Digital Cameras Don't Need Mirrors Anymore!!
But first of all, I need to get a camera. I was thinking about a reflex.
...
Canon EOS 1100D + EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DC III - 399
Sony SLT-A33L + DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM - 399
Nikon D3100 + AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR - 400
Canon EOS 1100D + 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Preta + Kit - 440
For starting in the world of photography, what would you guys recommend?
OK - your going to get a lot of differing opinions on this one and at the end of the day the decision is yours. But here is one key question that you need to ask yourself.
Why do you think you want a DSLR?
Historically, the reason cameras have used a reflex mechanism has been so that the user can see the same image in the viewfinder as the one that is going to be exposed onto the film. That is it! That's all! But it was an absolutely essential feature.
This required a complex system of mirrors, shutters and prisms and resulted in the SLR design that we know today.
Compact cameras could have fantastic lenses and fantastic metering, but due to the limitations of film they could never match the one Unique selling point of an SLR ... They always needed a separate viewfinder and this limited their usefulness.
Canon, Nikon, and many others went on to develop ranges of SLRs and loads of lenses for them thus making them the standard for 'serious' amateur and professional photography.
One or two companies including Leica (see Leica M6) stuck by their guns and accepted the one major disadvantage of the compact (I.e. the viewfinder) whilst exploiting the advantage of a smaller size. They demonstrated that quality is not about "SLR" it's about "Quality".
Now ... The point is that with the advent of digital, it is no longer necessary to have a complex and bulky system of mirrors, shutters and prisms to get the image that is seen through the lens to the user's eye! The whole SLR concept is essentially becoming redundant. People will argue against this but watch this space, within the next 10 years SLRs will have died out. There is absolutely no need for them.
Now here's the rub ... The SLR concept meant that companies could create a range of cameras from cheap to dear, low quality to high and completely separately have a range (sometimes massive) of interchangeable lenses.
Now many photographers have spent 20 or more years building up a range of expensive quality lenses worth thousands of £$ and as a result have perhaps stayed with Canon or Nikon kit, upgrading the camera every few years, but always being able to use the same lenses.
The manufacturers can't afford to upset these guys ... So they need to keep bringing out cameras that will take these lenses, so they keep bringing out DSLRs ...
Point is, even Nikon and Canon have started moving away from DSLRs with compacts that take interchangeable lenses.
It is no longer necessary to equate SLR with Quality or Serious Photography.
I have a Nikon D800 DSLR with a large range of lenses which I won't go into, but I also have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 compact which is essentially a clone of a Leica Digital Camera.
Which one do I use most? Which one would I take out on the street? Absolutely the Lumix!
Which would I use when I go out for a day of Landscape Photography? The Nikon.
Final thoughts from me (and people WILL have different views)
The only reason to get a DSLR (unless you go for serious top of the range) is because you think they look cool OR you already have a bag full of lenses
If you need a system with loads of lenses, you won't get it cheap! lenses are expensive!
Compacts are smaller lighter and more discrete, the quality can be as good if not better than a DSLR for a similar price and more of them are being designed to take good interchangeable lenses now.
Have a look at the Lumix DMC-LX7, for an option without interchangeable lenses, or the new Canon and Nikon compacts with interchangeable lenses
