Please help chose a camera

[Solarflare]

Nikon actually has MORE lens offerings than Canon because they are backward compatible to the 1977s and with a little work on the lens, backward compatible to the 1950s, when they started making SLRs and introduced the Nikon F Mount that they still use nowadays, even if upgraded for autofocus and digital. Canon however dropped their previous mounts and introduced the Canon EOS mount in 1987. Everything before is incompatible. Thats why Nikon F is sometimes used like an industry standard.

Nikon has the better lenses for my needs.

Canon has the better lenses for special stuff, such as tilt & shift and extreme macro.

Theres a ton of details to look for in the Nikon & Canon debate. Best is to just go in the shop and check the cameras out. The most important aspect of cameras is, after all, ergonomics. Nikon and Canon have different philosophies in this respect.

About DSLs in general:

Canon and Nikon are the traditional prime companies people go for. They've been around since after the 1950s and they've been big since about the 1960s to 1970s.

Pentax is the unloved third option that however has also been around for ages and has a lot of nice offerings. Pentax is a bit behind with highend DSLRs, but they'll apparently introduce a full frame DSLR soon.

Sony bought Minolta and still allows to mount old Minolta lenses, but these cameras are NOT DSLRs anymore. In fact the next iteration will drop the (fixed) mirror of the socalled SLTs and will be real mirrorless cameras with an on sensor autofocus (which are inferior to separate autofocus sensors) and an EVF (electronic viewfinder) - but unlike "real" mirrorless cameras, there will be a lot of empty space between sensor and lens, since the mount demands it.

 

[o hey tyler]

Nikon actually has MORE lens offerings than Canon because they are backward compatible to the 1977s and with a little work on the lens, backward compatible to the 1950s, when they started making SLRs and introduced the Nikon F Mount that they still use nowadays, even if upgraded for autofocus and digital. Canon however dropped their previous mounts and introduced the Canon EOS mount in 1987. Everything before is incompatible. Thats why Nikon F is sometimes used like an industry standard.

Nikon has the better lenses for my needs.

Canon has the better lenses for special stuff, such as tilt & shift and extreme macro.

Theres a ton of details to look for in the Nikon & Canon debate. Best is to just go in the shop and check the cameras out. The most important aspect of cameras is, after all, ergonomics. Nikon and Canon have different philosophies in this respect.

About DSLs in general:

Canon and Nikon are the traditional prime companies people go for. They've been around since after the 1950s and they've been big since about the 1960s to 1970s.

Pentax is the unloved third option that however has also been around for ages and has a lot of nice offerings. Pentax is a bit behind with highend DSLRs, but they'll apparently introduce a full frame DSLR soon.

Sony bought Minolta and still allows to mount old Minolta lenses, but these cameras are NOT DSLRs anymore. In fact the next iteration will drop the (fixed) mirror of the socalled SLTs and will be real mirrorless cameras with an on sensor autofocus (which are inferior to separate autofocus sensors) and an EVF (electronic viewfinder) - but unlike "real" mirrorless cameras, there will be a lot of empty space between sensor and lens, since the mount demands it.

Except you can adapt almost all those Nikon lenses, and canon FD lenses onto EOS bodies because of the flange distance. You can't do that on Nikon.

 

[EDL]

The bottom line is simple, Canon, or Nikon will fit your bill perfectly fine. You should not sweat a lot of the technical details unless you have a niche style in mind, like macro, or low-light...then the differences might come in to play. If all you want is decent photos of the kiddos, or general shooting with no real plans to get deep into it, then either will work equally well. If however, you do have plans to get into photography a bit heavier, then you may want to consider what type of shooting most interests you as that can have an influence on which brand you go with.

The Sony cameras are interesting, but most folks don't go that route mostly because of the limited lens choices. Nikon and Canon are the two mainstream brands, for good reason. Besides, if further down the road, you change your mind and want to get more serious, upgrade your equipment, etc, you'll have an easier time selling Canon or Nikon stuff.

To be honest, I'm considering a small P&S to run around with when family is involved as it is smaller and easier to carry and easy to just, well...point and shoot and get photos that are plenty good enough.

I'll save the Canon for more artistic stuff, or very purposeful shots that I want the best quality I can get (and have the time to set up for it).

 

[vetnis]

Bill, thank you for your opinion.

Perhaps the photographer's words got so imprinted in my brain, but I keep comparing every camera to alpha 57 . Yes, it is still possible to find one. There are several small shops that still have a few in stock. Unfortunately the reviews of these shops are bad and i am warned to stay away.

