DSLR from 35mm SLR

[kimpywooflickr]

<p>I'm a reasonably competent 35mm SLR user but in no way an expert (my Pentax ME Super is my favourite) and I am trying to figure out what DSLR to go for as my first.<br>

My budget is £500 - £700 and in a perfect world that would get me the kit lens and a 50mm prime as well. I think that I'm choosing between a Nikon D5200 and a Canon 650D/Rebel T4i. I need to go and try them out but I would also like some advice first.<br>

With my 35mm SLRs I tend to use aperture-priority and I fear ending up with a DSLR where I have to either be fully automatic or using menus a lot - I want to be able to change aperture and/or shutter speed without moving the camera away from my face. Do many DSLRs allow for that sort of operation or am I going to have to be choosy/spend lots? Sorry for the utter cluelessness, I've never even picked one up before and all the online reviews have addled my brain.<br>

Further adding to the mix, a photographer acquaintance of mine suggested that current Canons seem to be a notch above current Nikons - which threw me as he's a proper Nikonian.<br>

I did search for similar threads but couldn't find anything that quite matched up.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Yes, you can hold the D5200 (for example) to your face and change shutter speed or aperture (or both, if you're in manual mode) as you shoot. No need to take your eye from the viewfinder.<br /><br />Note, of course, that such cameras have slightly smaller sensors (than your familiar 35mm film), so the 50mm prime you're thinking of probably wants to be a 30mm or 35mm lens to maintain that same (50mm lens on 35mm film body) field of view. In the case of the D5200, you'd be looking at Nikon's 35/1.8 G lens - a very good "standard" focal length fast prime lens for the money, on that (APS-C) format camera.<br /><br />On the Canon v Nikon front: ignore any and all references to image quality. Complete hair-splitting, especially at the more modest price points. It's entirely about ergonomics. You need to handle each flavor of body to see what you like.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>I just bought the 35 1/8G and I really like it. I use it on my D5100. It's like a 52.5mm field of view on the camera. You'd get the same. The one thing that will probably annoy you at first is that going from a full frame viewfinder to the D5200 will be like looking down a tunnel. You get used to it.</p>

[SCL]

<p>First - forget the Canon/Nikon debate....each has its strengths and weaknesses, which sally back and forth month to month. For all practical purposes they are "the same". A much bigger question is which lens system do you want to commit to, as this is where much of your money will go to over time. One of the above has a better line up in the wide end and the other has a better line up in the long end. Years ago I chose the Nikon path and haven't regretted it...to me they were more ergonomic for my hands, and the placement of controls seemed more intuitive. I typically use aperture priority as well as manual in my digital shooting and also use manual focus lenses. Your idea of going to try the cameras out is an important one, as most people find the ergonomics are an important driver in their choices. As far as making changes while shooting....there are little wheels which make the changes, and most of these show up in the viewfinder, so, once you get used to a different way of making changes, you don't have to use menus for routine changes. Good luck in your choice...I think you'll enjoy the camera once you get used to it and post processing.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>I'm probably wrong here but why not consider Pentax? You should be able to use your existing lens or lenses.</p>

[ellery]

<p>second the point about 50mm 1.8 on the crop sensor...I have used my D90 for 5 years now...love my 50mm f1.8, but indoors it is almost useless except for head shots, or possibly head and sholders if I back into a wall or something..<br /><br />I have never had the 35mm prime, but others seem to like it...<br /><br />I use my 50mm prime though for my babies, a bit outdoors in the backyard of my kids - its a great focal length for outdoor portraits for me....but yeah, its just too darn tight indoors mostly....<br /><br />Echoing pretty much what Richard and Matt said I guess...I really didnt help much :)<br /><br />Given how tight your budget is and depending on what you shoot...it seems that in your budget you will need a "kit lens" of some sort....hopefully other folks will give you advice on that....I think most of these come with an 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lens....Ive never had that lens...but important to decide if you will want to use a kit lens for a while....my guess is you probably will just to have the versatility...food for thought...hopefully others will give you better advice on these points than I can....<br /><br /></p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Kimberley, in addition to what Matt already said (to which i agree fully), one thing to really cosider for yourself: there is no huge fundamental difference between digital and film photography. The more things change, the more stay the same. A DSLR has external controls, just like a F(?)SLR.... A Nikon D5000 is ergonomically quite like my F65 for all important operations (=setting shuuterspeed/setting aperture, changing modes, controlling flash), and a D300 much like a F100, for example. So, don't be scared by differences, but work from what you already know, and you will find that not all that much changed, actually.<br>

