Advice on new camera

[Zorba]

Hi All,

Last night i dropped our old point and shoot camera. its 4 years old and we were thinking about a new one anyway. but now our hand has been forced. and with a child due in 4 weeks a camera isnt something we can really be without.

so, I would like to get a DSLR but it would also need to be easy to use so the wife doesnt have to worry about all the fancy settings and focus just to take a photo.

it cant be too expensive as we are pretty tight, but it will be going on interest free so it doesnt have to be too cheap. i would like a couple of lenses to mess around with too.

thanks all for your help.

[Clubmanmc]

how much is too much??

a base Nikon Canon with 18-200 or similar would be under 700 or so is that too much??

M

[Zorba]

ni that looks about right. probably looking at the 600 - 800 range.

[Clubmanmc]

well with either of the two low end DSLR's there isnt much that is bad with them, they are all pretty decent now...

you might find some camera bargains as both the 1000D and D3000 have just been superceeded

my pick of the two low end models is the Nikon, i think the basic glass (the standard lens) is better than the Canon eqivalent...

have fun with what ever you buy!

M

[kiwi]

I'd still actually get what's called a bridging camera. Be much simpler I reckon. Nikon p100 or similar.

[exwintech]

Zorba - With a budget $600-800.00, you're right on the dividing line between the top end of Bridge Cameras and Entry+ DSLRs.

With a new Bub about to arrives - you'll want good shade and indoor images, plus some motion catching ablity for when Bub revs-up the mobility....

Kiwi suggests a Bridge Camera - a possibility - but you'd need one the handles low light and at least medium ISO - 400 and 800 - well. On that - scratch the Nikon P100 (not good low light, images, and no RAW), the Canon SX30 (ISO 400 noisy, 800 very, also very slow 1.3fps continuous, no RAW), the Kodak Z981 (no much good overall), Pentax X90 (slow Continuous, low light, video)...

The Fuji HS10 does the low light, high ISO, has fast Continuous, doesn't work well in Auto or Program, does do good images, particularly RAW, but is pretty awkward to use, and while it has Std and Full HD video - there are no manual focus or exposure controls for it, and the twist-zoom is jerky with video... Avoidable for general family uses.... (I have one...)

The Panasonic FZ100 seems to have it all - petty good low light and good to ISO 800, 1600 with RAW (which it has), many adjustments in all usual modes, but also a good array of Scenes modes, does Std and Full HD video, with controls, very good 24x zoom setup - very well worth a close look at the many Reviews you can Google. It's pricey for a Bridge Zoom, but middle of your budget at $649.00.

Or - now on runout, with the new K-R released, the Pentax K-X. Good entry level DSLR, well-known for low light, high ISO abilities, not at all large to handle (physically smaller than an HS10 bridge), Menu fed, with easy scenes and setup modes where needed, and can use many K-mount Film-SLR (and M42) lenses, available at reasonable prices.

Working to a budget - Digital Camera Warehouse has it for $650.00 with the "kit" 18-55mm - or, $699.00 with the Sigma std 17-70mm - that's f/2.8-4.5 - so starts at f/2.8, not the kit 18-55's f/3.5, so a bit better in low light, and 70mm is a useful amount more reach than 55mm.

(I have no connection with DCW - apart from donating them most of my savings for cameras-etc, over some years...)

Dave.

[Zorba]

thanks, the pentax k-x seems to be winning from what i have read so far. but i need to find it at a place that has interest free terms. ive also noticed that it only comes with 1 lens. i have seen a couple of camera shops bundling it with a tamron lens but unfortunately no interest free.

i may have actually convinced the wife to let me get an SLR and she just gets a cheap (150 - 200 ish) compact camera for the quick candid shots.

[exwintech]

Zorba - I haven't seen any places in Australia that sell cameras on interest-free credit - you might try Googling for that.

DCW does deliver orders to Adelaide, according to their site.

As for getting 2 or more "fairly good" lenses bundled with a camera - we seem to be in the wrong country for that.

