Can someone just tell me which camera to buy?

[Groucho]

But it's also a disadvantage as there is no full frame option with Pentax, meaning if you decided you want to get really serious about your hobby, and buy a full frame camera, there's no room to grow in the Pentax line. I also wouldn't call the Canon 6D or Nikon D610 at $1700 extremely high-cost to go full frame.

Each brand has +/-, but I don't think you'd go wrong with Canon or Nikon.

Pentax has limited lens selection, and relies on IBIS, many lenses rely on the in-body focus motor, and their AF isn't up the mid range Canon, or Nikon standards, but are well built, reliable, and weather resistant. Just to pick on Pentax.

Room to grow? hakepb beat me to it - but good grief, the new 645Z is a monster and the prices are only going down - you can pick up a first-gen 645 for "only" $5k now - a lot of money, but well inside what some spend for high-end full-frames. OK, you're not going to use your existing lenses on it, but many buyers of C/N DSLRs only have APS-compatible lenses anyway so would be in the same boat.

Furthermore - "grow" - realistically, what do you think you need that you don't have on a K-3? Or the top-line Fuji or Olympus? (Look how many people are leaving the FF gear behind to carry a Fuji, for example...) The "room to grow" thing is more FUD than anything else.

Again - Pentax has a superior APS lens selection than anyone else. and, surely, you aren't claiming that "relying on IBIS" is a negative - that means we get stabilization with *every* lens, even 50+ -year-old preset screw-mount lenses. Furthermore, you can get lenses with in-lens stabilization in Pentax mount - IBIS is a technology with zero drawbacks and huge benefits, it's only protecting their lens profits that has stopped C/N from implementing it. K-3 AF is pretty darn good too. I haven't tried the latest C/N DSLRs, but I suspect you haven't tried the K-3.

Were I starting brand new right now and doing my research, I'd either go K-3, Fuji X-T1, or maybe a Sony A7 or A7s - just for the adapted lens and high ISO possibilities. If I was on a budget, I'd pick up a used K-5 for $500 or less; you can't get more camera for less money. (I'm selling mine now, and three years later and over 30k shots later, it is still rock-solid and works as well as day one, and I will miss that amazing sensor!)

 

[Groucho]

they don't make a medium format camera... it doesn't really matter what your 35mm format camera is when they are completely different lenses.

So much for C/N offering an option when you, and I quote, "want to get really serious about your hobby".

 

[SkaGoat]

IBIS is a technology with zero drawbacks and huge benefits, it's only protecting their lens profits that has stopped C/N from implementing it.

That is false, with IBIS your optical viewfinder, and the AF Sensors/Light meter are not stabilized.

This can be an issue when shooting sports, or wildlife.

You must not shoot sports, wild life, or any moving subjects. AF tracking is terrible on the K-3 when compared to my 7D. A friend of mine kept telling me how great it was, so I went and shot with it for a day.

Sure ergonomics were good, and it has lots of nice features, fast fps, but I had .25 the keepers as I do with the Canon because the AF tracking is terrible. So if you double the keeper rate due to not having experience with that camera, it's still half as good at AF tracking as the Canon.

And if I had the budget/need I could move into a full frame camera, and still be able to shoot sports, moving targets, and only have to sell one lens. I shoot with a crop Canon, and only have one EF-S lens.

Medium format is only good for Landscapes, Portraits and Architecture shots. If it moves, you probably don't want medium format. So it is possible to "grow" without ever needing medium format.

I don't like m4/3 or Sony's E-mount because I want an optical viewfinder, I don't like the Pentax because I think Nikon and Canon are better cameras, with better lens lineups, with full frame options.

 

[havoc315]

In regards to the A65, it's slightly older now. Was just discontinued by Sony, so you can probably get it at a good price. It's a very good camera.
It's biggest negative is lagging low light performance. It's not horrible, it certainly beats really old dSLRs. But it lag behind the newest dSLRs. At very high ISO, you won't get the best image quality. (Though at lower ISO in normal lighting, it's image quality is exceptional).
Being a little older, it lacks wifi which is starting to crop up on some cameras.

