Dipping my toes in the DSLR world

[reza_rezazad]

<p>I've had a Sony RX100 for a year and have been thinking of getting an entry level DSLR in the sub-kilobuck range. I read an <a href="/equipment/choosing-a-dslr-camera">article</a> on this site which basically said cameras in this category are not that different from each other. But the article doesn't cover all the aspects that are important to me<br>

The main reason I want a DSLR is to be able to take tack sharp photos in suboptimal light (say at dusk) and also be able to take photos fast in street photography. I'm looking for these qualities:<br>

Light weight.<br>

Fast (startup as well as shooting)<br>

Good battery life.<br>

Weather resistant<br>

Easily accessible settings (in my RX100 settings are crammed into very few dials and buttons.)</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>The main reason I want a DSLR is to be able to take tack sharp photos in suboptimal light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no camera that does that. One of the key elements in photos that appear completely sharp is the quality of light - light that renders clear contrasts, is not (too) diffuse, sufficient etc. Don't expect miracles in this respect over your RX100, which doesn't have a bad sensor by any means.<br>

And the article you read is pretty right. There are no huge differences in the price range you indicate; the qualities you look for are equally met by all of them. The biggest difference is how they handle and feel in your hands, and how the controls make sense to you (or not) - this is very much a personal preference, so nobody can tell you that Brand A is "surely" better than brand B. It may be for some, and not for others. Best thing is to go to a store with sufficient models on display, and try them in your own hands.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>Sorry, I fear not much luck spotting the qualities / features you seek anywhere alltogether. - A Pentax might lack the shooting speed you desire. Others don't offer weather protection (which doesn't have to mean weather resistance) and user interfaces tend to be nastier in the lower price range.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>consider mirrorless, too. Sony's, Fuji's, Olympus's, and Panasonic's.</p>

<p>Very small, great for street photography. I went with Olympus and µ43, but you should pick something that fits best in your hand and has menus you feel comfortable with. Because once you learn to use them, they can all take the same photos, for the most part.</p>

<p>And +1 on the suboptimal light thing. If the light is bad, the photo is never gonna be tack sharp.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm with Wouter.<br>

Moreover, I think you're wise to start in the "subkilobuck" range. Most of these cameras nowadays have much improved high ISO performance. <br>

However, there are contradictions in your want list. High ISOs will always be noisier than normal ranges and light. By going to much more expensive cameras, you can reduce the problem, but not eliminate it altogether.</p>

<p>Wouter is also right that the "operating system" and "feel" of the camera in your hands the crucial difference among these models. You do want to spend some effort on this, since you will quickly become "imprinted" on the brand you choose for your first. Plus, any investment in fast lenses for low-light photography will also effectively commit you to a particular mount system from then on.</p>

<p>Mirrorless are nice and are likely to be the "future", but as of this particular historical moment there are still advantages in the older, mature technology of the dSLR, particularly in the choice of large sensor arrays.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>While not completely in conflict, it can be hard to make all of the things you want come together at the same time. </p>

<p>Battery life, in some ways, depends on the size of the battery. The battery in my dslr lasts longer than the battery in my NEX-6. But, batteries aren't all that expensive and with some planning and very little effort, you can tote an extra battery or two along.</p>

<p>Weather resistance is tough. It's usually a feature of more expensive bodies and lenses because it requires tighter tolerances, added seals, "better" build processes. You can reduce the need for "resistance" by avoiding the worst conditions, using waterproof covers, etc., carrying and exposing the camera with an eye to not getting it wet, etc.</p>

<p>"Light" weight isn't too bad a problem. The entry level dslrs are fairly light and with care in lens selections, aren't too beastly to deal with. But... (more to follow)</p>

<p>Low light performance comes from both sensor performance and lens aperture. While the RX100 has a 1" sensor and is substantially smaller than the aps-c sensors in many mirrorless and dslr bodies, it doesn't do to badly. The mirrorless and dslrs share the same sensors or are very close in performance, the micro 4/3 cameras have a sensor smaller than the aps-c but larger than the RX series. "Prime" lenses tend to be smaller and lighter than zooms and faster apertures, (smaller f numbers like f1.7 compared to f4, etc.) are easier and less expensive in primes. Zooms are really convenient but tend to be slower, it's unusual to find zooms faster than f2.8. Faster apertures require a larger "aperture" or adjustable hole in the lens body that controls light passage) so push the lens size larger. Note that while many mirrorless lenses are small, the more you carry of the faster/longer or maybe wider they are, especially zooms, the less they differ in size from dslr lenses.</p>

<p>Lens selection can make a difference in speed of use. More so, if not exclusively a mirrorless camera trait, "power zoom" lenses can slow things down on start up or in use if the camera needs to extend a lens from start ofr sleep. Not all mirrorless zooms are power sooms but it is a feature to at least be aware of.</p>

<p>To a certain extent, the smaller the camera body, the more features are controlled by fewer external controls for size reason, so dslrs tend to be somewhat easier to use than mirrorless. but external controls are more expensive compared to menus so entry level dslrs aren't necessarily all that different from mirrorless bodies. The RX series seems to be contolled more like the Sony dslrs than the NEX bodies were and apparently, the A6000 is more like the Sony dslrs in menu structure as well. </p>

<p>Handling any camera and using it for a while, if possible, goes a long way to helping you choose which you like.</p>

<p>There are some features in recent cameras which help deal with low light, like better sensors ( a wash between aps-c dslrs and mirrorless) and modes which do things like stacking multiple exposures to reduce noise. The best aid to sharp low light pictures is a good tripod and proper tripod techniques.</p>

<p>I really like the smaller cameras but have no problem dealing with the dslrs. If speed and control accessibility is paramount, a dslr might be the best choice. I would think that you might have to step up from the entry levels to get a better set of external controls. You might want to work through the reviews and forum discussions of any given lines cameras to see what people discuss on each model, looking for example, at the Nikon D5300 versus the D7100 for build and control features. I'd expect there are similar feature differentiations in the other lines as well.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Regarding "easily accesable settings": going from the 5D to 5DIII, I found the complexity of the menus greatly increased, to the point that I really have to research, on pretty much every foray into the menu. </p>

[ussorca]

<p>p.s. to Peter's post...Suggest you take a look at Sony A6000. Not perfect but an affordable start with 16-50mm lens, and a long list of desirable specs. Happy Christmas.</p>

 

[dcstep]

<p>Any camera at your price point will have major limitations. Just buy one and move on. Start with Canon, Nikon or Sony, then you'll either be totally happy with what you have, lose interest, or want much more, at which time you'll spend kilobucks to get what you really want. Really, that's how it works. Stick to a "leading" brand for ease of upgrade.</p>

[aaron_mccormick]

<p>For me, it's all about three things.<br /> <br /> <strong>color -</strong><br /> Different brands of camera produce different color results, (to put things simply). It often takes years of looking at different photos shot by different photographers, using different cameras, techniques, lenses, and subject matter, to notice any remarkable differences. For example, I now prefer Olympus, Nikon, and Pentax brands for color (even though I can only afford to have one brand). I used to use Canon, and although Canons are excellent in the full frame department, I wound up being disappointed with my mid-range DSLR camera. Like a bad date, Canon turned out to be "Not my type". <br /> <br /> <strong>lenses-</strong><br /> You get what you pay for. I have always gone straight to the top and purchased the matching brand of lens (for example Canon lenses for my Canon, and Nikon lenses for my Nikon) It feels better, and the used lens of the native brand will sell for way more money, if you take care of it over time. Lenses will usually cost you more than the camera body if you need more than two of them (most people seem to prefer three... a.k.a portrait, telescopic zoom, and wide angle).</p>

<p><strong>brand loyalty and future investment in ever more and more lenses-</strong><br /> ...because there just isn't much point in switching up brands all the time unless you plan on buying a whole new set of lenses for your DSLR, every time you decide you want something different. That is, unless, of course.. you can afford to pay many, many thousands.</p>

<p> </p>

[reza_rezazad]

<p>Thank you guys.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is no camera that does that. One of the key elements in photos that appear completely sharp is the quality of light - light that renders clear contrasts, is not (too) diffuse, sufficient etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But isn't a photo like <a href="/photo/17912513">this one</a> tack sharp even though it's taken at dusk? Maybe I can take a photo like that with my RX100 using a tripod.<br>

One problem with RX100 is that when taking a photo in low light, say in the city at night, it takes several photos and then superposes them. This takes several seconds and also is not suitable for shooting a moving, even slow moving, subject. So the camera is almost impossible to use it for street photography at night. I thought DSLRs have an edge in this area.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Reza, that image was taken with a $3,000 camera body. If that's in your budget, then that'd be a good model to buy for that kind of work. For twice as much, Canon makes a model, the 1D X, that'll do even better in low light.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"But isn't a photo like <a href="/photo/17912513" rel="nofollow">this one</a> tack sharp even though it's taken at dusk?"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The image cited was made with a <strong>Nikon PC-E NIKKOR 24mm f/3.5</strong> Lens and the exposure was: F/22 @ 5 seconds @ ISO100. <br>

<br>

That lens is a specialist lens which allows manipulation of the Plane of Sharp Focus by "Movements" (tilt and shift)<br>

<br>

Obviously using an exposure time of 5 seconds, the Photographer used a Tripod and the use of F/22 was to maximize the Depth of Field.<br>

<br>

WW<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p> </p>

[dcstep]

<p>aaron said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>color -</strong><br /> Different brands of camera produce different color results, (to put things simply). It often takes years of looking at different photos shot by different photographers, using different cameras, techniques, lenses, and subject matter, to notice any remarkable differences. For example, I now prefer Olympus, Nikon, and Pentax brands for color (even though I can only afford to have one brand). I used to use Canon, and although Canons are excellent in the full frame department, I wound up being disappointed with my mid-range DSLR camera. Like a bad date, Canon turned out to be "Not my type".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Color is in the hands of the photographer, not the camera. If you are beholding to the camera, no matter what brand, you're putting all of the color decisions in the hands of a committee of Japanese engineers, with the brands mentioned. Why not take total control over color and shoot in Raw? Shooting in Raw, you'll never be at the mercy of some committee's idea of how your images should look. It's very easy to set up presets in the Raw conversion software provided with the cameras. If you care about such things, then shoot in Raw and get the colors and contrast that you really want.</p>

[DavidTriplett]

<p>For just getting started, a used (in good condition) APS-C sensor camera with kit lenses will serve. You can buy a used Nikon D5100 or D7000 with lenses for a very reasonable price. I started with the D5100 kit. It has all of the functionality you need to make excellent images, and 16 megapixels is more than enough resolution. Tradeoff in price is that many functions are accessible only through menus, instead of dedicated external buttons. I recommend you make a careful and reasonably small initial investment, decide if you love photography, and then research extensively before making a much larger investment. These bodies were normally sold with 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. Additional lenses, like the f/1.8 35 mm (an excellent lens) are available at very reasonable cost, so that building up a kit is achievable. This combination of three lenses will cover 99+% of the pictures you will likely take. If you want more focal length, add a photo-multiplier. For macro, experiment with extension tubes before buying purpose-built lenses. Get a decent (but not expensive) tripod. Remember, digital camera bodies are quickly obsolescent, which makes used bodies very affordable, while good glass is always good. The best glass is expensive, and not needed for a first experiment, while good-enough glass is better than the best from 30 years ago and very adequate.</p>