Possibly my first DSLR/Bridge Camera

[wrestlefan2]

Sorry for asking this. I'm probably the 100 Billionth person to do so..lol.

Looking at getting my first DSLR or Bridge camera. I don't have much of a budget over the entry level dslr/high end p&s models. Manufacturer is not a concern for me like some people I know. More people I know use Nikon, but anything...Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus would work for me (or any other brand you can think of). I have tried Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras and they all feel good in my hands. I have no stock of lenses so I can easily go to any brand and start my collection from there.

I am a budding hobbyist/enthusiast (read "not a pro in anyway shape or form") and not looking to make money off of my shots, but do want to get some decent pics when I go to Disney World this Easter with my family to hopefully hang on my walls at home.

Now after researching the past few years about cameras (both bridge and dslrs, hoping for dslr more so to be honest), here is what I'd hope to get for my money.

I know I may not be able to get all of these features in the camera that I would dream of getting at the price I can afford ($550 for body and starter kit lens...I'd even go refurbished/used if in good quality to save money to get a better overall camera). I don't have to worry about a bag as a friend (she's a semi-pro photographer) has many third party camera bags (reg and dslr ones) and said if I get a camera, she'd let me have one of her older no longer wanted ones that will fit my camera.

1.) Hoping to get good quality 8x10s or even 11x14s to hang on the wall...maybe even 16x20 but anything bigger would be to bug for my calls...but I can dream of that size and good 5x7s for my desk at work.

2.) HDR (I know it can be done via post processing with the right program, but I'd love it if the camera could have it built it as well)

3.) Low-Light Night time shots (when in Disney World for inside shots of dark rides and when at home for pic of night time sky and the moon and for good inside stadium pics...hopefully I can get it into a major stadium so I can get decent shots of WrestleMania 30 when I go which is before my WDW trip)

4.) Selective Color (for when I want to get creative for photos)

5.) In camera panoramas (not needed, since I can do with a program, but a plus to have...especially if I could do Selective color and/or HDR panoramas)

6.) Pics of my kids (especially playing outside).

7.) Animal pics (like of my dog or at a local zoo and even smaller like insects)

8.) I do movie extra work, so something that would give good quality pics (head shots and full body shots) that I could send to companies when applying for extra roles.

I know that I can get a lot more out of my camera by truly learning my camera and better lenses (if I get a dslr).

I know in the realm of Nikon DSLRs, I could never afford the 7000 series with my budget, but could get a refurbished 5100 or 5200 and a new 3100 or 3200 with my price range at local shops around my area.

Any advice on what you would get if looking for these specs. Want to get it from a store by end of next week or order it from online at latest this weekend. Want to have it for WrestleMania 30, My brother's wedding (the week aft WM30), then WDW (week after wedding)

Thanks

 

[DSLRuser]

this is the wrong site for your research. yes, there are a lot of smart people on here who would be glad to help, but you will be better off going to a site like

http://www.dpreview.com/

 

[Frantasmic]

Prioritize you wants from top to bottom. You can accomplish most of your goals with an entry-level dslr; however, your budget will not allow you to obtain all your goals with an entry level lens set up.

Many here will tell you technique will go a long way toward obtaining what you want. I agree for the most part. However, if you want a clear shot of the darkest parts of Pirates, Splash Mountain, Peter Pan, or the Haunted Mansion, IMO, to get the shot you are probably really wanting, you will need more than the kit lens.

 

[havoc315]

Addressing some points in red:

Sorry for asking this. I'm probably the 100 Billionth person to do so..lol.

Looking at getting my first DSLR or Bridge camera.

You seem to be referring to dSLRs and bridge cameras as being related to each other. Bridge cameras are just P&S cameras stuck into a body that looks like a dSLR. Often, they are worse than most P&S cameras.

The cameras you should be looking at are:
dSLRs
Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras
Enthusiast level compacts/bridge cameras.

I don't have much of a budget over the entry level dslr/high end p&s models. Manufacturer is not a concern for me like some people I know. More people I know use Nikon, but anything...Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus would work for me (or any other brand you can think of). I have tried Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras and they all feel good in my hands. I have no stock of lenses so I can easily go to any brand and start my collection from there.

I am a budding hobbyist/enthusiast (read "not a pro in anyway shape or form") and not looking to make money off of my shots, but do want to get some decent pics when I go to Disney World this Easter with my family to hopefully hang on my walls at home.

Now after researching the past few years about cameras (both bridge and dslrs, hoping for dslr more so to be honest), here is what I'd hope to get for my money.

