Need help to Choose a camera

[Ido]

I'm going to use this for macro, landscape and portrait ( allrounder - not for sports ) ..

These aren't use cases which require a DSLR. Did you consider mirrorless system cameras? They are smaller and lighter, while not compromising on quality and performance, apart from tracking autofocus, which is getting better and better with some newer cameras.
A great, great option is the Olympus OM-D E-M10. I use its older sibling, E-M5, and love it. I use it for landscape, travel and street photography.

 

[PaulWog]

If you're buying based on what the cameras have to offer, Nikon has the edge currently in that entry-level price bracket with the D3200/D3300/D5200/D5300.

If you're buying based on lenses, Nikon has an edge with its 35mm 1.8G DX lens ($200), and its 50mm 1.8G lens ($200). The 85mm 1.8G lens is also very good at sub-$500.

On the other hand, Canon has an edge with its 10-18mm IS ultrawide DX lens (I think it's around $300). It also has an edge with its 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens at $880, versus Nikon's 17-55mm f2.8 (no IS) at around $1400. Canon is more tempting (to me) lens-wise, save for not having a great 35mm f1.8 lens option in the $200 price-bracket point.

 

[ebhathiya]

Thanks for giving me these advices . I think i should go to a store and need to look these cameras .. After that i will buy one
And i will tell every one what i buy ( i think I will buy a Nikon D5300 but it is little bit off the budget )
Once again thank you

 

[ebhathiya]

I'm going to use this for macro, landscape and portrait ( allrounder - not for sports ) ..

These aren't use cases which require a DSLR. Did you consider mirrorless system cameras? They are smaller and lighter, while not compromising on quality and performance, apart from tracking autofocus, which is getting better and better with some newer cameras.
A great, great option is the Olympus OM-D E-M10. I use its older sibling, E-M5, and love it. I use it for landscape, travel and street photography.

Thank you but this is a long time investment and it should be grate one. And i'm looking for a DSLR because i had a SLR and i had some great experience with it ( now it's broken and if i fix it, it is to much expensive to use )

 

[petrochemist]

I'm going to use this for macro, landscape and portrait ( allrounder - not for sports ) ..

These aren't use cases which require a DSLR. Did you consider mirrorless system cameras? They are smaller and lighter, while not compromising on quality and performance, apart from tracking autofocus, which is getting better and better with some newer cameras.
A great, great option is the Olympus OM-D E-M10. I use its older sibling, E-M5, and love it. I use it for landscape, travel and street photography.

Thank you but this is a long time investment and it should be grate one. And i'm looking for a DSLR because i had a SLR and i had some great experience with it ( now it's broken and if i fix it, it is to much expensive to use )

Mirrorless cameras with viewfinders are much the same to use as SLRs/DSLRs (and are Great cameras) I wouldn't rule them out without trying one.

 

[ebhathiya]

These aren't use cases which require a DSLR. Did you consider mirrorless system cameras? They are smaller and lighter, while not compromising on quality and performance, apart from tracking autofocus, which is getting better and better with some newer cameras.
A great, great option is the Olympus OM-D E-M10. I use its older sibling, E-M5, and love it. I use it for landscape, travel and street photography.

Thank you but this is a long time investment and it should be grate one. And i'm looking for a DSLR because i had a SLR and i had some great experience with it ( now it's broken and if i fix it, it is to much expensive to use )

Mirrorless cameras with viewfinders are much the same to use as SLRs/DSLRs (and are Great cameras) I wouldn't rule them out without trying one.

then what is the deference between them ?

 

[robbins.photo]

Thank you but this is a long time investment and it should be grate one. And i'm looking for a DSLR because i had a SLR and i had some great experience with it ( now it's broken and if i fix it, it is to much expensive to use )

Mirrorless cameras with viewfinders are much the same to use as SLRs/DSLRs (and are Great cameras) I wouldn't rule them out without trying one.

the what is the deference between them ?

Just in general mirrorless sytems will be smaller and lighter, that's the upside.

The downside is a lot of these systems have limited selection of lenses and other accessories.

Really I think dslr is by far your best bet as far as price versus overall performance and in versatility.

But if you really need something smaller and portable and the limitations are something that you can live with there are some nice mirrorless systems out there.

 

[JustJazzie]

Thank you but this is a long time investment and it should be grate one. And i'm looking for a DSLR because i had a SLR and i had some great experience with it ( now it's broken and if i fix it, it is to much expensive to use )

Mirrorless cameras with viewfinders are much the same to use as SLRs/DSLRs (and are Great cameras) I wouldn't rule them out without trying one.

then what is the deference between them ?

DSLR's have more lens', faster auto focus.
My sony mirror less camera LENS' do not have infinity focus. If you are shooting fireworks, or night sky images this is important. HOWEVER, you can mount any lens on sony's mirror less cameras with an adapter eliminating this issue. You just dont retain auto focus. I do not know about other systems in this aspect.

