Choosing a digital SLR camera

[Golf4food]

Pentax K-x

 

[ukcatfan]

As long as Pentax continues to make them, the K-x is getting to a price point where it is one incredible deal. With the K-r out, but more expensive, I think they will keep it in the lineup. But, with the K-r being around, the K-x should continue to drop in price.

 

[left210]

I have had several bridge cameras but honestly have not taken the time to learn how to use the manual settings. I have had a lot going on in the past year or so with taking care of a loved one. I am tired of not getting great shots though. So my question is - if I get a DSLR are the standard point and shoot pictures on it going to be better than the p/s on a regular camera? I know if I learn how to use it I will get even better pictures but I just dont know when I will get around to learning what mode/setting to use when. I dont want to spend the money on a DSLR if it isnt going to give me better pictures right out of the box. Thanks.

 

[Golf4food]

If you don't want to do the time, don't spend the dime.

dSLRs are not magic. You still have to know how to use them - more so than with a point-n-shoot in many cases. There are some basics you can learn that will help, but if you want the truly good photos, you must be willing to learn the rules of photography and the settings of the camera.

 

[ukcatfan]

I agree. It does not sound like a DSLR is right choice for you at this time.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You should see a significant improvement in your pictures, depending on the circumstances. In low light, the improvement will be dramatic. Even in moderate light (typical indoor setting), you should see less noise and have fewer problems with blurring.

My wife has very little photo training. She uses my DSLR in full auto mode much of the time. People at school rave about her pictures. Some of that is because she has learned better composition and some basic post processing in Lightroom. A lot of it is because she has much better gear than they do.

Getting a DSLR won't make you a great photographer. Even on full auto, it will make your pictures significantly better than a p&s on full auto.

 

[left210]

I love taking pictures and scrapbooking and would love to learn more about photography but just do not have the time to devote to it right now. I was just wondering if going ahead and getting the DSLR would allow me to get better full auto mode pictures for the time being with the hopes that some day or along the way I learn more. I may borrow a friends to see if that will help me make a decision. You are right in that I dont want to spend the money and use full auto if it isnt going to be any better than I am getting right now on full auto on p/s. Thanks.

 

[boBQuincy]

I agree with Mark, even on full Auto a dSLR will provide better photos than a P&S under most conditions. I leave my Canon Xsi in Program mode most of the time unless I have a good reason to set it otherwise.

Of course like any good tool a dSLR will provide you with more rewards the more you learn how to use it, but today's dSLRs are very good in Auto and really good photos are no longer exclusive to those who only use manual settings.

 

[Bstanley]

Speaking as a new DSLR owner (less than a year) and as someone who really doesn't aspire to be a 'photographer'* I have found that my DSLR allows me to 'Point and Shoot' more easily, more successfully and in a much wider variety of lighting conditions than my Point and Shoot cameras ever did. However as mentioned it has NOT made me a photographer, 99% of the time I still take snapshots

If you're OK with that - enjoy.


*According to Mr. Elliot Erwitt "To me, photography is an art of observation. It’s about finding something interesting in an ordinary place… I’ve found it has little to do with the things you see and everything to do with the way you see them.”

 

[mrodgers]

What most said is true.

There are two different results.

A dSLR camera is simply better quality than a P&S or bridge camera. They have better lens, better sensors, better, well, everything.

Thus, auto mode on a dSLR will get better results than auto mode on a P&S camera.

That said, my $200 Fuji superzoom takes better photos than my coworker's $1500 worth (at the time) of dSLR equipment. The difference is the operator. I learned about photography and shoot in manual mode where he takes snapshots in auto mode.

It's not very difficult to learn how to manually use a camera. It's like riding a bicycle. With practice and learning, one day it just "clicks" in the mind and everything falls in place and it's so easy to understand.

 

[zackiedawg]

I generally agree, though I'd want to modify the above statements just a bit...a DSLR on Auto mode "CAN" get better results than a P&S on auto, in some situations. I don't like the idea of saying it 'will' do better, because there are too many variables. First, a DSLR on auto still should be set up optimally - some DSLRs tend to overexpose by default, some have flat color in standard JPEG mode, some are undersharp for typical consumer use, etc. Setting the color mode, contrast, and sharpness modes in the camera can make the output more 'P&S' like or consumer friendly without additional processing needed. Also, note that not all P&S cameras are alike. A person accustomed to an ultrazoom may find disappointment trying to match the lens range with a DSLR - realizing that the kit lens in auto mode isn't going to match a 520mm optical lens on a small sensor P&S model, no matter how good the resolution. And some P&S models have larger sensors and very good lenses, which deliver pretty snazzy optical quality, and can shoot at equivalents of F2.0, which no kit lens will come close to - so in good light conditions and low ISOs, the P&S may be indistinguishable or even better. Then there's the depth of field - while DSLR afficianados love shallow DOF, some P&Sers who don't really know how to control it may find it challenging with a DSLR when they are used to shooting a scene and having everything in focus, and suddenly with the DSLR, that's no longer the case. Moreover, in 'Auto' mode they have no control over where the camera focuses since most default to a wide focus mode with no user override, leaving many first-time DSLR auto users confounded by the odd focus choices and often out of focus results.

When it comes to focusing in low light, controlling depth of field, shooting at high ISOs, maintaining maximum resolution and cropping ability, editability and recoverability of photos, action shooting, speed shooting, and more - DSLRs will crush P&S cameras, and with the versatility to choose any lens for any situation, they're better in any given situation as long as the budget can afford. But I'd be a little careful to use a blanket statement that a DSLR on auto will always deliver better results for an unskilled user than a P&S in auto mode.