I know I may not be able to get all of these features in the camera that I would dream of getting at the price I can afford ($550 for body and starter kit lens...I'd even go refurbished/used if in good quality to save money to get a better overall camera). I don't have to worry about a bag as a friend (she's a semi-pro photographer) has many third party camera bags (reg and dslr ones) and said if I get a camera, she'd let me have one of her older no longer wanted ones that will fit my camera.

1.) Hoping to get good quality 8x10s or even 11x14s to hang on the wall...maybe even 16x20 but anything bigger would be to bug for my calls...but I can dream of that size and good 5x7s for my desk at work.

Practically every modern camera can do that now. Five years ago, it was a stretch for some cameras. But after the megapixel war, it's not really an issue. Any camera over 12-16mp should easily give you a quality 11X14.

2.) HDR (I know it can be done via post processing with the right program, but I'd love it if the camera could have it built it as well)

Sony cameras implement this really really well in-camera. I believe newer Canons can do it. Not sure about Pentax and Nikon.

3.) Low-Light Night time shots (when in Disney World for inside shots of dark rides and when at home for pic of night time sky and the moon and for good inside stadium pics...hopefully I can get it into a major stadium so I can get decent shots of WrestleMania 30 when I go which is before my WDW trip)

Night time pics have little to do with the camera. It's more about using the right lens, and often about using a tripod. Dark rides in particular, absolutely require a fast lens -- Something like a 35/1.4, though you can often get a 50/1.8 very cheaply. I shoot Sony, which can accept old Minolta lenses. I'm actually about to sell my Minolta 50/1.7 and hope to get around $50-$75 on eBay for it, and it is a pretty effective lens for dark rides. (I've upgraded to an even better 50/1.4).
For many of the great night time shots you see on this board, they were done with a tripod -- an exposure that went several seconds, even up to a minute long in some cases.

4.) Selective Color (for when I want to get creative for photos)
Newer Sony cameras have this feature, not sure about other brands. But truthfully, you are far better off simply doing this yourself i n post-processing.

5.) In camera panoramas (not needed, since I can do with a program, but a plus to have...especially if I could do Selective color and/or HDR panoramas)
Newer Sony dSLRs do panoramas quite well. Not sure which other brands have it or not.


6.) Pics of my kids (especially playing outside).

Every brand will be equally capable. Though where you will see a difference, is different brands and different have different quality live view. If you are shooting through the viewfinder, every camera will do equally well. But if you want to shoot through the LCD screen, some cameras have fixed screens, some have articulating screens. Most cameras have slower autofocus when using the LCD. But Sony dSLTs and the Canon 70D both allow full phase detect AF when using the LCD.

7.) Animal pics (like of my dog or at a local zoo and even smaller like insects)

A zoo requires a good long telephoto lens. (I use a 70-300). Insects require a dedicated macro lens. It's the lens, not the camera.

8.) I do movie extra work, so something that would give good quality pics (head shots and full body shots) that I could send to companies when applying for extra roles.

All modern cameras can take equally good portraits. A better lens will offer improvement.

I know that I can get a lot more out of my camera by truly learning my camera and better lenses (if I get a dslr).

I know in the realm of Nikon DSLRs, I could never afford the 7000 series with my budget, but could get a refurbished 5100 or 5200 and a new 3100 or 3200 with my price range at local shops around my area.

Any advice on what you would get if looking for these specs. Want to get it from a store by end of next week or order it from online at latest this weekend. Want to have it for WrestleMania 30, My brother's wedding (the week aft WM30), then WDW (week after wedding)

Thanks

I'd look at the Sony A65 with kit lens, for $600 new. Heck of a camera... has all those extra features you asked about. In-body stabilization, 24mp. Full time auto focus in live view. Electronic viewfinder instead of optical, but a top top quality EVF. Can shoot 10 frames per second. 24mp.

It's basically at clearance pricing now, as the model is a bit older. But IMHO, it's more for your money than some of the other similarly priced cameras. Especially since it sounds like you will need to add more lenses in the future -- Sony gives you access to the library of used Minolta lenses, many of which can be found quite cheaply but are excellent lenses. (And they become stabilized thanks to the Sony in body stabilization system. Pentax also has in body stabilization. But Nikon and Canon rely on lens based stabilization, so older lenses are not stabilized. Furthermore, the Nikon entry level bodies no longer have focus motors, so they only work with newer lenses with focus motors built in).

Of course, Nikon/Canon/Pentax also all offer cameras that should meet most of your needs quite well. In the end, the image quality is indistinguishable between brands.

 

[Skywise]

I'd look at a used Canon T2i or a T3i -Maybe a Canon EOS-M system which uses the T2i/T3i's sensor.