I shot with a mirror less camera for 2 years. I would have never switched back to a DSLR if I had not had to start shooting my boys in sports. Sure, there are not as many lens' to choose from, but there is enough to get you started, and more and more lens' are released every year. Again, with sony (not sure about others) you can use ANY lens. They are not anywhere near adequate for birds in flight, or sports.

However, they DO have their pluses!

On an SLR, what you see through the viewfinder is a reflection from the mirror on the camera. You examine exposure by little bars in the viewfinder to get the correct shades in your image
On a mirrorless, what you see is what you get! You are viewing what your sensor is recording. This means no excuses for under or over exposed shots. ;-)

Mirrorless cameras have focus peaking, which to me, is invaluable. This means, you can tell your camera to highlight what is currently in focus in the image. When taking shots like Macro, where the focus plane is small and critical It is just amazing to be able to literally SEE where your focus is.

Smaller and lighter. If you plan on hiking to take those awesome landscapes its always nice to not have 10 lbs of gear to lug around.

Keep in mind that there are MANY professionals who have switched into the mirror less world. Trey Ratcliff, and Damien Lovegrove to name a few. So while they aren't the right tool for EVERY job, they are great for MANY jobs. I did a test between my sony nex 7 with a 50mm and my new nikon DF full frame camera with a 50 mm, and I will be honest and say I COULD NOT TELL the difference in good light. The sensors on mirror less cameras are really phenomenal and if you dont need speedy auto focus, I *personallly* feel like its the way to go.

Please ignore any typos, I have not had my coffee yet. :giggle:

 

[Ido]

then what is the deference between them ?

DSLRs have the same TTL optical viewfinder design as old SLRs do. That isn't really necessary in the digital age, while it was the only way to see TTL in the film era.
By taking the mirror box and all associated components out, the camera can be smaller and lighter, as well as cheaper and easier to manufacture. The lens mount can be closer to the sensor, allowing for smaller lenses to be designed.

Because there is no optical viewfinder, the camera is always in Live View mode. With a DSLR, you can only use LV with the LCD on the back - holding the camera away from your eye is unstable. So with mirrorless cameras that have electronic viewfinders (such as the Olympus OM-D series; Panasonic GH- and G-series, as well as the GX7; Fujifilm X-T1, X-E-series and X-Pro1; Sony a6000 and a7-series, etc.), you get the advantages of LV - namely live histogram and clipping warnings, exposure preview, manual focus assists that help nail tack sharp focus easily, and very precise contrast-detection autofocus - with an eye-level viewfinder.

Because the lens mount is so close to the sensor, there are many adapters available that compensate for that distance and let you use lenses from other systems. There are adapters for rangefinder systems like the Leica M (which has small lenses, because they're pretty close to the sensor, too, and they're no-frills manual lenses), as well as adapters for current DSLR systems (some even retain autofocus and optical image stabilization, and there are also ones that compensate for the crop factor and even improve the maximum aperture, like the Metabones Speedbooster adapters). If you're willing to focus manually (very easy to do so with cameras that have focus peaking and magnification), mirrorless systems actually have more lenses to choose from than DSLR systems.

Tracking autofocus is perhaps the only real drawback. Entry-level DSLRs, like the D5300, do a better job at that than high-end mirrorless cameras. But for your shooting, you don't need tracking autofocus at all! And the mirrorless cameras are improving in that respect.

There's also the EVF vs. OVF argument. I've laid out most of the EVF's advantages earlier (eye-level LV), but haven't mentioned yet that shooting in pitch darkness is easier with a mirrorless camera. By pitch darkness, I mean such a dark environment that you can't see with your own to eyes. With an EVF, I also find it easy to compose a scene with the sun in the frame, as I don't feel like I'm hutring my eye. That brings up an opposing argument, though...

With an optical viewfinder, you can see great dynamic range - as wide as your eye's, because, well, it is your eye. With an EVF, you can only see the dynamic range that the sensor is capable of. It has never bothered me, though.
In low-light, there's some lag in the EVF, when the image in a DSLR's OVF is obviously lag-free. That lag is minimized in recent models, and hasn't bothered me at all.

Mirrorless cameras have many different sensor size formats. Some use 35mm full frame, some APS-C, and some use smaller formats. My camera has a Four Thirds sensor, which is smaller than APS-C, but when you put things in perspective, it's really not so small:
The dynamic range is great, I'm able to recover a lot of detail from shadows. And I personally print photos shot at up to ISO 800 without any noise reduction, and up to ISO 3200 with noise reduction. I also shoot at up to ISO 6400 when I know I won't make a print. For sharing online, it's really great (with noise reduction).

Before you buy anything, go to a store and try some mirrorless cameras within your budget. The Olympus OM-D E-M10 and Sony a6000 are two models that come to mind - they cost roughly $800 with kit lens.

 

[petrochemist]

The downside is a lot of these systems have limited selection of lenses and other accessories.

