Trying to sort out fact from fiction re: camera purchase

[Dazz1]

A lot of people have already helped my understanding of what might suit me for my next camera purchase. I have been doing a LOT of research, especially about DSLRs as many recommended. There are a few things which I am not sure about with DSLRs, maybe some wouldn't mind putting me straight about them...

1. A few things have worried me about the entry level DSLRs. I handled a D3100 and a Sony A350 in a second hand store, and some of the lenses seemed very light and plasticky - in fact one was broken. I also see a LOT of these cameras being sold on eBay secondhand, even though they are still being sold new in stores. One camera shop assistant was of the opinion that the 1100D and D3100 were not good quality, and a proper starting level would be more like a 600D or D5100.

2. It appears that most kit lenses on entry level DSLRs (D3100 1100D 600D etc and maybe kit lenses on any model) do not do macro (or maybe just not very good macro) One thing I read, inferred a closest focus of 9 inches or so for a 18-55mm kit lens, and I am used to 1 or 2 cm on my cheapies.

3. I have read that a lens that does the full zoom range, i.e. 18-300mm as an example, will not be very good quality (maybe no better than on bridge cameras) and that I need to get 2 lenses at least, say 18-55 and 55-300. If I also need a macro lens (see #1 above) this is getting expensive!

4. I read that some cameras do only compressed RAW. As one of my reasons for getting a new camera is to get one that does RAW, is this a problem?

[ricktas]

Entry level camera are good. They take great photos. Yes you can buy kit lenses and they are cheap, but an entry level camera will take the pro level lenses for the camera mount. If you want lenses for macro work you need to invest in a macro lens. Kit lenses are called KIT for a reason.

Superzooms. 18-300 are a compromise, especially at the $$ offered and yes one of the compromises can be image quality. Any zoom lens, even a pro level one is a compromise compared to a prime lens (non zooming). Compare an 18-300 lens to the price of a 300mm prime lens Here is the Nikon 28-300 and here is the 300mm prime, guess which one will offer better image quality at 300mm? But as a beginner you may not move your photography past the hobby phase and as you have found spending $thousands may not be for you. So kit lenses give you access to gear at cheaper prices..with a few compromises, but they are still quite capable of being used to take great photos by a photographer who knows what they are doing, understands the gear, its limitations and works within those limitations.

Photography gear is expensive! Photography is not all about gear. You could spend $40K and you will still be a novice, or a professional photographer could spend $500 on a kit and take great photos.

I have not heard of a camera that only does compressed raw, but most have an option for the user to select raw or compressed raw

[Dazz1]

Entry level camera are good. They take great photos. Yes you can buy kit lenses and they are cheap, but an entry level camera will take the pro level lenses for the camera mount. If you want lenses for macro work you need to invest in a macro lens. Kit lenses are called KIT for a reason.

I was mostly looking at buying a camera kit with the required lenses, maybe one of the twin-lens kits. I may be reading too much into what you said, but it sounds like you would purchase a body and lenses separately.

Superzooms. 18-300 are a compromise, especially at the $$ offered and yes one of the compromises can be image quality. Any zoom lens, even a pro level one is a compromise compared to a prime lens (non zooming). Compare an 18-300 lens to the price of a 300mm prime lens Here is the Nikon 28-300 and here is the 300mm prime, guess which one will offer better image quality at 300mm? But as a beginner you may not move your photography past the hobby phase and as you have found spending $thousands may not be for you. So kit lenses give you access to gear at cheaper prices..with a few compromises, but they are still quite capable of being used to take great photos by a photographer who knows what they are doing, understands the gear, its limitations and works within those limitations.

Photography gear is expensive! Photography is not all about gear. You could spend $40K and you will still be a novice, or a professional photographer could spend $500 on a kit and take great photos.