 

[firemanchip]

I use the T3i and it`s a good camera. You can get one with a kit lens brand new for $600.00.

 

[wrestlefan2]

thanks for the replies. I posted on dpreview but as of now, no response so I posted here as well.

Never thought abut the Sony camera though I do have a friend who sold all of her Nikon stuff (some in the 2,000+ range for body only) and is switching over to Sony...she's a professional photographer too, maybe a reason for that.

trying to decide whether MILC or DSLR would be better in the long run. If I did the panorama and selective color online but wanted to keep the hdr and low light and hopefully have gps and/or wifi on it (even if adapter needed to be bought), any model's you'd choose?

 

[photo_chick]

Sorry for asking this. I'm probably the 100 Billionth person to do so..lol.

Looking at getting my first DSLR or Bridge camera. I don't have much of a budget over the entry level dslr/high end p&s models. Manufacturer is not a concern for me like some people I know. More people I know use Nikon, but anything...Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus would work for me (or any other brand you can think of). I have tried Nikon, Canon, and Sony cameras and they all feel good in my hands. I have no stock of lenses so I can easily go to any brand and start my collection from there.

I am a budding hobbyist/enthusiast (read "not a pro in anyway shape or form") and not looking to make money off of my shots, but do want to get some decent pics when I go to Disney World this Easter with my family to hopefully hang on my walls at home.

Understand that any camera on the market will do this in bright light. And when you get into low light situations it will still take knowing how to use the camera and in the case of a DSLR more than a kit lens to get the shot.

Now after researching the past few years about cameras (both bridge and dslrs, hoping for dslr more so to be honest), here is what I'd hope to get for my money.

I know I may not be able to get all of these features in the camera that I would dream of getting at the price I can afford ($550 for body and starter kit lens...I'd even go refurbished/used if in good quality to save money to get a better overall camera). I don't have to worry about a bag as a friend (she's a semi-pro photographer) has many third party camera bags (reg and dslr ones) and said if I get a camera, she'd let me have one of her older no longer wanted ones that will fit my camera.

1.) Hoping to get good quality 8x10s or even 11x14s to hang on the wall...maybe even 16x20 but anything bigger would be to bug for my calls...but I can dream of that size and good 5x7s for my desk at work.

You can get good 16x20 prints from a 4MP point and shoot if you know how. So any camera on the market should do this for you.

2.) HDR (I know it can be done via post processing with the right program, but I'd love it if the camera could have it built it as well)

Be aware of what in camera HDR is and what it isn't. I'd suggest doing more research in that area before deciding it's a feature you have to have.

3.) Low-Light Night time shots (when in Disney World for inside shots of dark rides and when at home for pic of night time sky and the moon and for good inside stadium pics...hopefully I can get it into a major stadium so I can get decent shots of WrestleMania 30 when I go which is before my WDW trip)

Consistent success with low light shooting takes knowledge. Once you have an understanding of what it takes then you'll know what you need in a camera. And you're also talking about 3 different types of shooting here... low light rides at WDW is some of the toughest low light shooting you can do and does take some specific equipment. Moon shots take a camera and a tripod. It can be done with a point and shoot that allows control over the exposure value. WrestleMania would take something similar to what you'd use for a sporting event, another type of shooting that has it's own set of issues to deal with.

4.) Selective Color (for when I want to get creative for photos)

This is super easy to accomplish in editing.

5.) In camera panoramas (not needed, since I can do with a program, but a plus to have...especially if I could do Selective color and/or HDR panoramas)

I love the panorama feature on my smartphone. Yes, I can do it in Photoshop, but my phone makes it so much easier.

6.) Pics of my kids (especially playing outside).

Pretty much any camera can get outside shots of kids playing if you know how to use it.

7.) Animal pics (like of my dog or at a local zoo and even smaller like insects)

Any camera with a long lens can do this. Many of the higher end point and shoots that perform well in low light will not have a really long focal length lens.

8.) I do movie extra work, so something that would give good quality pics (head shots and full body shots) that I could send to companies when applying for extra roles.

This is ALL in knowing how to shoot a headshot. If you know how to set it up you can get great head shots with any camera. This is a large part of my professional work these days and it comes down to lighting, hair, makeup and posing. The camera really doesn't matter as much as long as it has the resolution you need, which pretty much everything on the market does these days. There are also focal length considerations that go with shooting head shots, but even a point and shoot can accommodate those.

I know that I can get a lot more out of my camera by truly learning my camera and better lenses (if I get a dslr).

I can't stress enough how much the learning part of this matters. It makes all the difference in the world.