The Canon SL1 has three advantages that I see over the Canon A65..
The most significant is that the SL1 is smaller. The body is the size of a mirrorless camera, though lenses can make it bigger.
Second advantage, mostly unique to Canon dSLRs, is a touch screen. (Sony, Nikon and Pentax don't use touch screens in their dSLRs). Reviews have been positive of the touch screen.
The final advantage -- I mentioned low light performance above. The Canon SL1 is rated fractionally higher for low light performance.

And where the cameras simply differ --- EVF vs OVF. Some people prefer the EVF, some prefer the OVF. Very subjective.

The advantages of the A65:
In-body stabilization which will apply to any lens you ever use.
Full-time live view. The SL1, like most dSLRs, uses a slower inferior autofocus system when using the live view LCD. The A65, like modern Sony dSLRs, allows seamless transition between the LCD and the viewfinder, allows full autofocus capabilities either way.
The A65 has slightly better image quality, except for the slight low light edge to the SL1.
For sports/action shooters, the A65 can shoot 12 frames per second. (Comparable to professional cameras). The SL1 does 4 frames per second (most dSLRs nowadays are in the 4-7 range).
And the A65 has higher resolution.

 

[SkaGoat]

For sports/action shooters, the A65 can shoot 12 frames per second. (Comparable to professional cameras).

Just curious, does it focus, and meter between each shot at full speed?

 

[zackiedawg]

Just curious, does it focus, and meter between each shot at full speed?

Yes - the A65's speed priority mode (by the way, I believe it is actually a 10fps max on the A65, and a 12fps on the A77) does autofocus and set exposure between shots. It does default to wide open aperture in that mode, adjusting ISO or shutter as needed to adjust exposure, so you don't quite have the full control over aperture in that mode.

 

[Groucho]

That is false, with IBIS your optical viewfinder, and the AF Sensors/Light meter are not stabilized.

It's completely true. Like I said, in-body does not mean that you cannot have in-lens stabilization (there are such lenses available for Pentax and, I believe, Sony.) C/N could easily implement in-body IS and have the camera disable the in-body when using a stabilized lens, while giving the advantages of IS to other lens. They don't because they want to protect the money. That means your choices for a stabilized prime for C/N are extremely, extremely slim.

Again - no disadvantages to in-body IS. Zero.

You must not shoot sports, wild life, or any moving subjects. AF tracking is terrible on the K-3 when compared to my 7D. A friend of mine kept telling me how great it was, so I went and shot with it for a day.

Sure ergonomics were good, and it has lots of nice features, fast fps, but I had .25 the keepers as I do with the Canon because the AF tracking is terrible. So if you double the keeper rate due to not having experience with that camera, it's still half as good at AF tracking as the Canon.

Which AF mode were you in? Do you even know? Which lens?

I don't like m4/3 or Sony's E-mount because I want an optical viewfinder, I don't like the Pentax because I think Nikon and Canon are better cameras, with better lens lineups, with full frame options.

You're welcome to think that. Meanwhile, virtually every professional camera reviewer agrees that the K-3 is the best APS DSLR ever built... and lots of people realize that there's nothing magic about "full frame" that requires you to go to it. C/N hobble their APS gear - especially lenses - to push you upmarket as much as possible. With improvements in sensor technology, full-frame's previous advantage in high ISO has narrowed significantly. You're primarily spending extra thousands of dollars in gear (and several extra pounds to carry) to get the option of slightly narrower depth of field. I'll just mount a faster lens, thank you very much.

 

[SkaGoat]

Again - no disadvantages to in-body IS. Zero.

Except for added weight, cost, and complexity in the body. I don't find I need it on the primes I use.

Which AF mode were you in? Do you even know? Which lens?

It was K-3 with a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8, It was in Aperture Priority, Continuous Hi, in C-AF, with a single point selected.

