Please help me decide if a DSLR is right for me

[WanderlustNZ]

Hi everyone,

I have been taking pics for quite a few years with a Panasonic bridge camera (FZ100). To the most part I've really liked the camera and been happy with my day shots. But the indoor and nighttime pics have been a constant disappointment. Eager to take some great nighttime pics at WDW in just under 5 months time, I decided that I wanted a camera that performs better in low-light.

About a week ago I went out to buy the Sony Rx100, but the store had sold out. While waiting for them to restock, I have been doing heaps of research into cameras including entry-level DSLRs. I have been reading websites such as the Disney Tourist Blog and the Disney Photography Blog and have been getting some serious photo envy. I realise that as great as the Sony RX100 looks, if I want to one day take photos as good as the ones I've been seeing, I need to think about learning how to use a DSLR.

On the flipside, the Sony really appeals in the fact that I can carry it around it my handbag, a P&S fits well into my busy lifestyle, and I am finding all that needs to be learnt about DSLRs quite overwhelming.

I'm curious. Has anyone out there spent a lot of money on a good P&S only to wish they'd jumped straight into an entry-level DSLR? Or vice versa - have you spent a lot of money on a DSLR only to find that it's cumbersome and you can't be bothered taking it anywhere.

For those who understand DSLRs well, did it take you a while to get to that stage, or did most things make sense right from the start? I'm slowly starting to understand things like aperture, shutter settings, and RAW vs. Jpeg, but a lot of camera terminology is still like another language to me. In other words, with 4.5 months to go, have I left it to late to learn how to use a DSLR properly (or at least reasonably well)?

Lastly, the most expensive DSLR I would consider is the Canon 650d (T4i in the U.S. I believe). I've seen a package with 2 lens (18-55 IS and a 55-250IS) and another slightly more expensive package with one lens (18-135 IS). Lens size is part of that camera terminology I really don't understand, but if I can get away with traveling with one lens as opposed to two, it makes my issues around bulk and size slightly less of a concern. So if someone could explain to me in very simple terms how the one lens compares to having the 2, I would really really appreciate it. Similarly how does the size of the lens relate to the zoom? I'm so used to thinking in terms of optical zoom.

Apologies for all the questions. Any advice you can give me would be much appreciated

 

[havoc315]

As a proud owner of a RX100, and a dSLR with a huge lens collection.... I may be able to give you helpful answers, or not.

In learning photography, a dSLR is typically best, because it has the full range of manual controls, it usually has the easiest access to the controls (direct buttons instead of cycling through tons of menus). And once you learn on a dSLR, it's pretty easy to apply that knowledge to any other camera.
That said --- The RX100 is nearly as good as a learning camera. It has the full range of controls. It has direct accessibility nearly as good as a dSLR, in some ways better than some dSLRs. It's not perfect -- I don't love manual focus on the RX100, for example. But overall, I wouldn't be afraid of taking the RX100 and learning photography on it.

Let's lay out the differences between the 2 options:
Size -- RX100 small, compact. Easy to take EVERYWHERE. And many people will say, the best camera is the one you have with you. You'll potentially use the RX100 more than you would a dSLR, as you can easily carry the RX100 24/7.
Downside of being small -- not always as comfortable in the hand. Harder to manipulate the buttons and controls than on a nice big body.

Now looking at performance and quality --- a dSLR is NOT automatically better than the RX100. The overall quality of the RX100 can overall easily match a typical dSLR, unless you are using ultra expensive lenses on the dSLR.
So comparing the RX100 to a mid-level dSLR with generic lenses, each camera will still have certain strengths and weaknesses when it comes to performance and quality.

-The RX100 can deliver great low light performance. It is 1 of the few (if not the only) P&S that can reliably be used to take dark-ride pics at Disney. A dSLR would be better in low light, BUT ONLY if you add yet another lens. (The lenses you are considering would not let you take dark ride pics).
-The RX100 can deliver super sharp landscapes. Typically, I think the RX100 delivers landscapes just as good as a dSLR.