I know in the realm of Nikon DSLRs, I could never afford the 7000 series with my budget, but could get a refurbished 5100 or 5200 and a new 3100 or 3200 with my price range at local shops around my area.

Any advice on what you would get if looking for these specs. Want to get it from a store by end of next week or order it from online at latest this weekend. Want to have it for WrestleMania 30, My brother's wedding (the week aft WM30), then WDW (week after wedding)

Thanks

You haven't really listed any specs that help narrow down to a camera. Some of the things you want can be accomplished with any camera. The panorama, selective color and HDR features shout point and shoot. And the versatility for a few situations would be better suited to a DSLR with a full bag of lenses.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Each one of us has our prejudices (the good kind) for the manufacturer we personally chose for our system. I am a Pentax shooter. It really depends on what you require for your system. Pentax' claim to fame is there smallish, weather sealed bodies, a growing list of WR(weather resistant) lenses, backward compatibility with almost every Pentax lens made (with certain restrictions, i.e., no AF on some), in-body stabilization so any lens is automatically stabilized and their prime lenses. There weak point is their lack of a full frame line of cameras and fast, zoom lenses for sports (there are there third party lenses available which I use because I am a motorsports photographer). Now saying all that, this past year Pentax released a new entry level camera called the K-500. The main difference between it and the rest of their DSLR line is that it is not weather sealed. This is like all the other manufacturers entry level cameras out there. They are selling the K-500 with a DAL 18-55 lens for $399 at B & H. See the website below. The DAL lens is, again, their, entry level lens that has the same optics as the newer WR (weather resistant) version, just isn't weather sealed. It has a polycarbonate mounting ring vs metal of the WR and does not come with a hood. They also have a kit that includes an additional DAL version of the 50-200 mm lens for $499. This is Pentax' entry level camera system. If you want to move up there is the weather sealed K-50 with the WR version of the 18-55 lens for $596 and with the WR version of the 50-200 $696. The K50 kits give you a completely weather resistant system like no others at that price point. These are not waterproof, but are sealed to prevent damage from light rain showers, snow, etc. The K-50 and K-500 both use the now near legendary 16.3 mp Sony sensor that many manufacturers have used (including Nikon and Sony). It has a great usable high ISO range that is almost unmatched in its dynamic range for lowlight shooting with an APS-C system. The one cool thing about the K-50 is that not only does it come in colors, but you have it in a wide range of custom colors providing you want to wait for it to be manufactured. Recently, there has been a move, including Pentax, to move to a new 24 mp sensor. IMHO, I'm not yet sold on the idea of that sensor and recently chose to purchase a K5iis with the 16mp sensor over the newer flagship camera of the Pentax line, the K-3. Here is the B & H photo website listing all the Pentax options.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Pentax&ci=6222&N=4288586280+4291284238

 

[wrestlefan2]

Didn't think about that. Will be looking into the Pentax ones as well, I do like that for $500 plus tax and or shipping you can get 2 starter lenses. Can you buy their lenses outside of online and in a regular store? (I know a newbie question, but that is what I am)

I was looking at the Sony Alpha line...looking at the a65 right now...which does have the interchangeable lenses (though not as many to choose from as Nikon or Canon) and has the hdr, panoramic, and other modes I'm looking for.

It does have the hdr (and yes I know what it is and does, I've done lots of research on it and know it can be done in programs outside of the camera, but I do like the affect that it makes) and in panoramic stitching as though not really needed is a want more than anything and full h d video.

I'm also looking at the Panasonic Lumix FZ70 (has hdr and panoramic and full hd video). It does have a reported 60x zoom (equivalent to 3.58mm to 215mm zoom) and the Canon SX50 (which also goes to 125mm zoom equivalency)

Also looking at the Nikon D5000 and Olympic E-PM2 micro Four Thirds series as well.

Any opinions on any of these?

 

[DSLRuser]

Any opinions on any of these?

You have to decide on where you want to be in say 2-3 years, not where you are now as a photographer.

Since it souunds like you are just learing, any DSLR will do. You are learning how aperture, iso, and shutter speed all affect an image.

The part to think about is how will you be in 2-3 years. As you get more confident and want to be more creative you will want to add more specific lenses. That will drive you to Nikon or Cannon. Sorry. I know there are some SONY fan boys here. But they just dont have the support for series photographers.

If you think you will want to continue to grow, buy a canon t3 or a nikon d3200 as a starter. Then you can buy new / better lenses, and not have to start over when you eventually upgrade to a nicer body like a D7100.

