My First Dslr

[seedy]

Good morning all.

I wish to upgrade from my point-and-shoot to a DSLR. Am no pro, but want something with inter-changable lenses so as my skills grow I am not in a position where I need to purchase another camera.

Mostly do landscapes and macro, with some action shots.

If you could recommend any models, it would be appreciated. I have read many comparo's and am lost in the different opinions.

Thanks

[tw25rw]

There are plenty of interchangeable lens cameras that aren't DSLR these days. They are typically smaller and lighter than a DSLR. They all have their pros and cons relative to each other and to DSLRs, but I have a Lumix GF1 and am happy with it. There is now the GX1 as it's natural successor.

Some people swear by DSLRs. I doubt I'll ever buy one again though.

[ekgarin]

Different brand, different advantages.

You should go to the store and do the demons, when you hold it with your hands you will get the answer.

May be you should go for a brand that your friends use, sometime you can exchange lenses with your friends.

Lenses make images look different.

[astral]

I agree with the previous poster, go and see how they feel in your hand.

I use Canon and am very happy with my 40D,

but I do remember when I first bought Canon, versus Nikon,

the decision was how the camera felt in my hands.

The specs were pretty similar.

[svenivan]

I bought my first DSLR just 2 weeks ago. My choice was a Sony Alpha A77 mostly because I think they are in front with new technique and I also have a couple of older Sony-cameras (no DSLR, Sony V1 and Sony R1) that I have been very pleased with.

There are many buttons and functions and the manual is thick but I have mostly used M(anual) mode in the old cameras and it was very easy to get used to the new a77. And the menusystem is very good. But sometimes I use Auto or one of the many SCN-functions when I don't want to loose a good shot!

Good luck with your new camera whatever brand you choose!

[hughden]

There are plenty of interchangeable lens cameras that aren't DSLR these days. They are typically smaller and lighter than a DSLR. They all have their pros and cons relative to each other and to DSLRs, but I have a Lumix GF1 and am happy with it. There is now the GX1 as it's natural successor.

Some people swear by DSLRs. I doubt I'll ever buy one again though.

I agree. Why buy a bulky DSLR when you can get a much smaller interchangeable lens camera which takes great images? I have a Canon DSLR, and a Panasonic GF1. The Canon stays in the cupboard unless I really need it for sports photography; while the GF1 with a collection of lens can be carried everywhere.

By all means check out the DSLRs, but have a look at the likes of the micro four thirds cameras from Olympus and Panasonic and the Sony NEX range.

[koknia]

As a full time photographer I have plenty of expensive DSLRs and very expensive lenses. (The lenses are what make the images, and you need decent ones IMO.)

I agree with the above poster re: Micro 4/3s format. Definitely worth a look. I am using a Lumix GF1 for lots of personal stuff. They have some amazing lenses for this format. Cheap-ish, easy to carry around, but have the quality and controls to make very good images.

I have a couple samples from mine here.

You might decide it's not for you, but worth considering.

[Mahseer]

I have a Canon 400d dslr + t/photo and travel extensively and havn't used it once since buying a Sony cybershot DX9V 4 months back. It has a 16x optical zoom which is brilliant in the mountains and even though there is slight colur saturation in some modes, which to me enhances a shot but the purists wouldn't approve, I have never once taken the dslr out since.

Note I consider myself a novice but enthusisistic photographer

[ETatBKK]

I use my Canon 40D and couple of heavy big lens for almost everything everyday. I am considering a Canon 5D mark II as an addition.

I deliberately stay away the micro 4/3 compact system cameras. they are just devils. they will simply chase away my haevy investment into the cupboard :-(

5 years ago DSLR is the only choice for film quality photo. you need big money big muscle too.

3 years ago, micro 4/3 is a gadget, they are lovely !

today, micro 4/3 is a complete alternative to DSLR !! unless you need critical optical quality, the micro 4/3 answers 95% of general photo shooting needs !

yes, you have choices :-)

[manarak]

If you want a good entry-level DSLR, get a Nikon D7000.

It is one of the best cameras ever built in the entry level segment and features full HD video and fast autofocus, as well as lens AF microadjustment.

I have the Canon 550D, but I wish I had the Nikon 7000D, because of the faster autofocus and microadjustment.

Edited November 17, 2011 by manarak

[pauljones]

If you are going with DSLR for better quality images, then be prepared to spend a bundle on the lenses.