DCW has kits with the Sigma 18-50mm and Sigma 55-200mm, for $675.00, or the Pentax 18-55mm and Sigma 70-300mm - but that Sigma isn't the better 70-300mm DG APO, which is $297.00 by itself.

We don't get the US-version kits with the Pentax 18-55mm and Pentax L 55-300mm.

The reason I suggested the Sigma 17-70mm, above, is that it's of slightly better quality than the Pentax 18-55mm (which is the 'kit' L basic version - the DA version has quick-shift and a metal mount.) - and starts at f/2.8. It also has a 1:2.3 Macro function. It's the one I'll be getting with the K-R, when it's offered with that camera in a few months.

Don't forget that with Pentax (or Sony) - that as it has the shake-reduction in the body, all lenses you put on it are stabilised. So you can buy reasonably priced very good optics K-mount Film-SLR lenses (K, M, and A series), that are manual or semi-manual, mount directly to the digital-era bodies, and are stabilised. (M42 and Adaptall lenses can be very good optics, but need a lens-to-body adaptor. The genuine Pentax adaptors cost a bit more than the "eBay" ones, but are rather better.)

With some very popular DSLRs, there's no in-body stabilising, so they have two types of lenses. The standard ones have no stabilising, and the ones with stabilising made-in can cost rather more.

Dave.

[Clubmanmc]

after all thats said and done, most of the pentax shooters on here finially learn that you cant get great lenses later on in life when you want to get better...

so it makes sense to start with one of the two big ones...

not to mention the image processors in the base canon nikon are miles infront of the pentax units...

you get what you pay for

M

[Kym]

not to mention the image processors in the base canon nikon are miles infront of the pentax units...

Bluntly... male bovine droppings!!

The K-x and K-r (entry level models) have the new PRIME II processor/firmware same as the 645D (40Mpx medium format), K-7 and K-5!!

Not to mention in body stabilization (EVERY lens is stabilised)... no expensive IS/VR lenses etc.
4.7 FPS in an entry level is not to shabby either.
The ISO performance of the K-x is one of the best in its class/age.

Bangs for $ it is great value.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-x_Black/

[Kym]

http://blog.camerafobia.com/pentax-kx-review

PRIME II processor speed

The Pentax Kx CPU PRIME II is an improved PRIME original processor. PRIME II processor enables faster processing of files and offers exceptional image quality and improved color rendering.The Kx is very highly recommended for professionals during a mountain hike or bike ride where they dont want to carry 4 kg of cameras and lenses but want something smaller and lighter, but without making any compromise in image quality than the pentax k-x is the choice. The Kx is also equipped with the new CMOS sensor for image processing faster and better management of sensibility. With a definition of 12.4 MP sensor this again and more detailed images with lifelike color depth very rich.

[Zorba]

thanks for the help guys. i popped in to a camera store today and he showed me the sony a33.

now to me, that looked like an awesome camera. its not any dearer than then d3100 and the 1100d from nikon and canon respectively, but the feature list seemed a lot higher. the guy said it was due to sony trying to take over from the number 3 DSLR seller to 1 or 2.

here is their website
http://www.sony.com.au/product/slt-a33y

from what i can see, this is the way to go. anyone have any experience with it.

[Kym]

The A33 has a pelical (translucent) mirror that does not move.
You lose a bit of IQ as a result, that said its not bad.

[Clubmanmc]

Bluntly... male bovine droppings!!

The K-x and K-r (entry level models) have the new PRIME II processor/firmware same as the 645D (40Mpx medium format), K-7 and K-5!!

Not to mention in body stabilization (EVERY lens is stabilised)... no expensive IS/VR lenses etc.
4.7 FPS in an entry level is not to shabby either.
The ISO performance of the K-x is one of the best in its class/age.

Bangs for $ it is great value.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/slr/K-x_Black/

body stabiliastion is out dated, as the lens is what needs to be stabilised not the body..

and as for the image processor meh... horses for courses...

i can see all the pros changing to pentax right now cos of your post...