Go to any camera shop and you will see, the support for cannon and nikon is greatly supperior to that of SONY and PENTAX.

 

[havoc315]

Didn't think about that. Will be looking into the Pentax ones as well, I do like that for $500 plus tax and or shipping you can get 2 starter lenses. Can you buy their lenses outside of online and in a regular store? (I know a newbie question, but that is what I am)

I was looking at the Sony Alpha line...looking at the a65 right now...which does have the interchangeable lenses (though not as many to choose from as Nikon or Canon) and has the hdr, panoramic, and other modes I'm looking for.

It does have the hdr (and yes I know what it is and does, I've done lots of research on it and know it can be done in programs outside of the camera, but I do like the affect that it makes) and in panoramic stitching as though not really needed is a want more than anything and full h d video.

I'm also looking at the Panasonic Lumix FZ70 (has hdr and panoramic and full hd video). It does have a reported 60x zoom (equivalent to 3.58mm to 215mm zoom) and the Canon SX50 (which also goes to 125mm zoom equivalency)

Also looking at the Nikon D5000 and Olympic E-PM2 micro Four Thirds series as well.

Any opinions on any of these?

You need to understand the most basic differences between these cameras. Comparing the sx50 to a dSLR is like comparing a tricycle to a jumbo jet.

Image quality is primarily dependent on sensor size and lens quality. Most "bridge cameras"-- almost all except the $1300 rx10, use a tiny sensor just slightly bigger than a cell phone camera. They use lenses ranging from horrible to mediocre.
DSLRs (and most mirrorless) use much larger sensors. MUCH larger. Far better image quality, far better low light ability. And you can pair that sensor with cheap basic lenses, or $2,000 top quality lenses.
Bridge cameras typically are not meant to be serious primary cameras for true photography enthusiasts. They are simply relatively cheap cameras for consumers who want the quality of their smart phone with a big zoom. (Nothing wrong with that, if it's what you want).

In terms of interchangeable lenses -- all 4 major brands have the same lens availability. The difference between 125 lenses and 150 lenses becomes pretty irrelevant. Every brand has multiple overlapping lenses.
For example, Sony may "only" have 3 Sony branded 50mm prime lenses, plus 3 Minolta branded 50mm primes, plus 3 Tamron/sigma branded 50 primes, for a total selection of 9 different 50 primes. Canon may have 4 different Canon branded 50 primes, plus a 45mm prime, plus 4 Tamron/Sigma 50 choices. Ultimately, you only need 1 50mm prime. So whether you have 7 choices or 9 choices, makes little difference at the end of the day.

Canon and Nikon gear is far better represented in big box stores. Target, Best Buy, etc -- often do not stock Sony and Pentax dSLRs. You need to order online or go to a photography store.
Those big box stores will carry a few Canon and Nikon bodies and a small selection of lenses. (But they still don't generally stock advanced lenses).

Pricing of all entry levels will be similar, with similar 2 lens packages. For $600-$700 you will easily find a 2 lens package for the Canon T3, Nikon D3100, Sony a58 (a65 isn't entry level, it's a mid level camera), and the Pentax.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Go to any camera shop and you will see, the support for cannon and nikon is greatly supperior to that of SONY and PENTAX.

Good luck finding a serious camera shop anymore. The last major camera outlet in the Chicago area (and nationwide) just closed it doors (Calumet). Other than the big box stores, there are very few brick and mortar stores left anymore (other than NYC with B &H and Adorama). All my purchases have been online, B & H, Adorama, Amazon and KEH.

 

[havoc315]

You have to decide on where you want to be in say 2-3 years, not where you are now as a photographer.

Since it souunds like you are just learing, any DSLR will do. You are learning how aperture, iso, and shutter speed all affect an image.

The part to think about is how will you be in 2-3 years. As you get more confident and want to be more creative you will want to add more specific lenses. That will drive you to Nikon or Cannon. Sorry. I know there are some SONY fan boys here. But they just dont have the support for series photographers.

If you think you will want to continue to grow, buy a canon t3 or a nikon d3200 as a starter. Then you can buy new / better lenses, and not have to start over when you eventually upgrade to a nicer body like a D7100.

Go to any camera shop and you will see, the support for cannon and nikon is greatly supperior to that of SONY and PENTAX.

I know many professional photographers who would disagree with you! Lol.

But if you are ever going to professionally shoot the US Open or Super Bowl, then Canon provides better support. (For a fee of course, they have customer service reps and lender equipment available to the ultra professionals at those events. But putting aside professional sports photographers, all four brands will provide a similar level of support. When Sigma comes out with a new lens for example, they will make it for all the brands. Usually first for Canon, while other brands may need to wait a few months).