-A dSLR will typically be able to focus slightly faster and slightly more reliably than the RX100. the RX100 is good in this regard, a dSLR is usually a little better. This is important when shooting sports and action.
-A dSLR can better achieve narrow Depth of Field over the RX100. That means background blur. Look at some of the great portraits on this board, and you will see how the entire background in blurred, and just the subject is sharp. This is easier to achieve with a bigger sensor. The RX100 does it better than most compact cameras. But a dSLR still does it much much better.
- The telephoto zoom of the RX100 is limited. The range is 28mm to 100mm. Consider that about a 3.5X zoom. Not a tremendous amount. And you can't increase it with additional lenses. Though, the reality is, the 28mm-100mm lens is perfectly adequate for MOST photographs. But if you are on the safari at Animal Kingdom, you will want more than 100mm.

For me --- If I'm just on the go, I have the RX100 with me. If I'm taking landscapes, I'll use either camera. If I want to take candids inconspicuously, I use the tiny RX100. If I want to take more formal portraits, I use the dSLR. If I'm shooting my kids playing sports, I use the dSLR.

Now to try to help you with focal lengths.

Typically 1x on a compact camera is equivalent to 25-30mm. So 250mm would be 10x.
BUT.... Most dSLRs also have a crop factor. (I am sorry if this is getting confusing.) Nikon/Pentax/Sony have a 1.5 crop factor. Canon has about 1.6.
So a 100mm lens on a Canon, equates to 160mm.

So 18-135 is really (on Canon) --29mm to 216mm. Or about a 7x zoom.
A very good range for 90% of use. About twice the reach of the RX100. But still a bit short for things like sports and the Animal Kingdom Safari, where you may want even more.
Typically, you shouldn't fear changing lenses. That's a major point of owning a dSLR -- changing the lens, so you have the right lens for the right job.

If I were you, I'd also look at the Sony A57 while it's on clearance, before it sells out. It's a great chance to get a great camera at a excellent price. Personally, I feel it's a better camera than the Canon t4i, and should be cheaper right now. It would give you all the advantages of a dSLR (except that it uses an electronic viewfinder instead of optical), while also giving you many of the best compact features you are used to. (Excellent live view system --- Most dSLRs really require you to use the viewfinder, and they suffer limitations if you use the LCD screen to take pictures. On the Sony A57, you can use either the viewfinder or the LCD screen, without any compromises).

 

[mikegood2]

Have you considered a micro 4/3 (mirror less) camera? If you don't have a DSLR and lenses yet, I think this may be the way to go. Personally, if I were starting from scratch I think thats the way I'd go and it appears to be the way the photography industry is going. They give you the convenience of being able to add lenses to your collection and quality that is not very far off from the DSLR. They also are considerably smaller and less bulky than a DSLR.

As far as as dSLR's go do you have any friends that have any specific brand? Sometimes having the same brand can be very useful, because they can help you out and better yet, you might be able to borrow lenses. The Canon T4i, my current DSLR, is a great camera that you should be very happy with. If you're able to afford it, or you get a good deal, I'd go with the 18-135. It's a great Walk around lens and let you get by with one lens at first. That's until you get the lens bug and need to get more.

I've gotta take off for awhile and hopefully some others can give you a good explanation of lenses. If not, I'll try to help you out when I have some time later tonight.

 

[mikegood2]

And of course after I reply Havoc315 chimes in. it looks like he's got a lot of useful info for you.

 

[havoc315]

Oh... learning speed. The more you learn, the better your photographs will be. But, dSLRs have fully automatic modes just like compact cameras.
The RX100 has as much to learn as a dSLR.

 

[havoc315]

Have you considered a micro 4/3 (mirror less) camera? If you don't have a DSLR and lenses yet, I think this may be the way to go. Personally, if I were starting from scratch I think thats the way I'd go and it appears to be the way the photography industry is going. They give you the convenience of being able to add lenses to your collection and quality that is not very far off from the DSLR. They also are considerably smaller and less bulky than a DSLR.