Except that a 50mm on some cameras doesn't look like a 50mm.</p>

<p>And if you currently mainly have Pentax gear, sure do take a look at their DSLRs - they do not have the same public exposure as Canon and Nikon, but very nice cameras with great compatibility with old(er) lenses.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>When you think of the DSLR and lenses don't forget that with DSLRs like the D5100/5200 you are quite able to shoot at 1600 ISO or even higher. This makes the kit lens far more useful than it would be on a film camera. </p>

<p>You may be choosing the D5100 over the D5200 because you are saving money for the prime lens. If your reason for doing this is because you are concerned about low light you may want to reconsider. Jessops has the D5200 under your £700 budget. It is a better camera in just about every way than the D5100.</p>

<p>At the risk of starting a flame war with the Canon people it is vastly better than the 4Ti in some important areas. Just as an example it has 2.7 stops greater dynamic range. Higher resolution....etc. BUT!! None of this matters if it gets in the way of your taking pictures. The most important thing as others have said, is that you like using your new camera and it fits your hand well. A camera ought to get out of your way and let you take wonderful shots. In the final analysis you will love your new camera no matter which way you go. </p>

[phule]

<p>[[but indoors it is almost useless except for head shots, or possibly head and sholders if I back into a wall or something..]]</p>

<p>If your subjects are full-grown, average sized, adults, perhaps. </p>

<p>If your subjects are smaller than that, perhaps not. </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>On most DLSR and AF SLR cameras, you can go to aperture preferred (Av) from a simple dial selection on top of the camera.</p>

<p>The only differences that are significant that I can see between Nikon and Canon lines is that there are slight variances in the "operating system" so that whichever one you start with, seems more "natural" after that. We passed the line where more pixels was necessarily "better" several years ago.</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>If you like your Pentax, please consider a Pentax DSLR. Any K mount lens can still be used and they are easy to switch between P, M, Av, etc... They can do much more once you get into the menus, but you don't have to do much once it's set the way you want it. I have the K-7 and really like it. I also still use the H1a and PZ1p I have.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>I rarely need to use menus while shooting my Canon 7D. Occasionally I will need to change a setting, but it is never needed to change things like aperture or shutter speed. In fact, I find that a lot easier, on a DSLR, as you have independent dials for the aperture and shutter speed (most DSLRs control the aperture electronically from the body. No more aperture ring on the lenses!).</p>

<p>Most DSLRs in your budget range will have manual, Aperture Priority, Shutter priority, full auto, and several "scene" modes. You can be as "hands-on" or "hands-off" as you like.</p>

<p>Definitely try them out. You'll definitely find one or another that "fits" you better.</p>

<p>Good luck in your search!</p>

[steve_fay]

<p>I've just bought a Pentax K110D, one of their early DSLRs, and find that it works rather well with a couple of K-mount lenses I use on my film SLRs. There are one or two settings to check or change, and a button to become acquainted with, but using manual lenses on a Pentax DSLR is pretty easy. If you have a KA-mount lens (as opposed to K-mount), you would have slightly more automatic functions...if you wanted them. The change of angle of view could be an issue: my Tamron 28-80mm zoom, now behaves as if it were a 42-120mm zoom. Another issue could be at the low end of the ISO/sensitivity range; if you prefer shooting 125iso or slower, you might find some DSLRs don't go below 200. Of course the real issue would be how you find the results of shooting at that speed digitally.</p>

[rick_m.]

<blockquote>

<p>We passed the line where more pixels was necessarily "better" several years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? You ought to write to Canon, Nikon and Mamiya and tell them that. I agree that it is possible to have a number sufficient to the job but there are often advantages to more pixels. </p>

[danny_low]

<p>I started in photography years ago with a Pentax ME Super. Any DSLR today has every mode (shutter priority, aperture priority, etc.) that ever existed with SLRS and some modes that you may never have seen in a film camera. So I would not worry about flexibility.</p>

<p>The differences between any equivalent Nikon or Canon model is minimal except for the ergonomics. All those features on DSLRs mean they have so many more controls than ever existed on a film camera. Canon and Nikon have distinctly different ideas as where the buttons should go, whether a button or dial should be used, etc. The best way to decide is to handle them and see if the controls make sense for you and if your hands are comfortable operating all the common controls.</p>