 

[zackiedawg]

One thing to always remember in forums of any kind - of course many folks will endorse the brand they have, which is completely natural and innocent as people talk about what they know. But there are always some with a little more agenda and they're really easy to spot: they're the ones who don't just post about their brand of choice, but intentionally try to knock down other brands. My recommendation is to try to tune out most of those types of posts - they're not always bad people, but it's overly biased and misleading for the general buyer.

Simple fact is this: all the camera brands are pretty much equally good. PERIOD. The minor differences in performance at the very extremes of photography needs, the minor differences in lenses available for super-specialist needs, the specific services or accessories needed for professional photographers - all of this is irrelevant to the regular amateur, enthusiast, or consumer photographer. Do not worry about the brand name - pick the one you like, that has the features you like, and has available the lenses YOU NEED, at the right price. It will be a highly capable camera, far beyond your abilities. You can learn for years and grow your skill, and still not max out the camera's abilities.

And if the day ever comes when you move from enthusiast to professional photographer, shooting sporting events for a world magazine, don't worry - they'll provide you with a budget to get the proper professional camera for your needs. In the meantime, you can be a professional photographer with any brand of camera - and if you can't, the fault doesn't lie in the camera, but in your own skill/abilities. Certain types of professional photography may be better with a particular specialized lens only available with one or two manufacturers, but there are many types of professional photography.

Sony, by the way, has over 200 lenses currently available for its A-mount. Pentax has over 100 lenses currently available for its K mount. It would be hard to imagine as a fledgling photographer that you would have need for a larger selection than those, but then recall that both also have several hundred or more older lenses which can still mount on their cameras...autofocus choices number in the 350 lens range for each, and going into manual focus, Pentax goes into the thousands. So while Canon & Nikon do have overall larger current lens availability, all manufacturers likely have enough to suit amateurs up through avid professionals, only excluding the most specialized professionals or highly specialized enthusiasts.

In 2-3 years, even in 5-6 years, you will simply NOT have exceeded the capabilities of your camera, regardless of brand. You may find a limitation that you'd like to expand by upgrading bodies, but if you're just starting out in photography now, you have a long way to go before you're challenging the capabilities of most any DSLR or SLT model today. Many people who profess the superiority of a particular brand ironically are rarely pushing the limits of photography with their cameras - many have just a handful of lenses, and often specialize in one or two primary types of photography. I know plenty of well rounded photographers who shoot in many types of photography - sports, action, wildlife, macro, portrait, event, flash, architecture, low-light handheld, long-exposure, astro, and more...and they can achieve all of that with a Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, or pretty much any other brand of interchangeable lens camera available today.

That's my advice for what it's worth. Worry about how it fits you, how it feels in your hand, what the price is, whether it has the features you want or need...and don't worry about the brand. You'll have to deal with brand-war and troll comments for years, no matter what brand you buy - come to the forums and you'll hear how if you bought a Nikon, Canon is better, if you bought a Canon, Nikon is better, if you bought a Sony, Canon and Nikon are better, if you bought a Pentax, Sony is better, if you buy a micro-4:3, APS-C cameras are better, if you bought APS-C cameras, full-frame is better...and so on. If you tune them out, ignore the silliness, and go outside and shoot with your camera, you'll be fine.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

One thing to always remember in forums of any kind - of course many folks will endorse the brand they have, which is completely natural and innocent as people talk about what they know. But there are always some with a little more agenda and they're really easy to spot: they're the ones who don't just post about their brand of choice, but intentionally try to knock down other brands. My recommendation is to try to tune out most of those types of posts - they're not always bad people, but it's overly biased and misleading for the general buyer.

Simple fact is this: all the camera brands are pretty much equally good. PERIOD. The minor differences in performance at the very extremes of photography needs, the minor differences in lenses available for super-specialist needs, the specific services or accessories needed for professional photographers - all of this is irrelevant to the regular amateur, enthusiast, or consumer photographer. Do not worry about the brand name - pick the one you like, that has the features you like, and has available the lenses YOU NEED, at the right price. It will be a highly capable camera, far beyond your abilities. You can learn for years and grow your skill, and still not max out the camera's abilities.

And if the day ever comes when you move from enthusiast to professional photographer, shooting sporting events for a world magazine, don't worry - they'll provide you with a budget to get the proper professional camera for your needs. In the meantime, you can be a professional photographer with any brand of camera - and if you can't, the fault doesn't lie in the camera, but in your own skill/abilities. Certain types of professional photography may be better with a particular specialized lens only available with one or two manufacturers, but there are many types of professional photography.

