Your opinion- I want to get a digital SLR or something close enough - What suggests u

-D-

-D-

Banned
Forum Sponsor
I have a Panasonic FZ28 or something like that.

I was thinking of getting a Nikon D5500 series. The middle Nikon camera in that line.
However, it's a large camera to lug around and take care of.

I value and appreciate the quality of the photo these camera's capture hence why I want one.
It is just for personal photos not a pro or work related.
I saw a small Sony where the lens extended pretty far (not usually a fan of Sony products, but will get one if that does what I want).

Is there a smaller camera that can provide me with great shots almost as good as a DSLR?
 
I have a DSLR (Canon) ... with multiple lens for it. I have taken it on bike trips but will not do that anymore, it takes up too much space regardless of the fact that it takes AMAZING photos...

I find that with the phone camera these days, I snap pics of my kid and family function as they come. The only time I actually use the DSLR these days is if I am able to setup a shot (nature scenery)... otherwise totally not worth to have one in my opinion, too big to lug around
 
chiller said:
I have a DSLR (Canon) ... with multiple lens for it. I have taken it on bike trips but will not do that anymore, it takes up too much space regardless of the fact that it takes AMAZING photos...

I find that with the phone camera these days, I snap pics of my kid and family function as they come. The only time I actually use the DSLR these days is if I am able to setup a shot (nature scenery)... otherwise totally not worth to have one in my opinion, too big to lug around
Click to expand...

precisely!
They (DSLRs) do take amazing shots but I am ok with trading off a bit of quality for having an actual camera with me. It's better to have a photo than no photo.
 
-D- said:
precisely!
They (DSLRs) do take amazing shots but I am ok with trading off a bit of quality for having an actual camera with me. It's better to have a photo than no photo.
Click to expand...

These days quantity is over quality of the photo ... since the quality of the photo with more recent phones is sufficient for most peoples needs (I'd say iPhone 5 / equivalent and up is good enough for day to day use)

I came up from using 35mm film camera's using multiple lenses, passed down from my dad who got it from my grandpa. Anyone remember the good 'ole Pentax K1000 ? I still have it with 4 lenses. Anyway going from high quality setup shots to now a days with just quantity of shots...

It is just plain easier not to have to lug around a giant camera bag. Tho I have some amazing photo's from places I've been to on the bike when I brought the DSLR, I was always worried about damaging it with vibrations and bumps.
 
From what (little) I understand of the art of light, known as photography; it's more about the quality of the lens than it is about the camera body itself.

That being said, I like Canon's for their ease-of-use, and reasonable price point.

Takeaway: If you're gonna be doing relatively the same type of shots, maybe look at a fixed-lens camera. replaceable lens cameras will be far more flexible, but far more cumbersome. My advice if you do end up with a DSLR is to find one on-sale (previous year's models) and find one with a good starter kit lens.
 
Last edited:
Micro 4/3 cameras are pretty incredible. I haven't touched my large DSLR since I got one. I also got a smoking deal on a 25mm Panasonic prime a while back for $99 US and it's awesome. See below...although I did screw up the focus a bit I love this pic.
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • Treefrog 1.jpg
    Treefrog 1.jpg
    53.5 KB · Views: 102
While the 4/3's are nice feature wise and do about I'd say 80% of what a DSLR does. It is just ANOTHER piece of equipment I have to carry with me.

- If I am on a bike space is at a premium and its just 1 more thing to pack (with the chargers, spare battery, case, etc.)
- If I am just around the city (non bike) chances are I have my kid (3 y/o) ... so I've got a stroller, 2 'life support' bags ... don't really need another piece of anything to carry.

And I love camera's ... LOL
 
chiller said:
While the 4/3's are nice feature wise and do about I'd say 80% of what a DSLR does. It is just ANOTHER piece of equipment I have to carry with me.

- If I am on a bike space is at a premium and its just 1 more thing to pack (with the chargers, spare battery, case, etc.)
- If I am just around the city (non bike) chances are I have my kid (3 y/o) ... so I've got a stroller, 2 'life support' bags ... don't really need another piece of anything to carry.

And I love camera's ... LOL
Click to expand...

I agree...but to me taking pictures with a camera is relaxing, a bit of a hobby and I like to have a decent camera instead of a cellphone sometimes. I use the cellphone a lot though. 4/3 cameras are pretty small these days and really not that heavy.
 
jc100 said:
I agree...but to me taking pictures with a camera is relaxing, a bit of a hobby and I like to have a decent camera instead of a cellphone sometimes. I use the cellphone a lot though. 4/3 cameras are pretty small these days and really not that heavy.
Click to expand...

ditto ... picture taking with the DSLR is relaxing and I like doing it but these days if I have a free afternoon off from the family, I go for a ride :P
 
jc100 said:
Micro 4/3 cameras are pretty incredible. I haven't touched my large DSLR since I got one. I also got a smoking deal on a 25mm Panasonic prime a while back for $99 US and it's awesome. See below...although I did screw up the focus a bit I love this pic.
attachment.php
Click to expand...

What is the exact model of the camera used?