M

Please refer to the forum rules regarding trading on the site.

please note as a canon shooter i mentioned that the Nikon was a better buy

[Sutto]

Olympus E-PL1 has been doing well for me..... plus there are more lens then you throw a stick at.

With the E-PL2 out now, you could probably pick one up at a good price.

[Kym]

body stabiliastion is out dated, as the lens is what needs to be stabilised not the body..

Hardly outdated. The latest system is worth up to 4 stops.
They both work. Pentax and Sony went body. Canon et. al. did it with film so stuck with lens based tech.
Advantages to both. Anyway Sigma/Tamron stabilised lenses work on Pentax so we have the best of both worlds.

and as for the image processor meh... horses for courses...

So are you now saying that Pentax PRIME II is as good as if not better than DIGIC etc. ?
Opinions and facts are two different things.
You gave an opinion (and you are entitled to), I then replied with facts.

i can see all the pros changing to pentax right now cos of your post...

We were talking entry level, but lets talk pro ... the Pentax 645D keeps selling out and they are doing more production runs

[Allann]

Not to keep the argument going but clubman did say lenses

learn that you can't get great lenses later on in life

not camera body. I much prefer the lens choice available for Nikon/Canon over the other brands. When it comes down to the crunch, lenses are rarely replaced when you have good ones, but the body is regularly!

Regardless, the OP asked for options for a new camera and I think Kiwi said it best a bridging camera or even a high end compact. They produce a great image these days and are much easier to learn, and with little time before bubs arrives, this doesn't give much time to learn all the dials and settings on a dslr, let alone the issues of having to change lenses all the time.

[arthurking83]

after all thats said and done, most of the pentax shooters on here finially learn that you cant get great lenses later on in life when you want to get better...

......

Weird analysis??

If I wanted to get better, the last thing I'd be investing countless thousands of dollars is in good glass!
Spending up big on great expensive glass doesn't make the photographer better(it may make the images look better, with the subsequent illusion that the photographer themselves are better, but (and this is purely my opinion!!) to better yourself as a photographer(ie. with a clearer understanding of what works and how to achieve that end point!), you get better images using the same cheapo old lenses!

I've very rarely seen any Pentaxians come to an eventual realisation that the lack of lens choices has ultimately driven them to switch to another brand.(maybe one in my 5 years on AP).
The other side of the coin to the argument is that there is an assumption that everybody has hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend up on gear simply to help them get better.
Reality check: I'm under the impression that the vast majority of people DON'T have access to unlimited funds to acquire these better and massively priced lenses. So a sense of perspective is needed when offering advice like this.
(I see absolutely nothing wrong with Pentax gear, and as it currently stands out of the D7000 K5 and 7D, the K5 seems to be winning any image processing battle.. but that'll change one day soon too)

That Canon and Nikon make alternative lens types, that you simply can't get for Pentax, there is no doubt about that. Canon and Nikon do offer a wider variety of lenses for the average joe photographer(and the lazy, wannabe be better pro! ) but the Pentaxian has a massive range of lenses available to them to keep them happy for a long time as well. They just need to think outside the square a little.

body stabiliastion is out dated, as the lens is what needs to be stabilised not the body..

.....

I'd love to see the technical dissertation that confirms this statement.

My understanding (of the two stabilisation types) is that there is really no clear advantage from one to another. but in the overall scheme of things in body is the type to pull ahead according to any technological advances yet to be made.
it's all well and good having stabilisation in lens, but having it in camera make sit not only cheaper for all your lenses(now!) but as technology progresses, it also makes it a lot cheaper to get better more effective stabilisation as the technology matures.
A prospective future scenario:
Both Canon and Pentax have set baseline IS systems that are(currently) 100% effective at Canon 4 stops and Pentax at 3 stops. So, that is, using a 600mm lens on an equal body you can get 4 stops of advantage 100% of the time with a Canon, and a bit less at 3 stops advantage for a 100% success ratio. In 5-10 years time, Pentax subsequently has the technology to up that ante to 10 stops for a 100% success ratio, and yet Canon's 2011 lens range is still stuck at 4stops, and no hope of ever achieving a 10 stop advantage without updating that 600mm lens. We know that the body is a replaceable commodity(as is re-iterated time and again by the same people) and yet the lenses last a lifetime.
So, the entrance fee to this uber world of becoming a better photographer(because there's this notion that better lenses make a better photographer!!) is going to be 10K at the 600mm focal length if you went Canon now(because they're better). Substitute any expensive pro level lens for the 600mm(only chosen to highlight the massive difference in price), and the cost of becoming a better photographer quickly becomes a daunting task, ultimately reserved for the super rich(using the aforementioned logic).