Sony, by the way, has over 200 lenses currently available for its A-mount. Pentax has over 100 lenses currently available for its K mount. It would be hard to imagine as a fledgling photographer that you would have need for a larger selection than those, but then recall that both also have several hundred or more older lenses which can still mount on their cameras...autofocus choices number in the 350 lens range for each, and going into manual focus, Pentax goes into the thousands. So while Canon & Nikon do have overall larger current lens availability, all manufacturers likely have enough to suit amateurs up through avid professionals, only excluding the most specialized professionals or highly specialized enthusiasts.

In 2-3 years, even in 5-6 years, you will simply NOT have exceeded the capabilities of your camera, regardless of brand. You may find a limitation that you'd like to expand by upgrading bodies, but if you're just starting out in photography now, you have a long way to go before you're challenging the capabilities of most any DSLR or SLT model today. Many people who profess the superiority of a particular brand ironically are rarely pushing the limits of photography with their cameras - many have just a handful of lenses, and often specialize in one or two primary types of photography. I know plenty of well rounded photographers who shoot in many types of photography - sports, action, wildlife, macro, portrait, event, flash, architecture, low-light handheld, long-exposure, astro, and more...and they can achieve all of that with a Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, or pretty much any other brand of interchangeable lens camera available today.

That's my advice for what it's worth. Worry about how it fits you, how it feels in your hand, what the price is, whether it has the features you want or need...and don't worry about the brand. You'll have to deal with brand-war and troll comments for years, no matter what brand you buy - come to the forums and you'll hear how if you bought a Nikon, Canon is better, if you bought a Canon, Nikon is better, if you bought a Sony, Canon and Nikon are better, if you bought a Pentax, Sony is better, if you buy a micro-4:3, APS-C cameras are better, if you bought APS-C cameras, full-frame is better...and so on. If you tune them out, ignore the silliness, and go outside and shoot with your camera, you'll be fine.

Great advice!

 

[photo_chick]

Didn't think about that. Will be looking into the Pentax ones as well, I do like that for $500 plus tax and or shipping you can get 2 starter lenses. Can you buy their lenses outside of online and in a regular store? (I know a newbie question, but that is what I am)

I was looking at the Sony Alpha line...looking at the a65 right now...which does have the interchangeable lenses (though not as many to choose from as Nikon or Canon) and has the hdr, panoramic, and other modes I'm looking for.

It does have the hdr (and yes I know what it is and does, I've done lots of research on it and know it can be done in programs outside of the camera, but I do like the affect that it makes) and in panoramic stitching as though not really needed is a want more than anything and full h d video.

I'm also looking at the Panasonic Lumix FZ70 (has hdr and panoramic and full hd video). It does have a reported 60x zoom (equivalent to 3.58mm to 215mm zoom) and the Canon SX50 (which also goes to 125mm zoom equivalency)

Also looking at the Nikon D5000 and Olympic E-PM2 micro Four Thirds series as well.

Any opinions on any of these?

Just to be clear.... What I meant about HDR is that what most cameras give you is not what some consider true "HDR" where the image is built from multiple exposures. It's often one exposure processed differently. It's a different entity than processing HDR from multiple images each at a different exposure with software and can lead to a very different looking image in the end. Both methods have pros and cons but it's a bigger difference than one does it in camera and the other is with software.

You have to decide on where you want to be in say 2-3 years, not where you are now as a photographer.

Since it souunds like you are just learing, any DSLR will do. You are learning how aperture, iso, and shutter speed all affect an image.

The part to think about is how will you be in 2-3 years. As you get more confident and want to be more creative you will want to add more specific lenses. That will drive you to Nikon or Cannon. Sorry. I know there are some SONY fan boys here. But they just dont have the support for series photographers.

If you think you will want to continue to grow, buy a canon t3 or a nikon d3200 as a starter. Then you can buy new / better lenses, and not have to start over when you eventually upgrade to a nicer body like a D7100.

Go to any camera shop and you will see, the support for cannon and nikon is greatly supperior to that of SONY and PENTAX.

I've got 3 "serious" camera shops in my area. By serous I mean old school, packed to the rafters with equipment, run by people who actually know photography kind of camera shops. They ALL carry plenty of Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and Sony DSLR's and supporting equipment.

I also know a few pros who do shoot Sony and Pentax quite successfully. Well, I guess successful is a relative term. Is being an artist who is able to sell a print for ten grand successful? Shooting regularly for publications like Texas Monthly and commercial work for some of the largest ad agencies in the world?