 

[Ilivetogo]

My DD16 is going to go off to college next fall to major in photography. We have started looking for a DSLR for her "first one". She currently uses a Nikon Coolpix. She wants to get a Nikon or possibly a Canon, but hasn't really had the chance to use either one in order to get an idea of which one "suits" her better.
There is a camera store near us that rents, but it's very expensive to do.

Keeping in mind this is a starting camera, we would like advice about which models would be suggested and what specific lenses or additional items she would need. (we know she will need a tripod) She definitely would like to get something with live view, and she also likes to work a lot with macro settings.

Also, any suggestions about the best places to purchase in order to keep our costs down would be greatly appreciated--just PM me.

Please & thank you!

.

 

[poeticeclipse]

Making my first dSLR purchase and I'm quite excited to move up from a rather nice P&S. I'm looking to spend no more than $1000 including accessories, lenses, bag, etc. I'm going to be primarily shooting portraits of family and friends as well as some detail shots and travel stuff. I'd like to eventually delve into night photography as well once I get the hang of shooting with a "fancy" camera. Shooting video would be cool but getting the "best" quality video isn't important to me since I will end up probably just shooting family event and vacations.

After doing some research I've decided it comes down to the Nikon 3100, Canon T1i, and T2i. I really don't know the primary differences between Nikons and Canons. It seems that everyone I talk to says without hesitation to get the Canon T2i. But no one can give me a reason of why that is so much better for ME and MY needs.

Thanks to all who respond and help me out! All input is welcome!

 

[ukcatfan]

In terms of specs and end results, almost all current entry level DSLRs are going to be similar. The thing you need to do is dig into the details to see which one has the particulars that are important to you. For example, is a fast burst rate important? Different models will vary slightly. Or, is the live view capability important. Compare them both online and in person when possible. If I had not done this, I might not have been as happy with my original DSLR purchase. Since it seems that you have not done the comparisons yet, I personally suggest taking a step back and considering all options from all brands instead of somewhat arbitrarily narrowing it down.

 

[Frantasmic]

You should look at Pentax also as an entry level camera. They are a good bargain for the results they give.

If you have decided the 3 you have listed, the T2i is very similar to the Canon EOS 7D that came out. That's why people discuss its value. It is a good camera that you could grow into very easily. Video is a bonus in that one. All three will shoot decent video though.

I'd review the Nikon 3100, the Pentax K-X, and the Canon T2i, if I were in your shoes. The Canon T1i is good too, but I'd bump up to the T2i just because its offerings would suffice for a long while.

 

[ukcatfan]

You should look at Pentax also as an entry level camera. They are a good bargain for the results they give.

If you have decided the 3 you have listed, the T2i is very similar to the Canon EOS 7D that came out. That's why people discuss its value. It is a good camera that you could grow into very easily. Video is a bonus in that one. All three will shoot decent video though.

I'd review the Nikon 3100, the Pentax K-X, and the Canon T2i, if I were in your shoes. The Canon T1i is good too, but I'd bump up to the T2i just because its offerings would suffice for a long while.

Pentax also offers the new K-r in the price range.

 

[poeticeclipse]

I really don't know anything about Pentax. Can someone explain the benefits of Pentax over the "other" brands that I mentioned?

 

[ukcatfan]

I really don't know anything about Pentax. Can someone explain the benefits of Pentax over the "other" brands that I mentioned?

Typically the benefit is how much you get for the money. For example, the K-x is significantly cheaper than the Canon models but still has some better specs such as faster burst rate, in-body IS, faster max shutter speed, and wireless flash. The Canon is going to always have more MPs, but I can honestly tell you that much of that is overkill. I was very happy with only 6MP, so cannot believe that the difference between 18MP and 12MP would make much difference. If it came down to it, I would say that the K-x and T1i are fairly equal then the T2i and K-r are fairly equal. The bang for the buck is currently in the Pentax corner. Plus they come in a variety of colors!

One thing to think about is if you plan to stick with the kit lenses for a while. If that is the case, then the Pentax offers an advantage. They intentionally offer a kit lens with better build quality than Canon or Nikon.

One last thing to consider is if you plan on making photography a career. If so, then Canon and Nikon are probably the best bet. If you just want to be a hobby photographer (i.e. 99.99% of people) then you should consider all brands. To be fair, you should also look at Sony and Olympus before making a decision.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Sony has several options that would fall under the $1,000 budget. If you don't need video then the A500 or A550 are very nice or if you do want video the new A560 and A580's are going to be available soon. The A5xx's have very functional live view, in body IS, they shoot 5-7 fps depending on the model and have comparable high ISO capabilities to other camera's. You can use Minolta autofocus lenses on the Sony A mount as well.

Sony also has the A33 and A55 which are slightly smaller and use a translucent mirror as well as A Mount lenses or the Nex3 or Nex5 are their mirrorless options similar to the Olympus PEN's and all of those do video also. The NEX camera's are positively tiny.

If you're going into it as a hobby I also would worry less about the brand and more about what is comfortable and intuitive for you to use.

 

[bob100]

You should look at Pentax also as an entry level camera. They are a good bargain for the results they give.

If you have decided the 3 you have listed, the T2i is very similar to the Canon EOS 7D that came out. That's why people discuss its value. It is a good camera that you could grow into very easily. Video is a bonus in that one. All three will shoot decent video though.

I'd review the Nikon 3100, the Pentax K-X, and the Canon T2i, if I were in your shoes. The Canon T1i is good too, but I'd bump up to the T2i just because its offerings would suffice for a long while.

I too would consider the newer T2i/550D or the 60D for the Canon line-up, especially if video is important