The good Nikon zooms are going for around $2,000 each.

[Familyonthemove]

There's a huge choice, but as you are upgrading from a compact, you want something that's easy to use at first so you can start shooting straight away. Any entry level DSLR from Canon or Nikon will be good, but the Sony range is worth a look as they have a new systems that makes them slightly lighter and faster to use for action shots. (quick focus system, no mirror).

But consider the size and weight of any DSLR. For me, they are just too heavy to carry around all day, especially if you are also carrying a couple of spare lenses.

So if I were you, I'd go for a Panasonic Lumix G3. (The GX1 is very nice, but it's not available here yet and you'll need to add another $200 on top for the separate electronic viewfinder, and the G3 comes with this built in).

The kit lens is good to get you going, but look at the excellent Leica lens for macro (it's a bit expensive) and the nice, light and good value 45-200mm Lumix lens for sports/action. (The 20mm f1.7 lens is a real cracker, but not ideal for macro or action)

You may read a lot about sensor sizes and image quality in reviews, but unless you are going to do huge enlargements or need to shoot at high ISO (in low light) there's no need to worry about image quality, as any Micro 4/3 camera such as the G3 or entry level DSLR will have MUCH better image quality than your compact.

Edited November 18, 2011 by Familyonthemove

[hughden]

There's a huge choice, but as you are upgrading from a compact, you want something that's easy to use at first so you can start shooting straight away. Any entry level DSLR from Canon or Nikon will be good, but the Sony range is worth a look as they have a new systems that makes them slightly lighter and faster to use for action shots. (quick focus system, no mirror).

But consider the size and weight of any DSLR. For me, they are just too heavy to carry around all day, especially if you are also carrying a couple of spare lenses.

So if I were you, I'd go for a Panasonic Lumix G3. (The GX1 is very nice, but it's not available here yet and you'll need to add another $200 on top for the separate electronic viewfinder, and the G3 comes with this built in).

The kit lens is good to get you going, but look at the excellent Leica lens for macro (it's a bit expensive) and the nice, light and good value 45-200mm Lumix lens for sports/action. (The 20mm f1.7 lens is a real cracker, but not ideal for macro or action)

You may read a lot about sensor sizes and image quality in reviews, but unless you are going to do huge enlargements or need to shoot at high ISO (in low light) there's no need to worry about image quality, as any Micro 4/3 camera such as the G3 or entry level DSLR will have MUCH better image quality than your compact.

The G3 is a great choice, but annoyingly you can only currently buy it in Thailand with two lenses, which pushes the price up to 35k. As for image quality, I know someone who sold an image from a GF1 through Getty for $11,000; and I have also sold GF1 images (for a lot less money!) through stock sites; so M4/3 gives you perfectly acceptable IQ in a small package.

Another lens worthy of consideration is the recently announced Olympus 45mm F1.8. Stunning photos and a bargain at 12,900 baht.

[manarak]

If you are going with DSLR for better quality images, then be prepared to spend a bundle on the lenses.

The good Nikon zooms are going for around $2,000 each.

Not the APC ones.

decent lenses can be had in the 200-500 $ range.

I found my needs are covered with 3 lenses:

- a super zoom (I heard the nikkor 18-135 VR II is a good one)

- a super wide angle (to compensate for the crop sensor, I got a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, it is marvellous)

- a fast prime for low light situations (I got a Sigma 30mm f/1.4)

Edited November 18, 2011 by manarak

[ETatBKK]

go for the Lumix GX 1 if original poster can wait :-) also, budget for these good lens too.

after all, it delivers very good quality pictures, good fun of taking pictures, yet a lot lighter and less expensive too !

So if I were you, I'd go for a Panasonic Lumix G3. (The GX1 is very nice, but it's not available here yet and you'll need to add another $200 on top for the separate electronic viewfinder, and the G3 comes with this built in).

The kit lens is good to get you going, but look at the excellent Leica lens for macro (it's a bit expensive) and the nice, light and good value 45-200mm Lumix lens for sports/action. (The 20mm f1.7 lens is a real cracker, but not ideal for macro or action)

[seedy]

Many thanks to all for your replies - I learned a lot.

Got the call for work - heading to Canada 15 Jan. Will check out prices when I get there.

Have found that electronics - laptops, cameras, etc. are cheaper in N America too. So the timing is right.

G3 and GX1 for sure - if I like the feel of them.