Canon and Sony are the big names because they dump more money into advertising their DSLR's than Pentax or Sony. They also have more paid endorsers and Nikon gives kickbacks to sales people. None of this makes them any better or worse than the other brands.

All that said... I shoot Canon because I'm comfortable with them in my hands. If I were starting over I'd give serious consideration to Pentax. Sony lost my attention because I don't like the SLT system they've gone to, but that's a personal opinion. The same with Nikon, they feel awkward to me so I won't ever get one. It's all personal opinion though.... cameras are like shoes, one size does not fit all.

 

[zackiedawg]

Just to be clear.... What I meant about HDR is that what most cameras give you is not what some consider true "HDR" where the image is built from multiple exposures. It's often one exposure processed differently.

I'm not 100% sure how Canon does in-camera HDR on a few of its models - though I believe it is multiple exposures though with no manual settings by the user...with Sony and Pentax's in camera versions, I know they both use multiple exposures, and allow the user to define the number of stops between frames. I believe Panasonic or Olympus or both have a version of multiple exposures now too in their M4:3 cameras. It seems most that I've heard of at least on recent models from most manufacturers will use multiple exposures, but some offer little to no control while others allow you to at least set the EV range.

It's a different entity than processing HDR from multiple images each at a different exposure with software and can lead to a very different looking image in the end.

Typically the post-processed version people are familiar with when they hear the term 'HDR' is actually tone mapping...stacking the images by itself will not produce the far-out comic-book style, but the tone mapping process is where that look will come in. The good thing if you like that look is that tone mapping can be applied to a non-HDR photo, and also can be applied to the in-camera HDR photo to 'enhance' it further.

It's possible the OP just likes the more natural, non-tone-mapped look of in-camera multi-exposure HDR, which mainly helps achieve a better capture of wide dynamic range when needed. I know I do, though occasionally the tone--mapped ones can be fun!

 

[havoc315]

All that said... I shoot Canon because I'm comfortable with them in my hands. If I were starting over I'd give serious consideration to Pentax. Sony lost my attention because I don't like the SLT system they've gone to, but that's a personal opinion. The same with Nikon, they feel awkward to me so I won't ever get one. It's all personal opinion though.... cameras are like shoes, one size does not fit all.

Have you tried the EVFs on the A77 or the A99? Much better than the earlier dSLT models. You're not alone in your opinion. While I've personally come to like the dSLT design, it's not for everyone. I think Sony made a big mistake when they decided to completely abandon traditional dSLRs. They initially released their first dSLT alongside a traditional dSLR... The A55 and A580. They should have continued on that path, keeping at least one traditional OVF model for "traditionalists."

Instead Sony when down a path that has hurt the "A-mount." While the dSLT design has many fans, it lost some traditionalists/purists who still prefer an OVF. Yet, the dSLT design is still toooooo traditional for buyers who want the most futuristic gadgets (who have moved towards full mirrorless models) .
Thus, the dSLT has floundered a little bit in the sense that it's too traditional for many "techies," but too techie for many "traditionalists."

But at the end of the day, when comparing it to traditional dSLRs, it mostly comes down to whether you prefer an OVF or EVF. Especially for a more novice user, it's the main standout difference.

 

[havoc315]

I'm not 100% sure how Canon does in-camera HDR on a few of its models - though I believe it is multiple exposures though with no manual settings by the user...with Sony and Pentax's in camera versions, I know they both use multiple exposures, and allow the user to define the number of stops between frames. I believe Panasonic or Olympus or both have a version of multiple exposures now too in their M4:3 cameras. It seems most that I've heard of at least on recent models from most manufacturers will use multiple exposures, but some offer little to no control while others allow you to at least set the EV range.



Typically the post-processed version people are familiar with when they hear the term 'HDR' is actually tone mapping...stacking the images by itself will not produce the far-out comic-book style, but the tone mapping process is where that look will come in. The good thing if you like that look is that tone mapping can be applied to a non-HDR photo, and also can be applied to the in-camera HDR photo to 'enhance' it further.

It's possible the OP just likes the more natural, non-tone-mapped look of in-camera multi-exposure HDR, which mainly helps achieve a better capture of wide dynamic range when needed. I know I do, though occasionally the tone--mapped ones can be fun!

Not sure about your A580, but newer Sony cameras can also do a version of tone-mapped HDR. By simply selecting an HDR exposure, you don't get tone mapping. As you explained very well, you get a stacked image, which brings out the shadows and preserves the highlights.
But within the picture effects of new Sony cameras, you will find a mode called "HDR Painting." -- It stacks 3 exposures, but then also applies tone mapping.

This was done with "HDR Painting" on the RX100: