ted_raper1

<p>I think the term "correct exposure" is subjective. As noted by some of the posters, it really depends on your vision of what the final image will look like. In my shooting style, I don't use auto modes, but do use aperture and shutter priority as well as totally manual. I'd guess that if I let the camera do an auto exposure, that would be technically correct, but likely won't be what I want.<br>

Probably 95% of the shots I take would be deemed less than correct exposure, but they are what I want. </p>

<p>Not to simplify this discussion - technology wise - but my desires in new new equipment are probably different than most. I don't care about wi fi, video, a zillion megapixels, or most of the other things camera manufacturers seem to be espousing these days. My desire, as it has always been, is pure image quality. Give me a camera that is simple to operate, durable, and has image quality as its main reason for being. I shoot mostly at low ISO, so I'm not even concerned about high ISO capability - give me a sensor that has ISO 80 quality at up to about ISO 800 and I'm perfectly happy. But I know I'm in the minority, and manufacturers have to make cameras that will sell to the masses so I don't expect my ideal camera any time soon. In the meantime, I use a Fuji XE1 with the 14 and 35mm prime lenses and I'm pretty happy with that.</p>

<p>I have owned - and used a lot - two of the cameras being mentioned here, the Canon G1X and the Fuji X20. Of those two, I think the Fuji is the better choice; the G1X has slightly better IQ and a bigger sensor, but it has its quirks (the lack of close focusing was the main one). The Fuji was the one I took when I went to Europe (along with a Nikon P7700) and when I got home and examined about 800 captures, the vast majority were from the Fuji. It's light, easy to carry (I was walking a lot), and pretty easy to use. The IQ is good enough for prints up to 13 x 19 unless you plan on doing exhibitions.</p>

<p>But if I were doing it again I'd probably rent the RX100.</p>

<p>Pat, trying to learn how to use both of those cameras before a trip is probably not a good idea - concentrate on one of them. I'd start with the Olympus simply because it is smaller, easier to carry around. While I am not a new photographer, I have had similar dilemmas (I buy and sell a lot of cameras, just to see what I like best). I went to Europe for two weeks earlier this year and bought two new cameras - a Fuji X20, and a Nikon P7700. I have extensive experience with both brands but was not familiar with either model and could not decide which to take, but eventually settled on the Nikon and worked with it before the trip. It all worked out fine. And, the general wisdom in the "new camera before a major trip" scenario is always to shoot with it as much as you can before you leave, and be sure to take the manual with you.</p>

<p>Pretty much the same way you get better at anything....take advantage of available learning opportunities (such as the huge talent pool here on P Net, probably the best you'll find), practice, work with other experienced photographers in the genre you choose. I have been shooting for 50 years, but I learn new things all the time; gear may evolve and get more sophisticated, but the core principles of good photography haven't changed. The best thing I ever did was study studio art - design, composition, etc. So when I pick up my camera(s), these things come naturally to me and all I have to do is concentrate on the subject. So just practice, join a photography club (a really good one with serious photographers), and use creative feedback as a learning tool, and above all enjoy yourself. </p>

<p>My Samsung TL500 (or EX1) also goes to 24mm, and it's F 1.8 at that setting; it has an articulated LCD and a "backlight" scene mode that - sort of - works as HDR. The IQ from it is damn decent as well, and they can be picked up cheap used, probably less than $250. I've owned mine for a couple years, and don't use it that much, and I have thought more than once about selling it but it's just too nice of a camera for me to let go for cheap. The Schneider-Kreuznach (spelling?) lens is just icing on the cake.</p>

<p>Definitely take the 11-16; I was just in Europe recently (Germany, Austria, Hungary) and the thing most people don't realize is that in the European cities, the streets are very narrow. If you are walking around in the towns you will need a seriously wide angle lens to shoot there. Then I'd take the 18-135 or the 75-300 as well. Me, I had a Tokina 12-24 and a Nikon 80-200; I did not miss the middle range at all but in hindsight I should have taken a 50 as well.</p>

<p>Um, gee, I never knew that there was such great shame in being a mother who also uses a camera......did I miss something in my fifty some odd years of photography?</p>

<p>As someone mentioned, the only way people will "shame" you about being - as you say, a MWAC - is if you go around belaboring the point yourself. How about just presenting yourself as a photographer, and let your images speak for themselves?</p>

<p>The hardest thing these days has already been mentioned - everyone has a camera now, and that is making it much harder to make any money as a photographer. I have been exhibiting and selling photos in galleries for many years, but since the advent of cellphone cameras it has gotten much tougher. The attitude is "why should I pay for that photograph when I can make one just like it with my cell phone?"</p>

<p>My sales have dropped off a lot in the past few years. You can make money as a photographer, but it is damn tough. And taking the picture is only 10% of the deal. Listen to the good advice you have been given in this forum, and best of luck to you.</p>

<p>I'm using a lightweight carbon fiber tripod by Benro (don't know the exact model; I'm not at home to check), and as the X-E1 (I use the 14mm and 35mm primes) is not a very heavy setup the carbon fiber tripod works fine.</p>

<p>I also use the Hitech ND grads in a Cokin P mount adapter. The only issue with the filters is that they are made of resin - hi quality resin, but resin nonetheless - instead of glass, so you have to be careful not to scratch them. I keep mine in the holders when not in use, and I'm careful with them.</p>

<p>If you like the D60 and lens your sister in law has, why not consider buying the same setup? That gear is available used (Google KEH), for not a whole lot of money. If you wish to stick with Nikon, they have several new models - D5200, D3200, that would probably work for you, and give better results than the older technology D60. Even a D5100 or D3100 would do the same, and since these are not the newest models, they can probably be had at reasonable prices.</p>

<p>As always, the best thing to do is to go to a store and hold the cameras you're considering buying if possible. It comes down to price and ergonomics these days; you can't really go wrong with any modern camera.</p>

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

<p>I just recently sold my Nikon gear - D300s, 17-55, 80-200 2.8, and a Tokina 11-16 2.8 along with all the accumulated accessories I'd built up over the years. I like to hike into tough spots sometimes and carrying the gear just got to be too much.</p>

<p>I replaced it with a Fuji X-E1, the 14mm and 35mm primes and the 18-55 zoom, the good flash, and the usual accessories. I couldn't be happier. Granted, the D300s was old technology, and the X-E1 is much newer, but the images I get out of the Fuji are superior to the ones I was getting with the old gear, and the Fuji setup is a lot easier to carry. The 14mm is as good a lens as any Nikon I ever used; the 35mm is no slouch either, and while the 18-55 might not be quite as good as the best Nikon zooms, it's way above adequate when I need a zoom. The main thing I miss is the wonderful optical viewfinder of the D300s.</p>

<p>So I'm very happy with the switch. Yeah, I sometimes see other photographers carrying their D800/24-70 setups and I have a moment of "big camera envy", but then I remember how heavy my old gear was. I'm an old guy, and I suspect I'm a mirrorless guy from now on.</p>

<p>I'm in general agreement with the "don't charge family" sentiment, but either way, if you do or don't charge her, I'd definitely let HER make the decision as to who gets copies. </p>

<p>Thom Hogan did a very nice D7000/D300/300s comparison in his D7000 review; I suspect much of what he says would also apply to the D7100/D300 discussion. He sort of sums it up by saying it's a better buffer/better build vs. better IQ/better noise decision, whichever floats your boat more. Me, I'm a low ISO shooter, static subjects, rather-have-a-more-robust-build kind of guy, and the newer sensor of the D7100 is not enough reason for me to sell my D300s and get a 7100. Besides, I just bought a new Fuji X-E1 that works pretty well.</p>

<p>So as almost always, it really depends on what you want!</p>

<p>With the two lenses you have, you have moderate wide angle (the 18-55) and medium telephoto (55-200) well covered. Your decision as to a new lens, if you really think you need one, boils down to this: do you want to be able to photograph wide vistas of the landscape, or photograph polar bears from a long distance? The 18-55 will give you a moderate wide angle for landscape vistas, and the 55-200 will get you some distance pictures. If you want wider, consider something in the 10-12 range, and if longer, something in the 300 range. </p>

<p>"Better lenses will help me get better pictures" is true only in certain instances. For a novice, as you explain that you are, spending tons of money on new lenses can often be disappointing. A pro photographer can uses "better" lenses to maximum advantage, yes, but an inexperienced one would probably be better off studying technique, light, and composition; you'll get more benefit (and probably better pictures) from that than spending money on new lenses. As you grow as a photographer, then you will have a better idea of what new lenses you might need.</p>

<p>Also, read your D5100 manual carefully. In Alaska, you will be confronted with cold, humidity, challenging lighting conditions, all of which can affect how your camera behaves in the automatic and semi automatic modes. </p>

<p>And above all - enjoy yourself! Good luck with your trip.</p>

 

<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>

<p>Comment for James, re the X20: I have one, and it's a fine point/shoot camera. Because of age/health/declining need for pro level equipment, I recently sold my Nikon gear and switched to the Fuji X system (I had a couple Fuji's in the past and was pretty impressed); my current inventory is an X100, an X-E1, and I just got the X20. It's feature rich and delivers great IQ, build quality is top notch. My major complaint with the X20 is that at the wider apertures, 2, 2.8, the camera is restricted to 1/1000 shutter speed (in aperture priority, you can override this by shooting manual, I think) and it has no built in ND filter. So you either stop down, or use a variable ND, as I do. As long as you can live with the retro design and operation, it's great. Personally, I love the design, and the camera - all the Fuji X series from my perspective - has just enough mild quirkiness to appeal to my "slightly out of the mainstream" persona. And the IQ from all three cameras is equal to the gear I sold (D300s, Tokina 12-24, Nikon 24-70).</p>

<p>As JC says above, the quality of the lens you need really does depend on what you intend to do with your photographs. If you are going to post them on the web, or make small prints, save yourself some money and purchase the cheaper lens. If you intend to print larger, or display/exhibit your photos, it makes more sense to get the best quality lens you can afford.</p>

Because I have only a few lenses, and they are all rather expensive, I keep UV filters on them pretty much at all times, though I usually remove them while actively shooting, unless there is a specific reason - rain, dust, "poop" as Lex says - to keep them on. It helps keep the lenses from smudges and klutzy behavior on my part to leave them on at all other times. Lens hoods, I don't use as protective devices, only as lens shades when necessary.

<p>I agree with Jeff 100%. Modern cameras are so good, especially the newer ones from Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax, etc. that it really becomes a matter of two things: how much money you want to spend, and which feels better in your hands. And as Jeff says, too many people buy one brand or the other based on what someone else says instead of what feels better for them. So if at all possible, go to a camera store and try out some different cameras and see which one you like best. You really can't go wrong with any of the major brands these days.</p>

<p>I have owned a couple small camera/big sensor pieces of equipment. A sigma DP1s, and a Fuji x100, so I am definitley interest ed in the genre. But $1200 for the body and an additional $450 for a purely optical viewfinder? I have been a Nikon guy for a lot of years but I'm not sure I'm ready to invest $1650 in a pocket sized D7000. I can pick up a used Sigma Dp2 Merrill for about $800, and a used Fuji X100 for about the same, and get the same (or better) IQ. If the price comes down drastically, maybe I'm in. But not yet, not at $1650.</p>

<p>But I do applaud Nikon for building the thing in the first place. I image that people (like me) who are used to paying Nikon prices will flock to it.</p>

<p>I have a two week river cruise in Europe coming up in April. Same problem. What gear to take? I recently just divested myself of several cameras ( I had eight, a bit too many) and now have five to choose from. Two small sensor P/S (a Samsung EX1 and a Fuji X20), two big sensor (Fuji XE1 and Nikon D300s), and a Nikon F5 film camera. So what to do?</p>

<p>Right now I'm leaning towards the Fuji X20. I don't want to lug a D300s and the heavy 2.8 zooms around, the Samsung is too limited zoom-wise (24-70), the XE1 is too new to risk, and the film camera is out. Looks like the X20 wins by default.</p>

<p>I seriously doubt that micro 4/3 is "dead". Perhaps the more intense development by Sony (Nex series) or Fuji (X series) has temporarily pushed it into the background, but the truth is that the micro 4/3 system right now has more cameras and lenses to choose from than either the Nex or the X series. From my point of view the biggest issue with it is the 2x crop factor. I had used it (Oly EPL1 and a Panasonic G3) before switching to the Fuji system and found the IQ, and the ability to use legacy lenses to be very good. I mainly just wanted a bigger sensor, which is why I went with the Fuji.</p>

<p>So I would not consider it a dead system. Perhaps you should go to a well stocked camera store and try various systems to see which one feels best. I think mirrorless cameras in general are going to be around for a long time; I would not waste a minute worrying that they're going to go away any time soon.</p>

I have the X-E1 and the 18-55 zoom as well as the 35 1.4. I have done comparison shots (two stops down from max aperture) with them both at the 35mm focal length (with the zoom) and found that the 35 is a bit sharper, yes. But the tradeoff there is the zoom has stabilization - it may not be as fast, but it's a bit more versatile. So what do you value more - speed or versatility? I did 13 x 19 prints, and since most wedding stuff isn't printed that large, I would say there is little to lose IQ-wise, with the zoom over the prime.

 

But I do love that 35mm 1.4!

<p>The best advice I have heard re filters is this: if you spent $1,000 on a lens, put a good quality filter on it. If you spent $100, then use a cheap one. In short, the quality of the filter should be commensurate with the quality of the lens you put it on. As noted above, Hoya, Tiffen, B+W are all quality pieces. If you have a cheap lens, go to Best Buy and buy a cheap Rocketfish filter.</p>