Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Considering buying a DSLR cam...
- Thread starter definitive
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I looked at the NEX line because I'm thinking about upgrading myself, and it's priced very closely to entry-level DSLR from Canon and Nikon.
Seems to me like you gain portability but lose lens variety. Is there another benefit to going with mirrorless?
I'd had a few Sony Alpha SLT cameras and really like them. Very good image quality, built-in GPS and many 3rd-party lens makers make lenses for them. I know Sony SLTs aren't as popular as Nikon and Canon, but shouldn't be ruled out. I'd say that I'm a rebel, but then I'd be a Canon. Ba-dum-sch 
If someone buys a dSLR but only gets/uses the kit lens, I would argue they should have bought a compact, not a dSLR or mirrorless. There are great compacts out there, with good range, a quality lens, and full manual control if needed.
The whole idea of milc and dslr is that you change lenses.
I chose the Fuji X-E1 over the NEX for myself. The Fuji X range cameras have excellent IQ, portability and a growing number of good quality lenses at reasonable prices plus there are adapters for other makes of lens. Worth checking out.
online cameras purchase
Once you decide what you want to buy check out http://www.citiwideonline.com this has the best online camera prices I have found. But it is always worth checking local suppliers particularly for superseded models which are often sold at significant discounts
Once you decide what you want to buy check out http://www.citiwideonline.com this has the best online camera prices I have found. But it is always worth checking local suppliers particularly for superseded models which are often sold at significant discounts
I think changing the lens is ONE advantage of the SLR. The other is the very fast handing and near zero shutter lag. and then the larger sensor. Even the APS-C or DX size sensore a huge compared to what is inside a compact camera so the noise you get in low light is much better with the SLR. Next the SLR will have many of the functions exposed on buttons and not so many down inside menus, faster to get at.
But if you have the SLR it's kind of a waste not to at least pick up a faster f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens.
I was looking for a dslr before taking a very scenic UK trip in a few weeks. I wanted something with decent water resistance so I could get any shot I wanted and have the piece if mind of no damage if it drizzled at all. I purchased a Pentax K-30 with a highly rated 18-135mm water resistant lens. The camera is FAR better than I expected. The pictures are amazing! I believe it's the only camera below $1000 with dual adjustament wheels which has been great for learning to become good at photography. If you will every want to take pictures when it's wet outside or at the beach don't overlook Pentax. I'm very glad I didn't.
The problem with them is the limited range of lenses - or you have to use adaptors.
The DSLR is also a quite fast and feels more natural to use in all conditions.
In any case, even a used D90 Nikon with some really good lenses will give you excellent results. Now I'm biased since I'm a Nikon shop as far as my camera gear, but I've used Canon before and still understand them pretty well.
I started out with a Nikon D3200 and can assure you that it's a great camera. It actually performs well beyond what a beginner can possibly need. The only reason I would recommend it over the D3100 is because of the better sensor and updated tech, and the price difference isn't that big.
Like everyone else before me, I will say the same thing: camera lens > camera body. I recommend getting the camera body only + the new Sigma 17-70mm. It's a very versatile lens and probably the only lens you'll need for a while. In my opinion, you'll find more benefit in this lens because you get:
I know - from firsthand experience - that focal range and aperture numbers can seem trivial in the beginning but they make a HUGE difference. On paper, 3.5 isn't that much bigger than 2.8 but when you're trying to shoot in low light, you'll see just how big a difference it makes. This lens costs $499 and if you get a good deal on the camera body you should be able to stay pretty close to your budget. You can read more about the lens here.
Like everyone else before me, I will say the same thing: camera lens > camera body. I recommend getting the camera body only + the new Sigma 17-70mm. It's a very versatile lens and probably the only lens you'll need for a while. In my opinion, you'll find more benefit in this lens because you get:
- larger apertures (f/2.8-4.0 vs f/3.5-5.6)
- larger focal range (17-70mm vs 18-55mm)
- it has macro capability (Nikon's kit lens doesn't)
- like Nikon's 18-55mm, the Sigma has optical stabilization (Nikon calls it VR) and a focusing motor that'll allow it to autofocus with entry-level DSLRs, such as the D3200
I know - from firsthand experience - that focal range and aperture numbers can seem trivial in the beginning but they make a HUGE difference. On paper, 3.5 isn't that much bigger than 2.8 but when you're trying to shoot in low light, you'll see just how big a difference it makes. This lens costs $499 and if you get a good deal on the camera body you should be able to stay pretty close to your budget. You can read more about the lens here.
Last edited:
Micro 4/3 system offers just about every lens a beginner to advanced user could want, generally at much smaller sizes and prices.
And how exactly is the fact that it can also use other systems lenses a bad thing??? Because I need an adapter? hmm.
I've had a Nikon D7000 for about a year and love it. The lenses I use are 35mm, 55-200mm, and 10-24mm wide angle.
Why don't you just say what you really mean instead of beating around the bush.
What happens on a 4/3 camera when you increase the ISO to 3200?
First thing you need to do is play around with a Canon and a Nikon and see which menu system you like best. Other than that, they're basically the same quality.. so brand means nothing between the two.
I'll add my voice to the chorus on lens > body.
I'd far rather buy a cheap DSLR and a superior lens than a superior DSLR and a cheap lens.
Garbage in, garbage out. No matter what the camera body happens to be.
I'd far rather buy a cheap DSLR and a superior lens than a superior DSLR and a cheap lens.
Garbage in, garbage out. No matter what the camera body happens to be.
I don't know and the suspense is killing me... What happens?
C'mon , you know what happens ..... 4/3 times 3200 = 4666