As far as as dSLR's go do you have any friends that have any specific brand? Sometimes having the same brand can be very useful, because they can help you out and better yet, you might be able to borrow lenses. The Canon T4i, my current DSLR, is a great camera that you should be very happy with. If you're able to afford it, or you get a good deal, I'd go with the 18-135. It's a great Walk around lens and let you get by with one lens at first. That's until you get the lens bug and need to get more.

I've gotta take off for awhile and hopefully some others can give you a good explanation of lenses. If not, I'll try to help you out when I have some time later tonight.

Good points. I certainly wasn't disparaging the t4i.. it is an excellent all around camera. I was only recommended the A57 because it is a particularly good value due to some weird Sony decision making. (replacing it with an inferior camera... and thus now pricing it below the inferior camera that is replacing it).

Micro 4/3s.... Sony NEX system, the new Canon SL1, are all options to essentially get dSLR quality (or very close to dSLR quality), get most of the dSLR functionality, and get it in a smaller package.
Canon SL1 -- actual dSLR, but made smaller.
Sony NEX -- Actual dSLR sensor and quality, but in more of a compact camera body. Lacking a few of the advantages of a true dSLR/SLT.
Micro 4/3rd -- covers quite a spectrum, some are more dSLR-like, some are more compact-camera-like. But the format and sensor size allows for quality pretty close to dSLR.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

Oh... learning speed. The more you learn, the better your photographs will be. But, dSLRs have fully automatic modes just like compact cameras.
The RX100 has as much to learn as a dSLR.

You are awesome

Everything you said made sense and I found it very useful. It sounds like perhaps, at this stage, the rx100 may suit my needs just fine.
Sports and action shots aren't really important to me, my main interest is beautiful landscapes. But for this Disney trip, I also really want to be able to take good low-light shots.
Right now it sounds like the main benefit to a DSLR would be the soft-background shots which I really am fond of. I will look into the other Sony you mentioned as well as the mirror-less cameras as it sounds like there are lots of great options out there.

I've been reading a lot of forums where people who ask simple beginner questions like me get some pretty rude answers - particularly when it comes to comparing lens types to optical zoom. So thanks so much for taking the time to explain things in a simple, non-judgemental way.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

Have you considered a micro 4/3 (mirror less) camera? If you don't have a DSLR and lenses yet, I think this may be the way to go. Personally, if I were starting from scratch I think thats the way I'd go and it appears to be the way the photography industry is going. They give you the convenience of being able to add lenses to your collection and quality that is not very far off from the DSLR. They also are considerably smaller and less bulky than a DSLR.

As far as as dSLR's go do you have any friends that have any specific brand? Sometimes having the same brand can be very useful, because they can help you out and better yet, you might be able to borrow lenses. The Canon T4i, my current DSLR, is a great camera that you should be very happy with. If you're able to afford it, or you get a good deal, I'd go with the 18-135. It's a great Walk around lens and let you get by with one lens at first. That's until you get the lens bug and need to get more.

I've gotta take off for awhile and hopefully some others can give you a good explanation of lenses. If not, I'll try to help you out when I have some time later tonight.

Thank you Mikegood for your help as well. I really appreciate it. I am going to investigate mirror-less cameras today.

 

[Luvscrappin]

I've been reading a lot of forums where people who ask simple beginner questions like me get some pretty rude answers - particularly when it comes to comparing lens types to optical zoom. So thanks so much for taking the time to explain things in a simple, non-judgemental way.

^^^^THIS x 10!
Thank you havoc315!

 

[mickey1968]

WanderlustNZ, it sounds like you and I are in the same spot trying to make a decision. I think I have narrowed it down to the Sony RX100 or either the Nikon D3200 or 5200. My biggest want/need is to take some great shots of dark rides, fireworks and especially the nighttime Boo to You Parade for Halloween at WDW. I also love to read and drool over the shots on Disney Tourist Blog (Tom Bricker sometimes uses an RX100 too) and The Disney Photography Blog (Corey has made me want to reproduce those gorgeous bokeh backgrounds!). But I also am thankful for Havoc and Mike and others who have given helpful answers.

I still haven't made up my mind but this thread has given me more to think about!

