Choosing a camera system. What to consider?

[robert_thommes1]

<p>I've whittled down my choices to 1) entry level Canon gear, or 2) Olympus 43rds (not macro 43rds) gear. But in order to make the most educated and comprehensive decision, I'd like to know what all I should be considering here. Is there a list of criteria to help determine my direction? That's what I'd really like. Thanks for your help and guidance.</p>

[evan_goulet]

<p>Please don't overlook ergonomics. See if you can actually handle the gear prior to purchase. Weight, button locations, and overall feel are important.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Look, as Evan says, it's ergonomics -- but personal ergonomics. Either will serve you well for as long as you want them to.</p>

<p>Also look for any specialty items or features offered by one manufacturer but not the other that would be of interest to you in the future.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>1. rank the features you like most such as video, image quality, fps, etc.<br>

2. compare the features side-by-side on each model<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp<br>

3. actually handle and lookat the camera model for ergonomics<br>

4. determine the best price - check B&H, Adorama, costco, etc.<br>

5. buy the best for you</p>

<p> </p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>You probably don't have the experience to know exactly what will work best for you right now, so I'd advise trying to find something adequate in your price range and get a little experience and then spend more serious money.</p>

<p>Different gear fits different people. Someone interested in sports photography might not buy the same stuff as someone who wants to photograph weddings or landscapes. I'd say just get something with a decent image sensor first and see what appeals to you -- like a Canon Rebel or something (or a Nikon D40 or D50). My first machine was a borrowed Mamiya Sekor 1000dtl (a real beast of a basic SLR) and my dad's Konica I rangefinder. Not optimal, but they were more than sufficient to get my feet wet.</p>

<p>Or for that matter if you're really on a budget, you could probably find a decent film camera for under $50 probably with the lens.</p>

<p>Ok, so landscape photography wants big sensors (or large format) and high image quality. For sports you probably want a crop sensor camera to give you more telephoto range and a longer set of lenses (and maybe fast autofocus and a good frame/second rate). For Weddings you probably want reliability, good image quality, and maybe decent high ISO performance. Someone doing advertising might want very large blow-ups so he might want large sensors and/or large formats. Someone taking concert pictures might want good ISO performance and very fast lenses. A street photographer would probably want to be unobtrusive so would want an unprofessional looking quiet camera. See it kind of depends on what you want to do with the camera in order to know what to look for.</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>For some of us that aren't professionals, it came down to money. Olympus has the in-camera stablization, so you aren't paying a ton every time you want a new lens. With Canon or Nikon, you have to spend the big bucks right away for lenses, and will continue to. Sharpness on Olympus is great (don't know about comparsion to Canon, just a few of the other lesser brands). If you want to be part of the crowd, then go with Canon or Nikon. Also Canon is greater as far as noise in the pictures. A lot will depend on your long term goals.</p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>Debbie, It basically comes down to money for me, too. I was leaning towards Canon for a while, but only lately have become interested in Oly gear. I've heard that the "kit" or "entry level" Oly lenses are better than any other brand's lenses of like quality. So I'm liking that. I also like the lighter weight. Though I'm not all that sure that the Canon Digital Rebel gear is significantly heavier than the Oly 43rds gear. So this might not be an issue at all. And... Canon seems to fare better where higher ISOs are concerned. I'd like to feel good about using 1600ISO where deemed necessary. But then there's in camera IS(Oly). Those Canon lenses with IS cost a bundle. <br>

So this has become a real teeter-tauter decision.</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>Lens are for sure light. Also, flash is lighter. Noise Ninja just becomes your best friend :)<br>

Yes, kit lenses are very nice.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>If money is a primary consideration, Sony might be a possibility. Sony acquired Minolta's camera business and the current Sony bodies are very good and they use all those old AF Minolta lenses, many of which are quite good and quite cheap.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Go thru the technical stuff if you are so inclined or technically adept and weed out what doesn't work for you. Determine how you're going to use the camera...flash, outdoors, big-heavy lenses or small light ones, etc. THEN physically examine the cameras you have narrowed the list down to. Ergonomics is hugely important for many people, especially those who have big hands, small hands, wear eyeglasses, can't carry heavy loads, etc. Lastly, consider the money differences for the features you want. That's my list at least, and it has served me well for over 50 years.</p>

[railphotog]

<p> </p>

[railphotog]

<p>One thing to consider is the availabilty of lenses and accessories for the system you do choose, both new and used. I've been shooting with Canon gear for over 40 years and have been able to make some great deals on new and used equipment over the years.<br>

<br />A good friend used Pentax film cameras, they served him well. When switching to digital, he kept a few lenses from his Pentax cameras and bought a Pentax K10. Great camera, great weatherproofing, and it serves him well. But he has not been able to find lenses and a flash on the used market locally. We both check out the local free online service of Kijiji (owned by eBay), and there are almost never any quality Pentax gear offered. But I've found some great deals on four nearly new lenses for my Canon, all at less than half the new price. There are just so many Canons out there that there always seems to be some available at a decent price. My friend had to buy an extreme wide angle lens and a zoom for his Pentax by paying full retail, and there wasn't much choice. I got four lenses for my Canon for less than he paid for his two.</p>

<p>Something to think about anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[robert_thommes1]

<p>So how does the following criteria list measure up in your eyes when comparing these two systems?<br>

Size/weight, lens availability, lens quality, lens cost, ISO performance, general IQ, Video, frames per second, feel-ergonomics, IS(lens or camera), price(new-used).<br>

Bob</p>

 

[jeffrey_synn]

<p>+1 to Bob and the used lens market. The only lenses I've bought new were sold together with the camera. Buying used can save you a bundle as long as you are willing to exercise a bit of caution.</p>

<p>Another thing to consider is total lens selection. You are already considering Canon, which has IMO the widest selection available: 4 Tilt-Shift lenses (17, 24, 45, 90), an extreme 5x macro lens and professional f/4 70-200mm zooms are lenses that other manufacturers simply don't have. Or you could covet the pancake lenses Pentax offers. Or Nikon's 14-24 and DC portrait lenses. Or Sony's 135mm STF portrait lens. Different systems have different capabilities.</p>