I have not heard of a camera that only does compressed raw, but most have an option for the user to select raw or compressed raw

I had to search a bit, but I found it again. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D5100/D5100A.HTM

"The Nikon D5100 can capture still images as .NEF-format compressed RAW files, JPEG compressed files, or as both types simultaneously. Unlike the prosumer D7000 model, the Nikon D5100 doesn't provide an option for uncompressed RAW files."

If this is the case for the 5100, I wonder about the 3100/3200 models too.

[ricktas]

Yes, I would buy the body and then buy the lenses separately. But I have the advantage of having been a photographer for years and knowing what genre I want to shoot and what lenses I would need. Many beginners do not, and thus the kit lenses give them some good all-round lenses.

Ah. did not know that about the D5100. I would be asking Nikon directly re your question on the D3100/D3200 or looking at their site, rather than asking a salesperson (who probably really would have no idea). However, I know quite a few Pro's who shoot compressed raw, it is a lossless format so you do not lose data (sort of like a ZIP file) rather than like a JPG file.

[ameerat42]

That's interesting: compressed raw? I will admit I know NOTHING about it. Gosh, Wet, you sound like me when I'm doing homework.
One thing seems certain: you'll not rush in foolishly where certain celestial beings have been known (Sorry, said) to hesitate.
Am.

[swifty]

As Rick said, the compressed NEFs are lossless and arent' an issue. Its a true RAW file, just compressed to take up less space.
It differs from eg. sRAW option on Canons which aren't true RAW files. But as far as I know, all Canon DSLR will let you shoot true RAW files in addition to giving you sRAW, mRAW etc. options.

[WhoDo]

One piece of advice I'd like to give that I wish I'd had when I started; don't start with old technology!

You are clearly keen on photography as a hobby, rather than just taking happy snaps for the family album. At least start with something that is reasonably up-to-date, technologically speaking. Here is a review of the D5200 for your information.Whatever you decide on price, if you have the option to choose the D3200 over the D3100, or the D5200 over the D5100, I would do so to stave off the inevitable time when you feel a need to upgrade.

I currently have a kit lens combination that has served me well ... the 18-55mm and 55-300mm. Both lenses may be "kit" in nature but I'm happy with the way they perform, within the limitations of any zoom lens, as Rick points out. To these I subsequently added a dirt cheap 50mm f/1.8D prime for portraiture (my particular passion). These are all you could need for some time, unless macro is your passion. In that case purchase a Tokina AT-X Pro 100 macro lens (sub-$500) instead.

As you can see, I'm almost 3 years into my photography adventure and I haven't added much to my kit. When I did, I added a 300mm f/4 prime for chasing birds because I can use a cheap 1.4X TC to give me over 500mm FOV on my crop sensor without spending thousands on a long prime lens. If I continue to grow, photographically, then I'll likely go for a second body rather than extra lenses now; a D600 or maybe a D800 when the time is right. I can still use those "cheap" kit lenses and primes on the FX body, so I'm pretty future proofed.

I hope that helps your decision-making, WP.

[ROA44]

I bought the D5000 over the D3000 only because I couldn't afford the D90 at the time. How ever I did get the twin Kit lenses at the time & wish I had just bought the body only and purchased a better quality prime lens. I have no problem with the D5000 but did not want to get the very bottom of the pack. Not sure what you already have but if you at least get better quality lenses then you can always upgrade the body with out having to get new lenses.

[Dazz1]

That's interesting: compressed raw? I will admit I know NOTHING about it. Gosh, Wet, you sound like me when I'm doing homework.
One thing seems certain: you'll not rush in foolishly where certain celestial beings have been known (Sorry, said) to hesitate.
Am.

Yeah, I do go overboard sometimes, but I really like to understand things, especially when it effects the outlay of my hard earned.

- - - Updated - - -

I bought the D5000 over the D3000 only because I couldn't afford the D90 at the time. How ever I did get the twin Kit lenses at the time & wish I had just bought the body only and purchased a better quality prime lens. I have no problem with the D5000 but did not want to get the very bottom of the pack. Not sure what you already have but if you at least get better quality lenses then you can always upgrade the body with out having to get new lenses.