Here is a question -- how far can the 18-55 lens take me? The reason I am asking is because if I buy sony 57, i am basically at my budget. I would have to buy memory card, bag, etc. I envisioned using the camera at my other kids' sporting events and numerous school concerts. Can I get away with just 18-55 for now? or would I also need a telephoto lens?

Costco currently carries this package for nikon 3200: Nikon D3200 DSLR Camera 2 Lens Bundle

Do you think it is a good deal/beginner's package? More "useful" than alpha 57 with just one lens?

I apologize if my questions seem funny for a pro. This is no pocket change and I am trying to make a good decision here. I appreciate your input!

Hi Vetnis - I have owned Nikon and Canon DSLRs and currently own Panasonic DSLMs, so I am brand agnostic. Your portrait photographer was right. With your budget, I would get the $598 Sony A57 or $548 A58.

You will get more camera for your money with these cameras. And yes, even as a beginner, it is good to have the Sony's extra features, such as HDR and panorama and more frames per second (Sony's 12fps is more likely to catch that perfect shot when your newborn starts walking )

Here is what the A57 can do: Flickr: The Sony ?57 SLT Pool

And here are some A58 photos: Stridin' - a set on Flickr

Try to find the A57, if you can. They took 1080/60p video out of the A58. That may not mean anything to you now, but if you ever use the camera for video, it will

Congratulations on the new baby!

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution

 

[vetnis]

Ryan, thanks! I did go to a store. What can I say, I was overwhelmed with all the features and the pro talk. The only thing that I could actually make sense of was the weight of the camera. So, out of d3100, t3 and alpha 57, I realized that alpha 57 was the heaviest. perhaps if i only have that camera, i won't notice the weight, but sitting next to the other two, it really felt heavy. I took a few shots and they all seemed the same to me )). That's why I am asking those who understand way more than me to steer me in the right direction.

Don't just read on them, go into a store and handle them, see which one fits you, see which one has controls that make the most sense to you....consider the lens line up..consider what type of photography you want to do....everyone has their opinions on the best camera(s)...but YOU will be the one using whatever it is you wind up with.

Camera Reviews


http://www.photographytalk.com/compare-prices/camera-buying-guide?pt=6


Digital Photography Review


Compare digital cameras - Snapsort


Equipment & Reviews | What Digital Camera

 

[vetnis]

hirejn, it's a fair point. How do I understand light?

my plan is -- just buy something already and then learn with it. had I had any training or experience, i might have an easier time now. meanwhile, that baby is about to start rolling over and all I have is crappy pics! )

Here is another thing, I really need my first dslr to perform excellent on auto. I take a lot of candid shots. I see what I thing would be an awesome picture, I grab a camera and I take it. I won't have time to really think of all the settings. How does it work then? For example, I was walking outside with my daughter. I see this. I pull out my cellphone and snap it. I really like the shot, but can't do much with it except post it on FB .

You have to realize that asking which camera to buy is like asking which hammer is best for driving a nail. It's your pick. I recommend the cheapest. What you should be asking is how to understand light.

 

[vetnis]

let me know what you end up getting! yes, my head is about to explode, too.

I am also looking for a dslr to take pics of my kiddos! I played for a couple minutes with a D3100 at Shutterbug, but couldn't get too into it because my 6 month old was not having fun and my 3 year old was bored. So I thought I'd for sure get that, then my husband steps in and tells me that if I did my research I'd find a Canon would be better because of the infinite lens options. *sigh* Okay, but really for what I'm going to be shooting (my kids) do I need all those? BUt then the auto focus thing with the Nikon and the more expensive lens... my head is going to explode!

 

[vetnis]

i know that number of lenses available is important. perhaps i am mistaken, but I don't see myself changing/upgrading lenses. i need something that will always stay on so that I can grab the camera is take a picture and for the times when I go see my kids' performances and/or playing sports. i looked into buying an all purpose lens, but it is too expensive for me.

The bottom line is simple, Canon, or Nikon will fit your bill perfectly fine. You should not sweat a lot of the technical details unless you have a niche style in mind, like macro, or low-light...then the differences might come in to play. If all you want is decent photos of the kiddos, or general shooting with no real plans to get deep into it, then either will work equally well. If however, you do have plans to get into photography a bit heavier, then you may want to consider what type of shooting most interests you as that can have an influence on which brand you go with.