<p>I calculated long ago that a 16 megapixel DSLR was the equivalent of a 35mm SLR in terms of picture quality. My experience indicated that you could get 8x10 prints that were indistinguishable from film with as little as 12MP. All current DSLRs have this many pixels so that is no longer a factor in selecting a model.</p>

<p>BTW shooting digital requires a paradigm change in many cases. For example, you can change the ISO from shot to shot. So your ISO setting becomes another control with shutter speed and aperture in getting the correct exposure. Shots are free with digital as you do not have to buy replacement film or pay to get your photos developed. So buy a large memory card and shoot away without needing to stop and reload. DSLRs can change the color balance with each shot, so you no longer have to worry about daylight and tungsten light. Just select the right setting before taking your photo. I have yet to find a camera with an automatic color balance that will work correctly for tungsten so it still pays to pay attention to your light source. A custom light color balance is standard in DSLRs and easy to use.</p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Rick, the manufacturers have said it many times by continuing to release cameras with less than the maximum pixels possible.</p>

<p>It's the buyers who need to learn how useful or not a certain pixel count is for a specific purpose.</p>

<p>You know, I did say "was necessarily "better""- last time I spoke English that did not mean "always".</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>As Matt and Wouter (two of the most knowledgeable and helpful folks here on PNET) say, forget totally about the Canon/Nikon debate as to which is better image quality wise. Pretty much any modern DSLR is going to give you the IQ you need, and not just Canon or Nikon. It's all about ergonomics and price now - what feels better in your hand and how the control placement works for you, and how much the camera costs. If possible, go to a brick and mortar store and put your hands on some equipment as opposed to ordering it online, and you'll get a better feel for what you like.</p>

<p>The only other thing you might consider is the pixel count of the camera you choose. Unless you plan to make huge prints, 16 MP is plenty of resolution (or even 12-14), and if you go with, say 24 MP, you'll find that the bigger the image file the more room it consumes on your memory card and the hard drive on your computer.</p>

[accystan]

<p>Kimberley: <br>

I also agonized over the Nikon vs. Canon debate and ultimately decided that either camera would be better than me.<br>

Good luck,<br>

Dave D</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Since you are already not involved with Canikon I see no need to get involved with them. I came to a digital from a K1000 and found that a bridge camera did almost everything my SLR and a bag of lenses did ... it was a revelation :-) ... I didn't want to borrow for the purchase so I picked an early Nikon bridge camera. This made me extremely happy for a year or so shooting more shots than in the twenty previous years with SLR ... such is the ecconomics of digital. But that was a decade ago and today I would suggest that you look at MFT rather than the small sensored bridge camera. The right MFT .. GH from Panasonic or OMD5 from Olympus give you everything and more that the SLR has but without the bulk and weight of the average DSLR with similar capabilities. At 60% of the APS-C sensor the IQ is equally as good for most purposes and at least one person rates it superior to full frame for thier needs, night club shooting by available light ... not my and not probably your thing but a good indication of what they can do in the right hands. </p>

<p>My current rig is a GH2 with a 14-140 Lumix which gives me a 28-280 angle of view as with the SLR and is relatively compact, about what I feel is right compared to the SLR I used to use, but oh so so more capable :-) Depending on which mode you work in you have full control of aperture and shutter speeds in the viewfinder or LCD on the back as you desire. Changing ISO is a button on the back of the camera with a display in the EVF. The EVF adjusts its brightness to whatever lighting conditions you are working under but for those who like to adjust exposure through the viewfinder it doesn't change over the range 3 stops under and over. Changing aperture and shutter is by a knurled knob at your thumb one presses it to change between them and there is display in the EVF etc.</p>

<p>I can see the DSLR is a reasonable choice for a newbie photographer but for an experienced photographer there is little need once they get the hang of the features the digitalSLR has in MFT form. Like the Pentax DSLR you can use all your Pentax lenses with MFT if only manually which as a user of an automatic SLR might not be to your liking ...I worked manually with my pentax and didn't meet up with automatic cameras until going digital where I have learnt to trust my camera and having learnt a reasonable amount about editing do not often make manual adjustments apart from Aperture as I work in A mode.</p>

<p>But with the GH they are there on the outside of the camera. I suspect the Olympus is similar</p>