That would be nice. But it might depend a lot on what I can get a good deal on, particularly if I go secondhand. At least, I want to be informed enough to know what I am getting into, and whether it is indeed a good deal or not.

- - - Updated - - -

One piece of advice I'd like to give that I wish I'd had when I started; don't start with old technology!

You are clearly keen on photography as a hobby, rather than just taking happy snaps for the family album. At least start with something that is reasonably up-to-date, technologically speaking. Here is a review of the D5200 for your information.Whatever you decide on price, if you have the option to choose the D3200 over the D3100, or the D5200 over the D5100, I would do so to stave off the inevitable time when you feel a need to upgrade.

I hope that helps your decision-making, WP.

It IS all helping. I am much less confused than a week or two ago. I have to temper the desire to not go with old technology, with the possibility of a really good deal on last year's model.

For example, as a lot of D3100 cameras seem be on the market, close to half price sometimes, and they are only one model old, that makes it a tempting option.

[arthurking83]

I tend to tell (Nikon) people that to begin with and for good value for money, a DSLR at a financial level that you can accomodate PLUS the Nikon 18-105VR kit lens is about as good as it gets.
This lens, whilst is only a kit lens is immensely capable, and in some instances can compete with lenses that are much higher in apparent ability and price.
So just to begin with, this kit lens is about the only one I'd really consider a keeper.
So knowing that finances are a concern to you(just as they are to me and billions of others out there, I'd say a DSLR at a price you can afford PLUS the 18-105VR. This will get ya going.
From there, many other lens types can be had for a pretty low price, if you look hard enough.
But be warned tho, with your DSLR, a handy feature to have up your sleeve is the ability to drive screw driven lenses(AF-D type) and also handy is the ability to input manual lens data into the camera for meterign with non electrically connected lenses(really old lenses!) That means at the cheapest end, a D7000 or D7100 if you want both features, or a D90 if you only want screw drive focus.
It may not be important today, but tomorrow it may!

A lot of people have already helped my understanding of what might suit me for my next camera purchase. I have been doing a LOT of research, especially about DSLRs as many recommended. There are a few things which I am not sure about with DSLRs, maybe some wouldn't mind putting me straight about them...

1. A few things have worried me about the entry level DSLRs. I handled a D3100 and a Sony A350 in a second hand store, and some of the lenses seemed very light and plasticky - in fact one was broken. I also see a LOT of these cameras being sold on eBay secondhand, even though they are still being sold new in stores. One camera shop assistant was of the opinion that the 1100D and D3100 were not good quality, and a proper starting level would be more like a 600D or D5100.

I wouldn't worry too much about this idea of plasticky! I had a few of these plasticky lenses and they work well .. because they were designed well.
Had a friend that broke her 18-105VR dropped off a shelf with the camera, and I had it fixed in a matter of minutes .. ie. easy fix. (cost about $5.50) from memory.
Plasticky lenses can be bad, but usually because they were a bad design to begin with.

2. It appears that most kit lenses on entry level DSLRs (D3100 1100D 600D etc and maybe kit lenses on any model) do not do macro (or maybe just not very good macro) One thing I read, inferred a closest focus of 9 inches or so for a 18-55mm kit lens, and I am used to 1 or 2 cm on my cheapies.

They don't do proper macro .. and in reality shouldn't be used as such if you really want high quality images. BUT! they can be pushed into such use with half decent results. If you need this to begin with then you may be quite happy .... until you want more(quality that is).

3. I have read that a lens that does the full zoom range, i.e. 18-300mm as an example, will not be very good quality (maybe no better than on bridge cameras) and that I need to get 2 lenses at least, say 18-55 and 55-300. If I also need a macro lens (see #1 above) this is getting expensive!