I was shooting a 10k run, lots of targets coming straight at me, my usual kit is a Canon EOS 7D, with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8, usually shoot in Av, with Single Point, in Continuous Hi, and AF Servo.

You're welcome to think that. Meanwhile, virtually every professional camera reviewer agrees that the K-3 is the best APS DSLR ever built...

It should be the best, it's most recent competition, the Canon EOS 7D, and the Nikon D300s were both released in 2009. Most of the reviews I've read stated it's spotty continuous AF, which is an important feature in these cameras.

It's got good noise performance, and equal Dynamic range to the Canon 70D, and Nikon D7100.

and lots of people realize that there's nothing magic about "full frame" that requires you to go to it. C/N hobble their APS gear - especially lenses - to push you upmarket as much as possible. With improvements in sensor technology, full-frame's previous advantage in high ISO has narrowed significantly. You're primarily spending extra thousands of dollars in gear (and several extra pounds to carry) to get the option of slightly narrower depth of field. I'll just mount a faster lens, thank you very much.

Full frame is better for both noise, and dynamic range. Sure the APS-C cameras are getting better in this regard, but so are the full frame cameras, the 6D is a whole lot cleaner than the K-3. They're not magic, but bigger sensors, with the same amount of pixels will be cleaner.

Canon makes some great EF-S lenses, the EF-S 18-55 f/2.8, to name one. They spend their R&D money on EF lenses because they work with the APS-C cameras and the full frame cameras. There are also many third party vendors (as with Pentax) that makes some great, affordable options. Sigma, Tamron to name a couple.

I want to be able to move to full frame when my wallet allows, and not have to replace my entire lens collection to do it, Canon allows this, I could go out and buy a 5Dmiii tomorrow, and be able to use all my lenses with it.

So I congratulate Pentax, for finally producing a camera that performs better than the Canon EOS 7D... they're only 4 years behind.

 

[SkaGoat]

Yes - the A65's speed priority mode (by the way, I believe it is actually a 10fps max on the A65, and a 12fps on the A77) does autofocus and set exposure between shots. It does default to wide open aperture in that mode, adjusting ISO or shutter as needed to adjust exposure, so you don't quite have the full control over aperture in that mode.

ok, I'm confused... on my 7D, I can set it to Aperture Priority, set the aperture to f/4, Servo AF, and track a runner, it'll shoot at 8 fps, until it fills it's buffer (about 25 RAW photos). But it focuses, and sets exposure between each shot.

The Sony, when set to it's fastest (in fps) burst setting can only be shot wide open?

 

[havoc315]

Just curious, does it focus, and meter between each shot at full speed?

Yes. And in the newest a77ii, the viewfinder is stabilized.

 

[Groucho]

Except for added weight, cost, and complexity in the body. I don't find I need it on the primes I use.

Hmm... oh yes, those Pentaxes are so much heavier and more expensive than, say, the Canon 7D!

If you're doing AF tracking, you'd probably be better served by having more than one focus point selected!

Full frame is better for both noise, and dynamic range. Sure the APS-C cameras are getting better in this regard, but so are the full frame cameras, the 6D is a whole lot cleaner than the K-3. They're not magic, but bigger sensors, with the same amount of pixels will be cleaner.

6D dynamic range, 12.1 Evs; K-5 dynamic range, 14.1 Evs. Two full stops better! No HDR needed. High ISO performance has improved to the point where it's not such a reason to upgrade as back in the D700 says. (There's still no substitute for big, lazy photosites, as seen in the A7s.)

So I congratulate Pentax, for finally producing a camera that performs better than the Canon EOS 7D... they're only 4 years behind.

What a jerky thing to say, especially since the K-5, only slightly newer, was better in every way except AF and video. The fact that C/N's flagship APS cameras are ancient is proof enough that they don't care about the APS shooters.

"Buy C/N now, so you can be treated like a second-class shooter until you drop thousands on a huge, heavy camera and huge, heavy lenses."

Boy, are we way off the original topic. Point being, I think it's a shame for someone starting out to not look at the alternatives - be they Pentax, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, mirrorless or SLR, etc - before assuming they need one of the DSLRs you find at Wal-Mart.

