost substantially more.

Well, I wasn't trying to start an argument.
I've never been distracted by a lens in my entire life.
You make a strong argument as capturing an image goes, but what if one wanted a specialty lens, like a fisheye, or a tilt shift?
Or if one decided to dabble in the world of macro, with extension tubes, or bellows?
The list can go on and on.

I " could " be wrong. It would depend on how far people want to go in photography.
Those who get into it, more often than not end up buying another camera down the road, when they discover a PS, compact or a bridge just wasn't enough.

 

[zcar21]

Comparing photos can help you on your decision.

All sizes | Sony NEX-5n 16mm f/2.8 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | Peaceful Houses . . . | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

All sizes | I love Autumn. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The first one taken with the sony nex 5n has more detail and is a little bit sharper than a p&s.
The second one with canon s95 is less sharp, but not everyone needs those little details.
The third one is from a canon 600d. There are many inconsistencies when comparing different cameras but you'll get an idea.

 

[GnipGnop]

You're right Lightspeed. Not trying to argue, but just discuss on a discussion board. I wouldn't recommend beginners start out shooting with a thousand dollar tilt-shift lens or a macro lens. I suppose I would only start to dabble in those once I felt I had learned enough about the basics of photography (which a super compact teaches you wonderfully).

Buying another camera when the bridge isn't enough is sort of the point. I learned to ride a 125cc motorcycle before I bought my 600cc. F1 drivers start out racing karts.

If you walk around with the same lens for a year, you learn so much about it and start to see the world how your lens interprets it, making composition become built in to the way you see things. More lenses complicates this.

I don't know what sort of experience this person has technically though. Thus, I aimed low.

 

[MLeeK]

MLeek, I would still go Pentax.

lol

Definitely if you are going to go DSLR with no other plans past being a hobby shooter Pentax would probably be my choice too. They don't cripple their entry levels like everyone else does!

 

[davisphotos]

Have you considered the Fuji X10? It's about $600, has a large sensor, and a great quality 4x zoom lens.