It's not that they will be 'not very good' by way of comparison to themselves ... it's only when you compare them to really good lenses that you will notice that they're not quite up to what's actually possible.
FWIW: try to stick to about a 4x zoom ratio for good quality long focal length lenses.

4. I read that some cameras do only compressed RAW. As one of my reasons for getting a new camera is to get one that does RAW, is this a problem?

As already replied, uncompressed raw is nice to have, but not essential. Compressed raw is OK. For info, the section of the raw file that is actually compressed is apparently not visible to the naked eye.
That is, the compression algorithm works it compression at the very high highlight end of the tonal range. While it is technically possible to show the difference between the compressed and uncompressed versions of the same scene ... I think those differences are not visible to the naked eye under normal viewing conditions.
It's only if you push process really hard(in the highlights) that you may find a 0.1Ev advantage in the uncompressed raw file.
Actually that number is a randomly guessed at value .. just to indicate a point that this feature is not really going to help. Better shooting practices will help tho!

I think that a long term game plan may be required if you want to choose the right camera(ie. DSLR).
That is, think of medium to long terms goals you want to achieve.
I see you have done some macro work recently, so maybe macro is something you want to delve into.
Something that may cost you a bit more now, but may save you some money in the medium term is a camera with massive cropability!
(ie. 24Mp! )
While this may only be a pseudo macro form of photography, at least it gets you started!

How this pans out in a market place comparion:

how much would a D7100+50mm f/1.8 cost 'ya compared to the alternative of say a D7100+kit lens, plus a dedicated macro lens for eg. a Tamron 90mm f/2.8.

That is, is the cost of the extra gear now going to be worth it in the long run.
99% of us with an eye on the financial side of it, will invariably end up with at least another lens(usually 12! :P) .. so remember looking at it from the longer term approach is a good way to get some images for now, and at some point getting the right equipment later on(usually at a much reduced price.
So instead of paying $400 for the macro lens now .. you can sometimes find them on ebay (S/H) for about $150-200 .. and then you have what you want for a much better price.

The point is, just as there are many ways to remove the outer furry coating of a feline, there are many ways to achieve a 'magnified' macro shot too(and a landscape and a portrait .. and so on).

My recommendation(based on a reasonable financial strain) is a D7100 + a 50mm f/1.8(AF-D version may actually be a better option overall )

I don't know enough about Canon and Sony (how they work and operate) to recommend any of them gear stuffs. But with those two items, plus one or two cheapie accessories, you may be able to get much of what you like to shoot.

[Boo53]

I don't know much about the Nikon range, and that seems to be well represented in the responses.

You mention the Sony A350 as well. I would think that its a reasonable entry level DSLR, certainly shoots in Raw & Jpeg, but it was new in 2008 (when I bought mine - since given to eldest son) and has been superseded by at least 2 new models since then. I know 1 white goods store in Shepparton still had one on the shelves last year at its original rrp, but the store has disappeared now.

As for kit lens I would imagine most of us started with them and upgraded when we had a better idea of what we were interested in and could afford.

I had a minolta 18-200 zoom I bought new, still in its box, from an ebay seller about 3 years ago & was happy enough with it when it suited my purposes. It was as sharp as the kit lenses but not as sharp as 16-50 2.8 that tends to end up on the front of one of my cameras a fair swag of the time. I gave that to eldest son as well, as he was going to Cuba on holiday, and replaced it with a sony 18-250 that is much the same quality.

[swifty]

AK: I believe Nikon has moved to a truly lossless compression as of the D3 generation ie. zero loss of data. At least that's true of camera categories such as the D700 that I own. I must admit I haven't checked the lower end models to see if lossless compression is available.
Maybe you're thinking of the very minute difference between 14 and 12 bit ADC?
But either way as has been mentioned, its all technicalities and pragmatically speaking there's really nothing worth worrying about.