 

[havoc315]

ok, I'm confused... on my 7D, I can set it to Aperture Priority, set the aperture to f/4, Servo AF, and track a runner, it'll shoot at 8 fps, until it fills it's buffer (about 25 RAW photos). But it focuses, and sets exposure between each shot.

The Sony, when set to it's fastest (in fps) burst setting can only be shot wide open?

Correct. I forget the exact fps for each camera.
But I believe with the a77, it can shoot 8 fps with full aperture control. But at 12 fps, the aperture is locked at 3.5 or largest available.

So 8 fps with full control. 12 fps with auto-exposure. Simply too fast to change aperture between each shot.
It can do 12 fps with full aperture control in manual focus.

 

[SkaGoat]

If you're doing AF tracking, you'd probably be better served by having more than one focus point selected!
.

No, to keep it focused on one person, running towards you, in a group of other people running towards you, one point is all I need. Put the focus point on their face, push the AF-ON button, hold the shutter down, and keep the point on their face. My Canon will have crisp focus, at f/2.8 on 6 out of 10 photos usually. I will admit I usually use single point expansion on the Canon, but didn't have that turned on on Pentax, but it shouldn't make a big difference.

I know.. it was jerky... I got a little carried away.

Honestly, the Pentax system really intrigues me, but when I was looking for a DSLR, reading about how bad the AF was on them (pre-K-3) scared me away. But I still think the Canon lens system is better, if only because there are full frame options, and they work very well on crop cameras. The K-3 is a great camera, and I know Canon has something up it's sleeve for the 7Ds successor.

 

[SkaGoat]

Correct. I forget the exact fps for each camera.
But I believe with the a77, it can shoot 8 fps with full aperture control. But at 12 fps, the aperture is locked at 3.5 or largest available.

So 8 fps with full control. 12 fps with auto-exposure. Simply too fast to change aperture between each shot.
It can do 12 fps with full aperture control in manual focus.

I wonder what actually limits it... the 1Dx, (much more expensive I know) will do 12 fps, so it's not the aperture blades in the lens being slow...

I wonder if it's the processor in the cameras not being fast enough.

 

[havoc315]

I wonder what actually limits it... the 1Dx, (much more expensive I know) will do 12 fps, so it's not the aperture blades in the lens being slow...

I wonder if it's the processor in the cameras not being fast enough.

It's the aperture blades.... The 1Dx is built in a way to overcome it (can switch the aperture even faster?).. but of course, the 1DX is about 5 times the price. Or it's the aperture blades in conjunction with AF speed -- Can't change the blade fast enough AND focus. I note that the shutter lag of the A77 is magnificent for a consumer camera at 124ms... But the 1DX has a shutter lag listed of only 34ms. So that's probably the reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1DX has somewhat similar limitations in that it can shoot 14 fps, but with locked focus and aperture, but can shoot 12 fps unhindered. Again of course, the 1DX is MUCH more expensive than the Sony cameras we are discussing.

 

[SkaGoat]

It's the aperture blades.... The 1Dx is built in a way to overcome it (can switch the aperture even faster?).. but of course, the 1DX is about 5 times the price.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 1DX has somewhat similar limitations in that it can shoot 14 fps, but with locked focus and aperture, but can shoot 12 fps unhindered. Again of course, the 1DX is MUCH more expensive than the Sony cameras we are discussing.

yeah, it shoots 14 with the mirror locked up (I think the limit is the mirror won't move fast enough, not the aperture blades)

To make the the 1Dx do 12 fps, it has 3 Digic processors (2 Digic 5+ to process the images, and 1 Digic 4 to handle AF and the light metering), but it'll do 12 fps, with a $100 50mm f/1.8 II, which I assume, won't have the highest end aperture assembly.

 

[havoc315]

Except for added weight, cost, and complexity in the body. I don't find I need it on the primes I use.

