entry level dSLR

[auntfrannie]

I want to move up from my Panasonic Lumix P&S which I really like but the 10x zoom leaves something to be desired. I'm looking for an entry level SLR so I can get a telephoto lens. I've done some research and checked out the Nikon and Canon Rebel series in the stores. Right now I'm leaning towards a Sony Alpha. Can anyone speak to its ease of use over the Nikon & Canons?

Thanks!

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Personally I find the Sony's to be very easy to use. I originally had selected a Canon Xsi for my purchase but ran across a great deal on the Sony and decided to go with it. At that time and even now I find the menu's and controls are the most intuitive IMO.

Personal opinions will vary but if you're not used to a particular system then I don't think you'd have a problem with the use. In fact Sony has put a lot of effort into making their DSLR's user friendly to help people who are moving up from P&S cameras.

Which model are you look at?

 

[zackiedawg]

I think in the end, they're all so close to eachother in functionality, and in image quality, that worrying about the brand is low on the list of concerns - and all can perform in simplified 'auto' modes that make it super simple to use, or as advanced as you're willing to go.

That said, here's a few things I'd consider in your shoes:

Have you handled several models? Try this, as each has different button layout, grip design, weight and size, ergonomics, etc. You may find one brand to be more comfortable, familiar, ergonomically fit for you, or of the right size and build. Whether Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, or Olympus, each has their own design and some folks find some work great for them and others downright unusable.

How to you plan on shooting? If leaning towards a mix of viewfinder and 'live view', or using the LCD for shooting, the Sony Alpha system is usually the best choice, with Olympus second. Sony's system is the one that works the most 'normally' in live view mode, in that it doesn't slow down the camera's performance in focus, shutter speed, etc. - it essentially acts just like a P&S camera. Other live view modes are cumbersome and slow, designed to achieve accurate focus while working with tripods or macro modes - not really for handheld walking around. On the other hand, their live view system does compromise their viewfinder size, so if you intend to live off that viewfinder 99.9% of the time and aren't really interested in live view, then the Sony system probably isn't the best choice. Note that any DSLR viewfinder is far bigger than P&S camera viewfinders, so even Sony and Olympus' smallest viewfinders on DSLRs are better than P&S.

What key features are crucial for you? Figure out if there are any 'must have' features you want and are not willing to compromise on, then you can weed out any cameras that don't have those features. The afformentioned live view, 100% viewfinder, mirror lockup, battery life percent meter, etc. Don't get a camera that doesn't have something you really want - you'll end up missing it and disliking the camera.

I ended up with a Sony Alpha when I first came over from a P&S ultrazoom...it took a lot of looking, and handling the cameras to decide. For me, it worked - I didn't want to compromise on having live view capability, even though I only use it for about 25% of my shots, I wanted the live view to be just as fast and usable as viewfinder use, I wanted a battery that read out life remaining in percentages instead of a bar graph, I wanted a substantial grip and heavier camera, and I wanted in-body stabilization. At the time, Sony had all those things on their entry-levels. I shot with that camera for about 2 years, and moved up to a higher Sony model in November last year, to add some additional capabilities. But feel and handling of the cameras was crucial - in between my first model and my current one, Sony released a trio of entry-level cameras with a different design, and I found them very uncomfortable ergonomically for me...so not until they released the A550 model I have now, with a more traditional deep grip design, would I consider getting another Sony. For me, Nikon or Pentax would be my second choice, if I hadn't picked the Sony - again because of feel. For me, Olympus and Canon cameras are very uncomfortable grip designs. Someone else might be 100% different.

So if live view is important to you, the Sony is certainly one of the better choices out there, as long as you find their design and ergonomics to fit you well...if not the best choice. Best of luck!

 

[ukcatfan]

I want to move up from my Panasonic Lumix P&S which I really like but the 10x zoom leaves something to be desired. I'm looking for an entry level SLR so I can get a telephoto lens.

This right here concerns me a little. Your 10x camera probably starts around the 35mm area, so goes to around 350mm. The typical relatively inexpensive tele zoom for a DSLR is a 50-200mm. Given the sensor "crop factor" that lens will give you around 300mm. As you can see that is less reach than your 10X camera. You can get lenses with more reach, but to get a quality one you are talking big bucks. You might be willing to spend that much, but I just wanted to make you aware. If more zoom is what you want the most, then maybe you should consider a new bridge camera instead.

If you do go DSLR, I will put my word in for the Pentax K-x. I absolutely love mine! It is hard to dispute that it is the current best bang for the buck in the entry level models. That alone should not make you run out and buy it, but it should at least be considered. They are running about $500 right now with the kit lens. Or for $700, you can add their 55-300mm lens, which will give you an effective 450mm after the "crop factor". The only downside to adding that lens in the kit is that it only comes in black. The regular kit comes in black, red, white, or navy.

 

[auntfrannie]

Lots of good information and things to consider! I didn't realize there were any P&S with more than a 12x zoom. It's back to the stores for me...although trying to find stores that stock all the different models is proving a challenge. Maybe I'll have better luck if I go to Ritz rather than another Best Buy.

I did handle the Nikon and Canon SLRs but it's hard to get a feel for actual weight and comfort when they're tethered and have the extra piece attached that holds it to the display. I think my biggest fear with the SLRs in general is being overwhelmed by the functionality and features.

....more things to look at! Thanks for your input everyone! Invaluable!

 

[zackiedawg]

One thing to remember looking at ultrazoom cameras is that the 'X' figure is a multiplier of the widest lens setting.

Also, small sensor compact cameras actually have pretty small lens range...it's the 'crop factor' that makes them seem to reach so far. For example, a typical ultrazoom camera will have a lens with a widest setting of 6mm. That sounds ridiculously wide if you were in DSLR world...but you then have to multiply that figure by the small-sensor camera's 6x crop factor. Which will yield what is usually referred to as a '35mm equivalent' of 36mm (6mm x 6x crop factor). Now you know your lens' widest setting. Then, you multiply that figure by the optical zoom ability of the camera - which would be that '10x' you mentioned. So that 36mm equivalent camera can zoom to 360mm equivalent.

Where it gets tricky is when you see cameras advertising 15x and 20x. On rare occasions, the bigger zoom multiplier might not mean the camera can zoom farther into the distance. Some ultrazoom cameras are expanding their widest setting down to 28mm, even 24mm. So if you were to compare a 10x zoom camera with a 36mm wide setting to a 15x zoom camera with a 24mm wide setting...you get the exact same 360mm at the telephoto end! You think you're getting more telephoto out of the 15x, but you're not. The expanded range of the lens is at the wider end.

Not that this is bad - wide is good to have...but just don't get confused by the multiplier they put on the camera.

Also, always ignore anything that says digital zoom. Sometimes, cameras will try to be tricky and say '15x total zoom', and in the fine print they mention that it is 10x optical, 5x digital. That digital portion of the zoom is cropping into your photo, then enlarging it, which really eats into the resolution and can start to look pretty bad. Optical zoom should be your only concern.

If you do decide to go the DSLR route, there are some nifty lenses available nowadays which will act much like an ultrazoom camera...but they're not really cheap. You don't have to go into the serious multi-thousand dollar huge lenses you see professionals using at football games, but $600-800 for a decent flexible lens would be typical. You have to take that into account with the cost of the camera body you are looking at. I personally bought an 18-250mm lens to go with my Sony A300 and A550. It's a nice, flexible lens much like an ultrazoom camera. And because APS-C DSLRs still have some crop factor, the 35mm equivalent of this lens is 27mm to 375mm...all in a compact, reasonably light package (it's basically a 14x zoom). For specific needs, I'll use other lenses for better quality or ability in lower light, or more range, or wider capability...but this lens is my default travel lens on the camera most of the time.

 

[VVFF]

Also, always ignore anything that says digital zoom. Sometimes, cameras will try to be tricky and say '15x total zoom', and in the fine print they mention that it is 10x optical, 5x digital.

I'm just nitpicking your excellent post, but that'd be 50x total zoom

 

[auntfrannie]

Thanks everyone for your excellent advice. I went to Ritz Camera and had a very helpful sales person assist me. I ended up buying a Nikon P90 with the 24x optical zoom. I must admit I'm really torn, though. I also looked at a Nikon D5000 with a 70-300mm lens. The zoom seems about the same as the P90. I have 10 days to decide if I want to take it back and get the D5000 so I'm going to play with it for a few days. Anyone have any familiarity with both of these to offer some guidance on pros/cons of each one?

Thanks!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Thanks everyone for your excellent advice. I went to Ritz Camera and had a very helpful sales person assist me. I ended up buying a Nikon P90 with the 24x optical zoom. I must admit I'm really torn, though. I also looked at a Nikon D5000 with a 70-300mm lens. The zoom seems about the same as the P90. I have 10 days to decide if I want to take it back and get the D5000 so I'm going to play with it for a few days. Anyone have any familiarity with both of these to offer some guidance on pros/cons of each one?

I know you said you wanted a good zoom, but what else drove your decision?

 

[auntfrannie]

I know you said you wanted a good zoom, but what else drove your decision?

Something easy to use. I know the SLRs have AF functionality but to someone new to it, it seems intimidating. It also helped that the P90 was $365 compared to the $1200 I would spend on the D5000 and the zoom lens. Although I'm still on the fence because from what I recall when I tested the D5000 in the store it seemed like the pictures were sharper than wht I'm seeing on pictures I took with the P90 today.

So that's really why I'm on the fence. Is it my imagination or is the D5000 that much better in image quality?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

when I tested the D5000 in the store it seemed like the pictures were sharper than wht I'm seeing on pictures I took with the P90 today.

So that's really why I'm on the fence. Is it my imagination or is the D5000 that much better in image quality?

The dSLR has a much bigger image sensor compared to the bridge camera (technically still a point and shoot). So no, it's not your imagination.

Maybe someone can break out the image sensor diagram? I think I saw it the other day somewhere, will see if I can find it for you. I know Groucho posts his regularly.

Look here at the diagram under Sensor Size: http://www.vistek.ca/buyingguides/dslrs/

 

[auntfrannie]

Here are some samples of pictures I took today with the P90. Taken at full 24x zoom about 20' feet away.

 

[MICKEY88]

even though it's a smaller sensor you should still be able to get sharp pictures with it,

one thing to consider is that at a24x zoom, the more you zoom/magnify your subject, the more obvious any camera movement is..

also

a smaller camera is actually more difficult to hold still, especiallly if you use the lcd to compose your shot , rather than a viewfinder...

with dslr's most people hold them close to your faceor actually against it, with arms in tight to your body, which steadies the camera... with p&s most people hold them away from the body to compose with lcd, which promotes camera movement when tripping shutter..

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Here are some samples of pictures I took today with the P90. Taken at full 24x zoom about 20' feet away.

Those look great!

A lot of the difference you'll see between the two types of cameras is with low light shooting. Daytime photos are usually not a problem.

 

[boBQuincy]

This review shows the difference between a good P&S and a larger sensor Micro 4/3. The APS-C SLR would be even better, so yes, there is a considerable difference. It won't show up much until we get to high ISO or much enlargement but it is there alright.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/g11.shtml

 

[auntfrannie]

I want to thank everyone for the great input I received! I've been w/o a computer for the past several days and am just getting a chance to respond now. A lot of good information was provided and there's soooo much for me to learn before I move to a true dSLR. Thanks again!!