[Dazz1]

I tend to tell (Nikon) people that to begin with and for good value for money, a DSLR at a financial level that you can accomodate PLUS the Nikon 18-105VR kit lens is about as good as it gets.

The point is, just as there are many ways to remove the outer furry coating of a feline, there are many ways to achieve a 'magnified' macro shot too(and a landscape and a portrait .. and so on).

My recommendation(based on a reasonable financial strain) is a D7100 + a 50mm f/1.8(AF-D version may actually be a better option overall )

Thanks. I will look into the lens you mention.

Also, are extension tubes, or magnifying filters, considered inferior ways to get macro capability, or do they produce good results?

Haven't seen many D7100s on sale yet, but I will keep looking.

- - - Updated - - -

AK: I believe Nikon has moved to a truly lossless compression as of the D3 generation ie. zero loss of data. At least that's true of camera categories such as the D700 that I own. I must admit I haven't checked the lower end models to see if lossless compression is available.
Maybe you're thinking of the very minute difference between 14 and 12 bit ADC?
But either way as has been mentioned, its all technicalities and pragmatically speaking there's really nothing worth worrying about.

Very good to know, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know much about the Nikon range, and that seems to be well represented in the responses.

You mention the Sony A350 as well. I would think that its a reasonable entry level DSLR, certainly shoots in Raw & Jpeg, but it was new in 2008 (when I bought mine - since given to eldest son) and has been superseded by at least 2 new models since then. I know 1 white goods store in Shepparton still had one on the shelves last year at its original rrp, but the store has disappeared now.

As for kit lens I would imagine most of us started with them and upgraded when we had a better idea of what we were interested in and could afford.

I had a minolta 18-200 zoom I bought new, still in its box, from an ebay seller about 3 years ago & was happy enough with it when it suited my purposes. It was as sharp as the kit lenses but not as sharp as 16-50 2.8 that tends to end up on the front of one of my cameras a fair swag of the time. I gave that to eldest son as well, as he was going to Cuba on holiday, and replaced it with a sony 18-250 that is much the same quality.

I will admit some bias against Sony (bad experiences with previously owned equipment) but I know someone with an A350 as well, and they really like it.

I have to do some serious thinking about lenses. Initially a lens that does everything appealed, probably because I am coming from a bridge camera that does exactly that. I used to have a pentax 80-200mm lens that had a macro function as well. Is that a good idea - and do they still make zoom lenses with macro? (lens research can be my next step)

[ricktas]

. I used to have a pentax 80-200mm lens that had a macro function as well. Is that a good idea - and do they still make zoom lenses with macro? (lens research can be my next step)

zoom lenses with macro ability are again a compromise. A good quality macro lens will be a fixed length, have f2.8 as its maximum aperture (or larger). Remember that you also do not just have to look at Nikon lenses, Sigma and Tamron make great macro lenses. I use a Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. Macro lenses also make great portraiture lenses. You can also save money by looking at third party lenses.

I suppose it depends on what you want. Yes you can buy cheaper lenses now, but if you take up photography in ernest you will find that someday soon you will be wanting to upgrade lenses. A good lens can last a lifetime! A camera body is regarded as a disposable item.

[WhoDo]

Site sponsor eGlobal has the following deals, if you elect to follow Arthur's advice:

D7100 (Body only) - AU$1079

D7000 (Body only) - AU$669
D7000 + 18-200mm VR - AU$919
D7000 + 18-55mm + 70-300mm - AU$889

I can vouch for the capability of the D7000 and don't see enough in the D7100 to make it worth an upgrade. The difference in cost would buy you that Tokina AT-X Pro 100 macro lens (Review here). You'd still need a 50mm f/1.8D which is under $100 and gives passable results in landscapes and excellent results for portraiture.

If your budget allows, the D7000 is today what the D90 once was for enthusiast Nikon photographers. I haven't regretted purchasing mine for a single second.