As the previous posters have pointed out mirrorless cameras can usually use any lens from your DSLR, along with all the other brands of SLR/rangefinders etc. and often even cine lenses.
So theres a HUGE range of lenses - just a more limited range of autofocus/auto aperture lenses.
Even so IMO the range of native for micro four thirds is more than adequate for most photographers. They do fall short in the ultra expensive fast extreme telephoto catagory, but they're of no use for macro/portraits/landscapes (the OPs interests) and few hobbyists can afford those anyway.
Sony's native lens selection is I gather much more limited, but they handle adapted glass very well.

 

[robbins.photo]

For the Op, yes you can get adapters for various mirrorless cameras, however these will usually require you to use the lens manual focus only.

While there are some nice things to mirrorless the truth is the tech is still new and not as well supported at this time as dslr.

For a good all around camera on a budget I truly believe dslr will be your best bet to start with.

 

[Ido]

While there are some nice things to mirrorless the truth is the tech is still new and not as well supported at this time as dslr.

False. Sorry, but it's just not true.
The only thing that isn't well-developed with mirrorless cameras just yet, is tracking autofocus. That's it. Everything else has pretty much been all figured out.
Look at the Fujifilm X-T1 and the Olympus OM-D E-M1, and their lenses.
Look at the Olympus OM-D E-M10. And its lenses. And its price.

Fujifilm has a killer lineup of lenses right now. And they have a 16-55mm (24-82.5mm equiv.) f/2.8 and a 50-140mm (75-210mm equiv.) f/2.8 coming this year. And a 16mm (24mm equiv.) f/1.4 and 90mm (135mm equiv.) f/2 for next year.
All zooms have image stabilization.

Olympus and Panasonic have formed quite a remarkable lens lineup, too. The lenses expected to come later this year and in 2015:

• Olympus 7-14mm (14-28mm equiv.) f/2.8
• Olympus 40-150mm (80-300mm equiv.) f/2.8
• Panasonic 150mm (300mm equiv.) f/2.8 with image stabilization
• Olympus 300mm (600mm equivalent) f/4

Olympus cameras have in-body image stabilization, therefore no Olympus lens has optical image stabilization.

Yes, these are high-end lenses that will probably all cost over a grand. But that goes to show that these things are serious workhorses.
And the Olympus OM-D E-M1 has acceptable tracking autofocus for most people's needs, and that includes the OP, who doesn't need tracking autofocus at all.

 

[robbins.photo]

Only problem being I didn't say developed, I said supported.

Unless of course both of the industry leaders, canon and nikon, have decided to come out with mirrorless cameras with full fledged support and somehow I missed that news item.

 

[petrochemist]

If 'full fledged' professional support is the stumbling block then I don't see that has any relevance for the OP or most other photographers.

I've known professional photographers who have never needed it, and there are thousands more who use mirrorless so obviously don't consider it important either.

If your giving advice to a beginner, getting their first DSLR the requirements of a professional wildlife/sports photographer are not at all relevant.
Don't confuse what you need (or think you need) from a camera with what is right for somone else.

Some of us have used mirrorless cameras, and find them a great option, yet none of use are saying thats the only way to go.
I have two DSLRs & three mirrorless (along with film SLRs, large format, medium format, & specialitst cameras) the DSLRs are best for some things but for routine carry about cameras I prefer the lighter mirrorless ones.
For infra red the mirrorless is unbeatable, but I haven't been going on about that as it's not relevant to the OP or anyone else in a similar situation.

My normal mirrorless bag, contains two bodies (normal visual & full spectrum) lenses covering 28-400mm equivalent focal lengths, a couple of primes (one being an adapted full frame lens), batteries, filters and other extras yet still weighs less than the DSLR bag with one body and similar extras.

When doing motorsports, attending bird displays or sometimes club nights the DSLR comes into it's own. If I had one of wider lenses for the mirrorless then the DSLRs would get used less still, though they'r edefinitely still king for motorsports & BIF.

 

[robbins.photo]

If 'full fledged' professional support is the stumbling block then I don't see that has any relevance for the OP or most other photographers.

Again you completely misunderstand. By support, I mean aftermarket support - not technical support. Step back, take a deep breath and understand that just because mirrorless might be a really great option for SOME, that does not make it the best choice for ALL. I am not nor have I ever said anything bad about mirrorless, just pointing out to the op that given their statements I wouldn't recommend mirrorless for them.

Look at the number of NATIVE lenses available for most mirrorless systems, and their relative cost. Scratch any lens that will require an adapter and be manual focus only off that list of consideration because we are talking about a camera choice for someone who is most likely going to want autofocus on their lenses, being new and relatively inexperienced. Then try to understand that this is what is meant by the SUPPORT for mirrorless not being the same as what it is for a DSLR.

I understand that you use mirrorless and apparently you think you need to defend your chosen technology. But stop, take a deep breath and for the love of God try to understand that your technology choice is not under attack here. Then try to understand that even though it may well have been the best choice for YOU, that doesn't make it the best choice for EVERYONE.