The Sony cameras are interesting, but most folks don't go that route mostly because of the limited lens choices. Nikon and Canon are the two mainstream brands, for good reason. Besides, if further down the road, you change your mind and want to get more serious, upgrade your equipment, etc, you'll have an easier time selling Canon or Nikon stuff.

To be honest, I'm considering a small P&S to run around with when family is involved as it is smaller and easier to carry and easy to just, well...point and shoot and get photos that are plenty good enough.

I'll save the Canon for more artistic stuff, or very purposeful shots that I want the best quality I can get (and have the time to set up for it).

 

[shicanebuzz]

I would recommend you Nikon D7100. The best one out there which is worth every penny.

 

[gregtallica]

hirejn, it's a fair point. How do I understand light?

my plan is -- just buy something already and then learn with it. had I had any training or experience, i might have an easier time now. meanwhile, that baby is about to start rolling over and all I have is crappy pics! )

Here is another thing, I really need my first dslr to perform excellent on auto. I take a lot of candid shots. I see what I thing would be an awesome picture, I grab a camera and I take it. I won't have time to really think of all the settings. How does it work then? For example, I was walking outside with my daughter. I see this. I pull out my cellphone and snap it. I really like the shot, but can't do much with it except post it on FB .

In my humble opinion, you are doing yourself a disservice letting "auto" take the reigns for you at all times. If you're getting a DSLR, learn how to use all thea features. Just because "inspiration strikes you quickly" and you need to be taking photos before you miss the moment does not mean you have to be on auto. Any ameture with a small amount of practice can get settings quickly enough to not miss a shot. If you're looking for auto, just get a mirrorless or point and shoot.

 

[o hey tyler]

i know that number of lenses available is important. perhaps i am mistaken, but I don't see myself changing/upgrading lenses. i need something that will always stay on so that I can grab the camera is take a picture and for the times when I go see my kids' performances and/or playing sports. i looked into buying an all purpose lens, but it is too expensive for me.

There is no "all purpose" lens. Just get a point and shoot.

 

[vetnis]

That's good to know! I'll definitely try to learn as much as I can.
[/QUOTE]

In my humble opinion, you are doing yourself a disservice letting "auto" take the reigns for you at all times. If you're getting a DSLR, learn how to use all thea features. Just because "inspiration strikes you quickly" and you need to be taking photos before you miss the moment does not mean you have to be on auto. Any ameture with a small amount of practice can get settings quickly enough to not miss a shot. If you're looking for auto, just get a mirrorless or point and shoot.[/QUOTE]

 

[vetnis]

Too late . I already got Sony alpha 57! Very excited. Thanks everyone for responding.

i know that number of lenses available is important. perhaps i am mistaken, but I don't see myself changing/upgrading lenses. i need something that will always stay on so that I can grab the camera is take a picture and for the times when I go see my kids' performances and/or playing sports. i looked into buying an all purpose lens, but it is too expensive for me.

There is no "all purpose" lens. Just get a point and shoot.

 

[katieohalloran]

I actually found a Canon 20D with 35-70mm lens and less than 3,000 clicks for $220! I took it to the camera shop my friends have been raving about and he cleaned it for me, recommended a couple lenses for what I want to do, and showed me how to play with it manually. My next step is to figure out how to get good shots of my 3 year old at his first gymnastics class next week with my MIL's Nikon. She has a telephoto lens with it that will obviously work much better than my portrait lens.

Next I'm saving up for a 50mm lens, then possibly a telephoto for my own camera. Then I should be set on getting what I want as far as pics of the kids. Although, I'll need to find a bigger bag to hold all those lenses!!

let me know what you end up getting! yes, my head is about to explode, too.

I am also looking for a dslr to take pics of my kiddos! I played for a couple minutes with a D3100 at Shutterbug, but couldn't get too into it because my 6 month old was not having fun and my 3 year old was bored. So I thought I'd for sure get that, then my husband steps in and tells me that if I did my research I'd find a Canon would be better because of the infinite lens options. *sigh* Okay, but really for what I'm going to be shooting (my kids) do I need all those? BUt then the auto focus thing with the Nikon and the more expensive lens... my head is going to explode!

 

[Luke345678]

Assuming you haven't purchased this camera yet I just wanted to tell you that no matter what brand, Cannon, Nikon, ect. you will most likely be happy with either outcome.

I have a Canon and I'm very loyal to Canon products but I'm sure if I would've started out with Nikon camera I would have been just as pleased.

Best of luck,

-Luke