I remember Panasonic has a nice line the TZ series. small enough for pocket with a large lense.
 
I have a DSLR, it gets used occasionally . I have a Nikon pocket 12mp 30to80zoom autofocus waterproof camera that goes everywhere. I'm shopping for a Fuji X10 or X100 that will be right in between and has a lot of great features.
I spent three wks in the south pacific last yr and had both camera, the point and shoot was used 80% of the time.

With the fairly inexpensive software these days average shots can become great post production, but that's another issue.....
 
chiller said:
I have a DSLR (Canon) ... with multiple lens for it. I have taken it on bike trips but will not do that anymore, it takes up too much space regardless of the fact that it takes AMAZING photos...

I find that with the phone camera these days, I snap pics of my kid and family function as they come. The only time I actually use the DSLR these days is if I am able to setup a shot (nature scenery)... otherwise totally not worth to have one in my opinion, too big to lug around
Click to expand...

I second this. I have a Nikon DSLR and it is bulky. Loved the photo's I took when on vacation, but HATED the setup, pulling it out/putting it away, taking care etc.

OP if you are looking for a hobby, its definitely a good buy. But if you are just looking to take a lot of high-quality photo's, you can do that with a LOT of point and shoot cameras for 1/2 the money. A quick note about DSLR's... the lens makes ALL the difference. You can get VERY high quality photos if you spend $1K on the camera body and $5K on the lens, but the opposite will not yield the same result.

The Sony Alpha a6000 is a good middle ground, but it's expensive. It does come with a whole bunch of lens options.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-a6000


Or you can man up and go for it: (not a photoshop)
e96cd7764da812141d8b94f1dc142812.jpg
 
Joe Bass said:
I got an email from best buy that they have $350 off a Canon T something bundle.
http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/categor...fullsite=true&CMP=EML-RZ-160210-SAL-FLA-DI-M-

But when I was looking for compact cameras, I had trouble finding anything with a decent optical zoom. Everything was digital. Iirc we ended up with a Fuji that has 5x optical 20x digital.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy far, far away using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That's not a good deal for a T5i. I recently purchased a T6i with 18-55 lens and 55-250 lens, a canon sling bag and an extra battery for 849.
 
Dresden said:
A quick note about DSLR's... the lens makes ALL the difference. You can get VERY high quality photos if you spend $1K on the camera body and $5K on the lens, but the opposite will not yield the same result.
Click to expand...

That is true, but a good-quality Nikon DX or Canon APS-C lens is nowhere near $5k. I can't speak for Canon since I'm a Nikon guy but the bundled lenses (i.e. the 18-55 and 55-200 zooms) are excellent for what they are.

Full-frame is where you're gonna have to spend a lot to get quality glass. I've carefully built up a small army of used lenses over the years, after inheriting old manual-focus lenses from a relative.
 
Matt Rain said:
That is true, but a good-quality Nikon DX or Canon APS-C lens is nowhere near $5k. I can't speak for Canon since I'm a Nikon guy but the bundled lenses (i.e. the 18-55 and 55-200 zooms) are excellent for what they are.

Full-frame is where you're gonna have to spend a lot to get quality glass. I've carefully built up a small army of used lenses over the years, after inheriting old manual-focus lenses from a relative.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I wasn't insinuating he should pick up a $5K lens. :)

I shot this with my Nikon D90, stock 18-105 lens.

tw7anpx.jpg
 
I'm guessing he meant 5k IN LENSES ...

To anyone that is buying DSLR's don't waste your money on the consumer level lenses that can be bought for 200 bucks (e.g. the 18-55 that comes with it and the 55-200) get lenses that have a constant aperture of F2.8 or better. Usually those have better optics to begin with. While I have shot with some of the Canon L type lenses, I am totally NOT good enough to be shooting with a $1500 lens and will put my money elsewhere. I find I buy many of the Sigma or Tamron lenses that are cheaper but still of decent quality. Call it pro-sumer quality grade equipment not professional grade like the L-type lenses.

E.g.
- one of my favorite lenses to shoot indoor portraits is a Sigma 30 F1.4 EX DC ... works wonders not having to use a flash since I can shoot down to the 1.4 if I wanted to.
- I also have a Sigma F2.8 70-200 EX DG that I've used for some time lapse photography at night taking pictures of the sky. Amazing to have the clarity to see the stars moving across the sky.



Matt Rain said:
That is true, but a good-quality Nikon DX or Canon APS-C lens is nowhere near $5k. I can't speak for Canon since I'm a Nikon guy but the bundled lenses (i.e. the 18-55 and 55-200 zooms) are excellent for what they are.

Full-frame is where you're gonna have to spend a lot to get quality glass. I've carefully built up a small army of used lenses over the years, after inheriting old manual-focus lenses from a relative.
Click to expand...
 
My Camera is an Olympus EM5. Micro 4/3 cameras also are able to use other manufacturers lenses either with or without adapters. There used to be a refurb store for Olympus, which is where I got my camera and a couple of lenses but this just seems to be in the US now. The Panasonic lens I got for 99 bucks though is very fast and very good.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom