Ready to go from bridge to DSLR - requesting your advice

[JimMcClain]

I've shot with a number of bridge and P/S type cameras for the last umpteen years. I got hooked on photography in the 1980s, used some nice Canon equipment, but it was a short-lived hobby and sorely missed for many years. I recently bought a Panasonic Lumix FZ200 and began using RAW and developing in Lightroom. Of course, I'm not as good as I'd like to be, but think there is good potential. Although I know I have a lot to learn, I couldn't help but feel a larger, better quality sensor might help with some of my problems. I read about the new Lumix FZ1000 coming this month and was giving it some serious consideration. Then I realized the budget I have for that camera might also be enough for a DSLR.

I have decided to jump up to a DSLR, primarily because of the larger sensors and lens options. I have been following a number of threads here of a similar nature, which has helped me narrow my choices. I've been reading reviews on Nikon, Canon and Sony cameras in my price range (Nikon D5300, Canon EOS 70D and Sony SLT-A77, among others). Based on many of the opinions expressed in similar topics here on TPF, I'm guessing the D5300 may be my better choice.

Although a larger sensor was my main motivation, along with lens interchangeability, there are a couple of other things that are important to me. The LCD screen must be articulated. I have some mild mobility issues, due to my lung disease, so not having to contort my body into positions necessary to see the sometimes odd angles I like to shoot is a real important feature. Another issue I feel is important is being able to navigate through options and menu items easily and quickly to set up my shots. The Lumix FZ200 has far more features and menu options than any camera I've had in the last 20 years, but I've found repetitive use has helped me get comfortable with the system. Still, it has its limitations and irritations.

Probably each of the cameras I mentioned above would be leaps and bounds above the FZ200. I seem to be leaning toward the D5300, although the reviews usually point out the struggles with the menu system. I'm not sure the Canon's touch screen is enough to make this camera better than the Nikon. The Sony has a tilt/swivel LCD, but it also appears to have some noise issues and other minor problems that keep me going back to look at the D5300.

My renewed interest in photography has centered mostly on landscape and architectural. Back in the 80s, I got involved in people and glamour, which I enjoyed a lot, but there is that huge expense of lighting and other equipment that I'm not interested in doing right now (but every time I see a pretty girl...).

Amazon has this: Nikon D5300 24.2 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX NIKKOR Zoom Lens I thought the 18-140mm lens would be a good starting point until I could add a different, better quality lens in a month or two. Not many of you had very kind words for the 18-55mm kit lens, so I haven't considered that. But I wonder if some of you think it would be wiser to save the $300 extra cost of the 18-140mm kit lens, get the body only and find a better, non-kit type lens in the 400.00+/- budget range.

I will be selling the FZ200 (and the filters and other extras I've bought), so I might be able to get a decent lens with that, in addition to whatever lens I get with the camera. Of course, there are also filters and other extras I would prob'ly want for the new camera too, but I usually try to wait until after I have used the camera to see what I think I need.

After seeing all the help you have provided others in similar situations, I hope you'll take the time to help guide me to better decisions. Please don't feel you are restricted to the D5300, if you think there is a better camera for me to consider.

Thanks,

Jim

 

[robbins.photo]

Jim, I actually own the D5200 - and it's pretty much the same menu layout as the 5300. The only thing I ever access the menu for really is to check on battery life. That's pretty much it. I have mine setup so that if I press and hold the function button it allows me to adjust the ISO - then I can use either shutter priority to set my shutter speed and adjust the ISO to get my desired aperture, or I can use aperture priority and set my ISO to get my desired shutter speed. I leave the camera in Auto ISO and only adjust the ISO when I feel it's necessary, that way I'm always ready to shoot and can get a proper exposure.

As a result I really don't have to access the menus at all really, and even when I do it's generally something I can control from the info screen (such as switching between JPG and RAW, white balance, etc) so really other than initially making a few changes in the menu system I haven't really had to mess with the menus since.

 

[robbins.photo]

Oh, as to lenses, from what I understand the 18-140 is a pretty good walk around lens, I guess the big question there is what sort of pictures you'd be taking most. Me I'm a big fan of both my 50 mm 1.8 AFS-G and the 85 mm 1.8 AFS-G, the 50 mm is just a fantastic all purpose lens and does a great job even in lowlight. The 85 is razor sharp and extremely fast as well, gives you a really great medium range telephoto in very light weight package. But it really kind of depends on what your shooting as to what lens would be best to start with in addition to the 18-140.

 

[JimMcClain]

Thanks for your reply. I mentioned it in my first post, but let me say it again: I tend to shoot primarily landscapes and architectural (incl. city/townscapes). I'm sure I will become more diversified than that in time, but those are the majority of my subjects so far.

Jim

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks for your reply. I mentioned it in my first post, but let me say it again: I tend to shoot primarily landscapes and architectural (incl. city/townscapes). I'm sure I will become more diversified than that in time, but those are the majority of my subjects so far.

Jim

Well you really don't need fast glass for the most part then, so I'd say the 18-140 would be a fantastic start. If you want to eventually add in a prime, most likely a 35 or 50 would be your best bet - what I would recommend is to get the kit lens first, then try taking some pictures at 35 and some at 50 and see what suits you better for a fixed focal length, and then decide if you really need a prime or not from there and if so which would suit you best.

 

[Derrel]

Jim, I actually own the D5200 - and it's pretty much the same menu layout as the 5300. The only thing I ever access the menu for really is to check on battery life. That's pretty much it. I have mine setup so that if I press and hold the function button it allows me to adjust the ISO - then I can use either shutter priority to set my shutter speed and adjust the ISO to get my desired aperture, or I can use aperture priority and set my ISO to get my desired shutter speed. I leave the camera in Auto ISO and only adjust the ISO when I feel it's necessary, that way I'm always ready to shoot and can get a proper exposure.

As a result I really don't have to access the menus at all really, and even when I do it's generally something I can control from the info screen (such as switching between JPG and RAW, white balance, etc) so really other than initially making a few changes in the menu system I haven't really had to mess with the menus since.

And he only checks the battery status because he's a paranoid freak who doesn't like all the work of opening that battery trapdoor, and getting out the charger, and then plugging it into that awful AC outlet, then charging that battery up every 500 frames! ;-) The D5300 has a slightly better battery rating of 600 shots per charge. But yeah...the newer Nikons have a really good AUTO ISO implementation. I've been using it myself all spring and summer. Works GREAT on these new, wide-Dynamic Range, high-detail sensors that have the superior low noise AND the amazing shadow recovery ability. Not all cameras use the same type of AUTO ISO implementation and options; this is an area where Pentax and Nikon have been leaders for years now, and where the other makers have just not offered the same options. The ability to make a MANUAL mode shutter speed and f/stop that YOU have selected literally BE the correct exposure is the deal-clincher, which is the Pentax innovation that Nikon waited literally half a decade to figure out they needed to steal!!!! This is the ability, the feature, that makes the new Pentax and Nikon cameras such great shooters. You can pick BOTH critical parameters, speed and f/stop, and have the camera adjust ISO, seamlessly. This is a big,big deal to me. It is a new way of shooting.

The progammability of the FUNC button is a nice touch, something Nikon invented and others have copied lately; it allows the user to put a personalized priority function onto an external button. I am not a "nervous adjuster"...I do not fiddle with the controls between shots all the time. There's not much need to. Put the camera in Auto Tone Control, Auto ISO, set the sharpening to 3/4 of maximum, RAW + JPEG Fine, Medium-sized, Manual with AUTO ISO set to 200 baseline, maximum of 4,000 ISO, minimum shutter speed of whatever is appropriate to your subject matter, set the Dynamic Lighting and Auto Vignette to ON, Medium, and BOOM! You can shoot all afternoon, and never need to touch a button until you need a MAJOR correction.

And, since the AUTO ISO setting has been customized to your situation/lens/subject you will NEVER find that, OH crap---I shot at 300mm at 1/15 second at ISO 100 and got 10 blurred images on that critical shot!!! NOPE--you will have already set the MINIMUM shutter speed to 1/250 second, and the camera will have elevated the ISO to make sure you are not messed up by simple oversight, or by just seeing and reacting to a shot in 2/5 second, even though the lighting was totally "opposite" of the prevailing conditions.

IE. Outside, sunny day, you see a cool shot inside an alleyway under a rain awning and it's seven stops DARKER there...you swing onto it, focus, and the ISO is boosted to 4,000 at 1/250 second, and you get the shot. If you have more time, you can open the lens to lower the ISO in use, but you can "get the shot" almost as if it's a big, amazing point and shoot with user-customized limits and start/end points.

 

[robbins.photo]

And he only checks the battery status because he's a paranoid freak who doesn't like all the work of opening that battery trapdoor, and getting out the charger, and then plugging it into that awful AC outlet, then charging that battery up every 500 frames!

Well I usually only open it when I need to get my cheetos out anyway.. besides, I really prefer "cautious" to "paranoid". Rotfl

 

[JimMcClain]

Derrel, you mentioned RAW+JPEG. Isn't that kind of a waste of space? RAW already has an embedded JPEG for previewing and I've been using Lightroom 5 for most of my P/P and ACDSee for file management. I can view RAW files in either program. If I am snapping, I can switch to JPEG, but for anything else I do, I just use RAW.

And that brings up even more questions about setting up the camera shooting scene styles and other image enhancements done in-camera. I'm guessing much of that is not necessary if I am developing in Lightroom with RAW files. But I'm still very new to this advanced technology and don't know if I am mistaken on those points.

Jim

 

[Derrel]

Derrel, you mentioned RAW+JPEG. Isn't that kind of a waste of space? RAW already has an embedded JPEG for previewing and I've been using Lightroom 5 for most of my P/P and ACDSee for file management. I can view RAW files in either program. If I am snapping, I can switch to JPEG, but for anything else I do, I just use RAW.

And that brings up even more questions about setting up the camera shooting scene styles and other image enhancements done in-camera. I'm guessing much of that is not necessary if I am developing in Lightroom with RAW files. But I'm still very new to this advanced technology and don't know if I am mistaken on those points.

Jim

Well, storage has become so plentiful that I do not worry too much about the space, and I actually like to archive the JPEGS onto DVD-R discs, and they carry their original creation date, not a later one. I've been shooting RAW+JPEG since the days when RW conversion was a one-file-at-a-time process, literally. There are some benefits though. Nikon's in-camera Noise Reduction is superb, as is their in-camera vignetting removal and the in-camera dynamic range optimizing, and the in-camera sharpening and in-camera tone curve and image processing is really,really,really good. Nikon uses encrypted white balance information. Lightroom makes a best-guess, but NIKON's own processing is probably a bit better than Lightroom's when you set the camera up as I described, over hundreds and hundreds of files, consistently. Yes, you can view RAW files in many software apps, but they are not really processed, usable images, and it's easy to throw away JPEG files you feel that you do not need. RAW files are great for when you blow the white balance or need to do a major "shift", but just give it a try, and actually try setting the camera up and letting it ,"Do what it has ben designed to do, specifically."

It's no longer 2005, and we're no longer shooting D200 or D90 Nikons. The in-camera processing, in all aspects, is amazingly well-tuned now if you allow the camera to correct the tone curve, correct the Dynamic Range, and remove lens vignetting and distortions. I've shot some assignments where the NIKON D3x SOOC JPEG files, shot as above, were as good, or better, than what I could make with a year of Lightroom experience with that, specific camera. Especially high-ISO, indoor, mixed-light stuff. Again...there's a lot of effort made to attempt to out-think these newer cameras, as if they were old, outdated cameras with pathetic in-camera JPEG engines, like the D100, or the D2x or D200 or the D90.

The thing is: most people will tell you to set everything to NEutral, Zero, Flat, Low, and then the SOOC files look like CRAP, and they say, "Look...my RAW files converted look great!". Again...these are the folks using center-point, ONE-point AF on a 51-point AF camera with a computer onboard...old ways of thinking die hard on the internet. It is no longer 2005. Not trying to be flippant or offhand, but you requested advice on making the transition from bridge to d-slr, specifically a Nikon with a very advanced metering,exposure, and in-camera JPEG engine. That's my advice: learn to leverage Nikon's huge advantage in light metering and image processing, and set the camera up to use the three, or four most-critical advances in the last 10 years. See what the camera is actually capable of doing, across hundreds of situations: don't be swayed by 1- or 2-frame, cherry picked examples. I've seen those. The next time you shoot a 500- or 600-frame set and the SOOC images blow you away, you can thank me. Check out the Ken Rockwell user guide. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5300/users-guide/index.htm

 

[JimMcClain]

I made a decision to order the Nikon D5300 without a kit lens. I have enough in my budget to get 2 lenses of (hopefully) better quality. Given that I tend to shoot more of my images in wider focal lengths, I think the Nikon 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR AF-S DX is a good choice for me. From the reviews I've read, it's a very good upgrade from the kit lenses, with better quality glass than even the 18-140mm kit lens. My current camera's fixed lens has a range of 24-600mm. I haven't saved any images at the upper reaches, but have noticed I've shot a lot in the 200-400 range. To get that range, I think my second choice could be the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR AF-S FX. On the D5300, that's an equivalent to a 105-450mm. Reviews tend to indicate that any edge distortion at the upper reaches would be mitigated by the fact that the D5300 sensor is smaller than full frame.

I have ordered the camera body and the 16-85mm lens. Unless some of you have some cautionary comments about the 70-300mm, I will go ahead and get that in the next couple of days.

As has been noted, my shooting doesn't require a very fast lens. Most of my pictures have been at aperture priority above f4 and often around f7.1 (I usually stay away from the FZ200's minimum of f8). But another deciding factor has been the limits placed on my body and ability to move around because of my lung disease. I think moving around would be more of a necessity using a prime lens than a zoom. But I have been led to understand that the more wide ranging the zoom, the less quality of the lens. 18-140mm might be a decent lens, but it doesn't reach as far as I'd like and the quality, especially at the wider end, isn't nearly as good as the 16-85mm.

There are a couple of other options for longer zooms, but one of the biggest advantages of the 70-300mm is its ability to be transferred to a full frame camera, if I decide to go that way in the future. And another big benefit is both lenses (the 16-85 and the 70-300) have a 67mm filter size. That alone could save hundreds of dollars in filters.

Your feedback would be much appreciated.

Jim

 

[robbins.photo]

Jim, the nikkor 70-300 mm afs vr is pound for pound probably one of their best lenses. It's one of the sharpest zoom lenses I've seen, in fact as far as iq is concerned your hard pressed to match it without using a prime.