Well, Sony dSLTs are lighter than comparable Canon and Nikons. So no real extra added weight of IBIS. Cameras are also the same price range. Sony A77ii, $1098. The Canon 70D -- $1099. Nikon D7100 -- $1096 (all prices from Amazon). Pentax K3 -- $1046. And even the ancient Canon 7D-- $999, but it's an aged model.
So doesn't look like IBIS makes the camera body heavier or more expensive.

In fact, IBIS will sometimes save money, since I can get stabilization with great 20 year old lenses without having to buy newer lenses.

Now, do you *need* it with primes? Of course not. And there are photographers who will swear they never need stabilization with any lens. And there are photographers (especially from the film days) who will claim you never need anything higher than ISO 400.
But just like higher ISO, just like stabilized zooms, stabilized primes are indeed helpful.

I shoot mostly with primes -- 200, 135, 100, 85, and 50. When using my 50/1.4 for example, it's certainly an advantage that I can bring shutter speed all the way down to 1/12 and 1.4 aperture, to take extreme low light shots, without going to crazy ISO.

Took this shot at 1.4 and 1/25. Still needed ISO 5000 for proper exposure:
rainy-18.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Without IBIS.. if the prime was unstabilized, I would have needed ISO 10,000 or higher to get the same shot.

So do you *need* stabilized primes? No, you don't actually need much at all. But it is certainly helpful at times!

 

[havoc315]

yeah, it shoots 14 with the mirror locked up (I think the limit is the mirror won't move fast enough, not the aperture blades)

To make the the 1Dx do 12 fps, it has 3 Digic processors (2 Digic 5+ to process the images, and 1 Digic 4 to handle AF and the light metering), but it'll do 12 fps, with a $100 50mm f/1.8 II, which I assume, won't have the highest end aperture assembly.

Sounds right --- But the aperture needs to be open for AF. So I presume that 1DX can focus much faster than the consumer dSLR/SLTs. The A77 can't open the aperture blades AND focus fast enough between shots to do 12 fps. By keeping the aperture blades open, it has enough time to focus.
The 1DX can focus faster.

 

[Groucho]

Re: aperture... why would one think that the camera has to change the aperture to meter? If anything, it's the opposite. The reason to open the aperture as wide as possible when it's not making a photo is so that it's easier for you to see through the viewfinder, and also easier the autofocus system (if being used) can function better due to more light coming through.

But the light metering, it will get its best results by metering through the stopped-down aperture anyway. I use lots of old lenses, and you need to do stop-down metering in order to get a good exposure unless you're using a lens that can have the aperture adjusted manually, like if the camera body can't stop the lens down itself - like with the old M42 screw-mount lenses.

As far as I can tell, the only reason for the body to change the aperture during burst shooting is to assist in autofocus, but I suspect that they are more likely to just have somewhat degraded AF at smaller apertures due to less light coming in.

You gotta love some of those old preset-aperture lenses though - without the quick stop-down to worry about, they have those lovely apertures with 18 or even more blades. So pretty!

 

[havoc315]

Re: aperture... why would one think that the camera has to change the aperture to meter? If anything, it's the opposite. The reason to open the aperture as wide as possible when it's not making a photo is so that it's easier for you to see through the viewfinder, and also easier the autofocus system (if being used) can function better due to more light coming through.

But the light metering, it will get its best results by metering through the stopped-down aperture anyway. I use lots of old lenses, and you need to do stop-down metering in order to get a good exposure unless you're using a lens that can have the aperture adjusted manually, like if the camera body can't stop the lens down itself - like with the old M42 screw-mount lenses.

As far as I can tell, the only reason for the body to change the aperture during burst shooting is to assist in autofocus, but I suspect that they are more likely to just have somewhat degraded AF at smaller apertures due to less light coming in.

You gotta love some of those old preset-aperture lenses though - without the quick stop-down to worry about, they have those lovely apertures with 18 or even more blades. So pretty!

Most camera AF systems can't autofocus with an aperture smaller than about 6.3.
Thus the camera needs to open the aperture between each burst shot to continuously AF.