[Dazz1]

Site sponsor eGlobal has the following deals, if you elect to follow Arthur's advice:

D7100 (Body only) - AU$1079

D7000 (Body only) - AU$669
D7000 + 18-200mm VR - AU$919
D7000 + 18-55mm + 70-300mm - AU$889

I can vouch for the capability of the D7000 and don't see enough in the D7100 to make it worth an upgrade. The difference in cost would buy you that Tokina AT-X Pro 100 macro lens (Review here). You'd still need a 50mm f/1.8D which is under $100 and gives passable results in landscapes and excellent results for portraiture.

If your budget allows, the D7000 is today what the D90 once was for enthusiast Nikon photographers. I haven't regretted purchasing mine for a single second.

It is indeed attractive, but my budget started at half that amount. I started out thinking of a high-end bridge camera, particularly the Fuji HS35/50, or Lumix FZ200. I still find the features atractive, as there is no confusion, and nothing more to buy.

But, due to advice here, I am considering options to get into an entry level DSLR instead for about the same price. There are a few D3100 (twin lens kit and other) deals below $400 around the place for example, and depending on the price, that could leave me room for an extra lens, macro or whatever doesn't come with the deal. Not set on Nikon either, as some 550d/600d/1100d Canon opportunities are about too.

[ameerat42]

Extension tubes and CU lenses (filters) can be good and bad, as can teleconverters. BUT that's when they start to interfere with the optimised optics of your main lenses.

For serious macro work, there's nothing consistently better than a macro prime lens capable of at least (and most stop here) 1:1 reproduction.

If you added a well-matched teleconverter to this you could get 2:1 without getting closer to your subject. (I do not have such a lens, but I do have a
Σ50-500 zoom and a Σ 2x converter. They work very well together.)

For that same macro lens, if you add (even an achromat) cu lens to it, or an extension tube, you will be able to get closer to your subject and achieve greater than 1:1 reproduction. IN FACT, you will HAVE to get closer just to focus. This setup will affect your DOF, and it taken to (often easily reached) extremes, you will muck up what the lens can do. A (good) 2x converter will preserve both your prime lens DOF and its distance to subject. Oh, yes, it WILL COST you light. 4X as much for a 2x, or two stops.

That macro prime will also be useful at its normal focal length, say typically 70mm or 105mm for the Σ brand.

Well, now go out and buy a truck for all the info "overload" this thread has produced.
Am.

[WhoDo]

Not set on Nikon either, as some 550d/600d/1100d Canon opportunities are about too.

Ok, well be sure to start the way you mean to finish. If you're serious about your photography then a DSLR is the best option. If you aren't sure, stick with what you've got, save your money and don't move to a bridge camera! Bridge cameras have little or no resale value if you give it away. DSLR's and good glass can be sold later.

Either way, be sure that your first DSLR has enough features to allow you to grow into your hobby. That pretty much ensures you stay with either Nikon or Canon. Pentax are good value, if you have a legacy set of lenses, but the choices for lenses (even quality third party lenses) are very limited.

I really like what Sigma are doing these days with their lenses at the price, so it might be worth investigating a good body with a Sigma multi-purpose zoom such as the AU$169 70-300mm macro (really a close focus 1:2 max reproduction). Still, only you can decide. I think your budget is a bit meagre for a DSLR, even allowing for buying superseded models. The important thing is not to waste that meagre budget by settling for something you'll regret later. Better to push your budget a little now and know that you have given yourself room to later expand your capability from that base. JMHO of course.

[Dazz1]

Well, now go out and buy a truck for all the info "overload" this thread has produced.
Am.

Tell me about it


I might be able to get hold of a D3100 with twin lens kit for about $350. I read that the IQ is quite good with this camera, so I am going to have a few wines tonight and think hard about it, because that leaves me with spare budget to look at macro lens etc..

[ricktas]

I would say keep saving and expand your budget.