News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

New Camera Advice

Started by alfred russel, November 26, 2012, 10:58:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Caliga

I approve of this thread.  I am in the same boat as you, AR, and I was eyeing my cousin's camera when I was in Turks and Caicos earlier this month.  He recommended a Canon PowerShot SX50 to me.
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

katmai

It all comes down to how much control you want over the image and how much you are willing to spend :D
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

Caliga

Well, I can tell you what I want:

* badass zoom (at least 20x optical)
* wideangle
* viewfinder
* HDR capability
* onscreen histogram
* that thing where you can use an external flash (forget what it's called)
0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

mongers

Quote from: Caliga on November 26, 2012, 07:25:29 PM
Well, I can tell you what I want:

* badass zoom (at least 20x optical)
* wideangle
* viewfinder
* HDR capability
* onscreen histogram
* that thing where you can use an external flash (forget what it's called)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_shoe

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

Caliga

0 Ed Anger Disapproval Points

alfred russel

Quote from: Caliga on November 26, 2012, 07:10:08 PM
I approve of this thread.  I am in the same boat as you, AR, and I was eyeing my cousin's camera when I was in Turks and Caicos earlier this month.  He recommended a Canon PowerShot SX50 to me.

I just finished the Inca Trail trip I mentioned earlier---which was awesome. I thought my photos were okay (I was using a crappy point and click Olympus camera--it is 12 mp so I thought that was decent) but then I saw some of the pictures other people on the trip were taking...we took some pictures of the same things at the same time and mine were dramatically inferior.

Katmai, the D600--if I don't care about video (I don't)--is that about as good as I can do?

Is the A65 going to be noticeably worse than the D600 in the hands of an amateur?
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

Jacob

My wife recently bought a Sony Alpha Nex 5 and we're pretty happy with it. I think there's a newer version out.

It's pretty light, but if you want you can go to town and add fancy lenses and stuff, but it has manual controls for shutter speed, aperture, and exposure time. Honestly, though, with a digital camera 9 times out of ten you'll want to use it on automatic or using pre-sets.

Personally, I find the main things for actual results for a digital camera are:

- start up speed
- processing speed once you take a picture (buy a fast memory card, class 10 I think you want)
- quality of the low light sensors, so you don't have to mess around with a flash (because in most cases a flash makes your picture look like shit, unless you're pretty serious about how to do your lighting)
- are the pre-sets easy to use and do they actually make a difference
- how heavy is it (because lugging a heavy camera around kind of sucks, so sometimes you'll leave it at home)

Like I said, were pretty happy with the Sony Alpha Nex 5 we have. I'd suggest checking one of the related ones out (I think they're on 7 ones) and then look at comparable cameras on dpreview.

Maladict

#22
I'm looking for a new camera as well. Currently torn between the Panasonic FZ-200 and entry-level Nikon DSLRs like the D3100/3200.

Panasonic: bridge camera, so no additional lenses. But the one it has looks pretty awesome: 25-600mm with an aperture of 2.8 throughout (!).

Nikon: DSLR, better sensor, the older D3100 is on offer with two kit lenses (18-55 and 55-200) for roughly the same price as the Panasonic. Not too keen on carrying all that stuff everywhere though.


Vricklund

Get a second hand Canon D500-D650 or Nikon D3000-D5000. If it's used you often get a couple of different lenses too for next to nothing. It should be marginally more expensive than a compact - so you wouldn't have to worry about dropping it/someone stealing it - and take better quality pictures than you probably have aptitude for. They all have room for tinkering if you should develop an interest but also standard point-and-click capabilities. :)

alfred russel

So I think I'm going to get the A65 Katmai recommended.

Any recommendations on what I want out of lenses? The camera can come body only, 18-135mm lenses, or 18-55 lens.

My thoughts on why...I really don't know what I'm doing, so going second hand is not a good option (I won't be able to diagnose any problems from wear). I first thought D600 that Pedrito posted, but some reviews made me wary (said probably not best for a beginner), and the A65 is cheaper and I trust Katmai. I'm also assuming that this camera will be sufficient to get me through a photography class.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

There's a fine line between salvation and drinking poison in the jungle.

I'm embarrassed. I've been making the mistake of associating with you. It won't happen again. :)
-garbon, February 23, 2014

katmai

I use primarily 16-35 & 24-70 for most everything.
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

mongers

Quote from: katmai on December 16, 2012, 01:23:18 PM
I use primarily 16-35 & 24-70 for most everything.

Sensible man, what does that equate with in 35mm terms, 24-55 and 40-105 ?
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again"

katmai

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son

Zanza

As far as compact cameras go, I like Panasonic Lumix' series.