 

[cjstarr]

WanderlustNZ all I can add to this is the dslr is going to give you the best of both worlds. That is you will be able to take telephoto shots with lens like the 70-300mm or 70-200mm also be able to take low-light in-door shots with a 30mm, 35mm, or 50mm with a f/1.4 or 1.8.

I have a sony a57 and before that I had a sony a100. I started out with a P&S 2 in fact but found I could not get the pictures that I wanted. So instead of getting another P&S I made the jump to dslr and i'm glad I did or other wise I would be wasting money on buying different P&S. The reason I went with the sony was for the built in stabilization. This is not present on the Nikon or Canon. With those you have to pay extra for the lens in order to get stabilization.

 

[havoc315]

A point about Disney dark ride pics.
You need good high ISO performance and a fast lens (aperture of 1.8 typically).

The rx100 has the appropriate 1.8 lens, and sufficient ISO performance.
Newer dslrs will have even better high ISO performance, but you absolutely must invest in a 1.8 prime lens to truly get the very-dark ride pics.

.. And you really need to use some manual settings for dark rides.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

WanderlustNZ, it sounds like you and I are in the same spot trying to make a decision. I think I have narrowed it down to the Sony RX100 or either the Nikon D3200 or 5200. My biggest want/need is to take some great shots of dark rides, fireworks and especially the nighttime Boo to You Parade for Halloween at WDW. I also love to read and drool over the shots on Disney Tourist Blog (Tom Bricker sometimes uses an RX100 too) and The Disney Photography Blog (Corey has made me want to reproduce those gorgeous bokeh backgrounds!). But I also am thankful for Havoc and Mike and others who have given helpful answers.

I still haven't made up my mind but this thread has given me more to think about!

Great to know I'm not alone

 

[WanderlustNZ]

Good points. I certainly wasn't disparaging the t4i.. it is an excellent all around camera. I was only recommended the A57 because it is a particularly good value due to some weird Sony decision making. (replacing it with an inferior camera... and thus now pricing it below the inferior camera that is replacing it).

Micro 4/3s.... Sony NEX system, the new Canon SL1, are all options to essentially get dSLR quality (or very close to dSLR quality), get most of the dSLR functionality, and get it in a smaller package.
Canon SL1 -- actual dSLR, but made smaller.
Sony NEX -- Actual dSLR sensor and quality, but in more of a compact camera body. Lacking a few of the advantages of a true dSLR/SLT.
Micro 4/3rd -- covers quite a spectrum, some are more dSLR-like, some are more compact-camera-like. But the format and sensor size allows for quality pretty close to dSLR.

I have just had a brief look at mirrorless cameras and they definitely look to be a great size. But the picture-quality compared to other types of cameras is confusing me.

Picture-wise, do you know how a basic model mirrorless (say the Sony NEX 3N) compares to the Sony RX100?

 

[WanderlustNZ]

A point about Disney dark ride pics.
You need good high ISO performance and a fast lens (aperture of 1.8 typically).

The rx100 has the appropriate 1.8 lens, and sufficient ISO performance.
Newer dslrs will have even better high ISO performance, but you absolutely must invest in a 1.8 prime lens to truly get the very-dark ride pics.

.. And you really need to use some manual settings for dark rides.

There is a tri-lens package with the Canon that includes the 18-55 and 55-250 as well as a 50mm F1.8 II. Once again that means nothing to me, but do I take from your comment that this is the sort of lense I would need for dark shots? Without this lense, would the RX100 take better night shots? This tri package is really at the extremes of my budget.

Sorry if you have infact already answered this question, I'm just trying to get my head around it.

By the way, I should have mentioned that Full HD video is also important to me. Not as important as the photos, but I like having it as a aspect of the camera.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

WanderlustNZ all I can add to this is the dslr is going to give you the best of both worlds. That is you will be able to take telephoto shots with lens like the 70-300mm or 70-200mm also be able to take low-light in-door shots with a 30mm, 35mm, or 50mm with a f/1.4 or 1.8.

I have a sony a57 and before that I had a sony a100. I started out with a P&S 2 in fact but found I could not get the pictures that I wanted. So instead of getting another P&S I made the jump to dslr and i'm glad I did or other wise I would be wasting money on buying different P&S. The reason I went with the sony was for the built in stabilization. This is not present on the Nikon or Canon. With those you have to pay extra for the lens in order to get stabilization.

You make a good point about the image stabilization. I've always had that in P&S's and I like it.
The Sony a57 isn't quite as cheap here in NZ as I gather it presently is in the U.S. But I will keep investigating to try and find out more.

 

[hakepb]

I have just had a brief look at mirrorless cameras and they definitely look to be a great size. But the picture-quality compared to other types of cameras is confusing me.

Picture-wise, do you know how a basic model mirrorless (say the Sony NEX 3N) compares to the Sony RX100?

The RX100 Zeiss Lens is arguably better than the NEX kit lens. But with better lenses, the larger, higher rated sensor in the NEX should get better IQ.

Note, Sony limits the 3N to a max ISO of "only" 16000 while the RX and 5+ series NEX can go higher in trick modes.

 

[cjstarr]

You make a good point about the image stabilization. I've always had that in P&S's and I like it.
The Sony a57 isn't quite as cheap here in NZ as I gather it presently is in the U.S. But I will keep investigating to try and find out more.

Just so you know WanderlustNZ I found my a57 on ebay, cost $480 w/lens.
The person that sold it to me had it for only 3 months and it was in like new condition.
There are some real good deals out there like this one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-alpha-...717865?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item4172f7d169

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I have just had a brief look at mirrorless cameras and they definitely look to be a great size. But the picture-quality compared to other types of cameras is confusing me.

The pictures any one photographer gets are going to vary greatly, even using the exact same camera. There is no need to be confused about it. Specs aside - Mirrorless will give you pictures that rival those you can take with a dSLR, provided you learn to use the camera well and perhaps get some specialized lenses (as opposed to kit lenses), just like you would a dSLR. You are right about their being less bulky overall (for the most part). There is a Mirrorless thread here, you can see shots that these types of cameras are capable of getting.

A word about Micro 4:3. They are not "dSLR like" or "compact camera like". In fact, Olympus PEN cameras have the same sensors of their 4:3 Olympus dSLR cousins - the mirror is just taken out, allowing a smaller overall package. They have Image Stabilization, dust reduction, excellent quality lenses (half the battle of good pictures), good video capabilities and a host of other great things about them. Plus, they're small-ish. Definitely worth a look, and of course, learning more about.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

As for this question

For those who understand DSLRs well, did it take you a while to get to that stage, or did most things make sense right from the start? I'm slowly starting to understand things like aperture, shutter settings, and RAW vs. Jpeg, but a lot of camera terminology is still like another language to me. In other words, with 4.5 months to go, have I left it to late to learn how to use a DSLR properly (or at least reasonably well)?

A lot depends on your photography background and your understanding of technology. For many people, it can be quite an undertaking, and takes anywhere from 6 months to several years to get pretty good at it. I found that there are three real components you have to become proficient at: 1) your camera's technology, 2) principles of photography, and 3) post processing skills. The more time you can put into studying these, and of course, actually using them - such as getting out and shooting in all kinds of conditions - the more you will be well on your way. My own observation is that people who studied photography early on (say, in high school or college) have a real advantage to those coming into it later on. They know things intuitively that are hard for others to pick up on their own. But it's not impossible for latecomers.

Some people know they can't be bothered with all of this, and stick with a pns or a bridge camera, etc. Some have no idea what they're getting themselves into but are content to keep their cameras on Auto whether they ever do or not. I think the best way (because you get the most out of it) is to go in with your eyes open and full force, knowing there's going to be a learning curve, but realizing eventually you may wind up with some fairly good shots, especially if you put the time and effort in. We have seen people here before who think getting a dSLR is the magic bullet to automatically getting spectacular pictures, and are sadly disappointed when they realize it's not, (i.e. you can still get some pretty bad shots with a dSLR).

So my advice is to really be honest with yourself about what you have to put into it, what you realistically want to carry around with you, and what type of technology you think will suit you best. Good luck whatever you choose.