So the notion that to become better at photography, once you have progressed to a certain stage, that you then acquire these expensive super lenses that supposedly last a lifetime falls down into a heap if you dissect the mechanics behind the arguments. Lenses don't last a lifetime, new improved bodies last lifetimes too, old ... (50 year old!!) lenses are just a capable at producing a shot as well as any modern day equivalent if the correct old lens is chosen.

The point here is that the type and price of gear doesn't make you a better photographer, your understanding of the gear required, research into what works and what doesn't(for the application) and how to best put them all together to achieve the result.

Simply due to their respective histories, I think ultimately(in DSLR terms for now) Sony and Pentax have the upper hand, with their roadmaps into the future. Technology progresses faster than we can seem to keep up with.
ISO levels seem to get better in an exponential manner, I think eventually once both Sony and Pentax(Samsung) begin investing their energies into in camera sensor stabilisations as a counter to increasing ISO improvements as well, then they may even force both Nikon and Canon to change tack and offer in camera stabilisation(hopefully that works with in lens stabilisation, which currently doesn't).

I can't see how in camera stabilisation is either currently underachieving, or disadvantaged for future improvement (is there any data to prove this notion?).. we'll have to wait till the member with this knowledge is allowed to reply once again.

All gear has it's advantages and disadvantages. If price is a major concern, I think you probably can't beat Pentax or Sony(in the long run).

if it's simply something to shoot images with that's relatively cheap but with the ultimate task of super high quality images, then you can't really beat a DSLR.
Fuji X100 seems like a great little device(but expensive for what it really is!).

DSLR's are actually a lot easier to use than many people seem to think they are. They have auto modes, but have the sensor technology to give you ultimately better quality images(lets say prints).
if you never print any larger than A4.. or A3 DSLR is a wasted effort, unless you want to start producing specific results. These are results that you simply can't get with a point and shoot, or a bridge camera.
There are many situations where a DSLR can do anything and everything that a P&S can do, and very few that it can't(eg small tight confined spaces/crevices, and pocketability, as so on) but these are obvious advantages based on size of gear. But a bridge or P&S can not do a lot of the things that a DSLR can do(effectively) .. such as shallow DOF for portraits, or super duper 22x magnification macros.. and so on.

If the funds are available, Pentax K-5 and a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8(the un-stabilised, non VC model... as there are two types) would be perfect for your first major camera purchase(DSLR). Apart from super zooming into some sports or bird action, this combo is great for using on brand new bubs'es. Eventually if you then see fit to get into other fields of photography, you take those steps as they're needed. No point running headlong into something you don't really end up wanting too!

Sorry for the long bloated reply, but I was hoping that some sense could be made out of the two replies I quoted(and so we wait for the member to return to explain).
But I'm strongly of the belief that if you can't do it really well on the cheap!.... then you let the others do it with their much more expensive gear arrangements

[mpb]

Gotta love a good brand stoush.

A the end of the day all the brands will do a more the acceptable job. All have advantages and disadvantages, stronger in some areas and weaker in others etc.

I would suggest to get the one that feels right for you.

[Boo53]

Zorba

If you went the sony route I don't think you would be disappointed. The a33 is a good entry level camera, or the a390 which has the more traditional mirror is on special for $559 with one kit lens, from Digital Camera Warehouse.

Sony bought Minolta a while ago so there is a long heritage of cameras behind them as well and some brand new (still in box) type Minolta lenses are still available at reasonable prices, particularly as the stabilisation is in the camera & doesn't have to be added to each lens.