or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

School me DSLR

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 


My wife and I are looking at getting our first real digital camera and we are totally lost as to what lenses and equipment we need. We are generally considering the camera above, yet have no idea what lenses we would want for actions and general family use.

thank you very much, advise.
post #2 of 24

Well, I`m not much of a photographer but I`ll try to offer some advice.  I can use old-school SLR`s with manual settings, so I get how the SLR was intended to be used and I could take good technical photos with an SLR.  Having said that, I`m a lousy ``photographer``.  My brother, OTOH, also has technical camera skillz, but can take far better photos than most people who use an SLR, but he does it with a fairly cheap point and shoot, which is much smaller and easier to handle/use than a "big" SLR.  I suppose my message is, if you're looking at bang for the buck, you might be better off with a good quality, small point and shoot for most of your pictures.  You can easily get it in your jacket and you'll actually likely use it more.  The artsy skills required to make nice photos, you can't buy.  Good equipment doesn't necessarily make good photos.

 

Having said that, DSLR's are good quality cameras.  The lens system allows you to do more than a point and shoot usually does, with better optics allowing more light through.  Most DSLR's come with a telephoto lens of some type, 18-140mm or 20-80mm..something like that.  The telephoto feature is great if you're doing a lot of different types of shots and you don't want to spend a lot of money.  A fixed focal length lens usually gives you better photos because you're putting less moving glass between the subject and the sensor.  A lot of pro shooters use a plain 50mm fixed lens and get crisp shots especially in low light..they have a very low f-stop rating.  Popular at weddings.  You can use a lower ISO and you'll have less graininess.  If you have the benefit of lots of light (ie skiing..) you can take good photos regardless.  If you intend to shoot at sporting events and expect to have good photos, you really need more zoom and than a 200mm.  Unfortunately, they're also quite expensive the bigger you go.  You won't get Sports Illustrated type photos from any distance away without a long zoom lens. 

 

One of the most useful things you can learn about your camera, whichever you get, when taking ski photos is metering your subject, not the snow.  It's very easy to underexpose your subject if you're shooting with a bright white snow background.  Learn how to meter on your subject by picking their body and zooming, then  moving to take the whole frame in.  You'll likely over-expose your background a bit (even a fair bit..) but your subjects will be in the correct light range.

 

My dad recently got a Nikon 5200 and I fooled around with that for a few days.  It's a good camera and takes excellent photos.  If you intend to take high quality photos or video, you'll need some large SD cards as it only comes with a fairly small SD out of the box.  And as I say, if you intend to take indoor photos in lower light, pick up a 50mm fixed lens..they're cheap and take great photos.  Great depth of focus and crisp even in low light.

 

Good luck!

post #3 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow View Post



My wife and I are looking at getting our first real digital camera and we are totally lost as to what lenses and equipment we need. We are generally considering the camera above, yet have no idea what lenses we would want for actions and general family use.

thank you very much, advise.


1) Determine why you are using the camera.  Do you want to be artistic?  Learn everything you can about photography?  Take the kind of photos that grace magazine covers?  Make posters from each photo or simply an occasional 8" x 10" will do, etc.

 

2) Determine your budget. Good glass can easily cost more than the camera.

 

3) Remember that in a few years time you can become very good at almost any endeavor, and photography is no different.

 

4) Remember that many of the iconic photos of the 20th century were taken by cameras with the quality of a modern iPhone.  It is just like skis.  A great skier on 20-year old equipment is still a great skier on any hill today.

 

5) Use www.photozone.de and other sources to help pick lenses.  Generally, prime lenses are the sharpest but offer less versatility.  This is like a condition specific ski (think a 66mm SL ski that is great on ice but sucks in powder).  Zoom lenses range from crappy, to decent (most "kit" lenses sold today), to very good to outstanding.  There is a HUGE difference in price between "kit" lenses and great lenses.  Kit lenses are sharp enough for general use...well, make that center sharpness.  They won't be good enough for professional work and the corner sharpness won't be that good.  For the average photographer, this is no big deal because your wife won't be at the edge of the photo.  Contrast is also a little better with the better lenses.  Don't worry about having to use the same brand lens as the camera.  Sigma and Tamron make great alternatives that are sometimes cheaper and better.

 

6) Manual lenses for specialty work can save you a bundle.  For example, if you want a dedicated portrait/headshot or a macro lens, you can easily save 75% by going manual.  Chances are you will focus any macro subject manually, anyway.  If you want to shoot landscapes like splitter (in the photo of the day thread), you need a really wide and sharp lens (the typical zoom isn't going to 14mm or whatever he uses).  Again, for occasional use a great manual lens will save a bundle.

 

7) Photography is basically painting with light, and using and modifying light is a lifelong learning experience.  The good news is the Internet has everything you need to know, and lots of it is for free.  Joining photo sites like 500px gives you 1000's of photos to look at on a daily basis, with many having the f/stop, shutter speed, and other information to see so you can replicate the shot.  Want to use filters, shoot RAW vs. JPEG, light modifiers, etc. for the first time?  Someone already has a video for you to look at.  I like www.fstoppers.com and www.diyphotography.net, and all the helpful videos at Adorama and B&H Photo.  Both Adorama and B & H are honest and reliable places to purchase equipment at  reasonable prices. I am not saying you shouldn't purchase your Nikon at COSTCO, just that the two retailers previously mentioned are considered the best in the business.

 

8) To start out, a basic 17mm-50mm zoom (or anything close to that) plus something longer, say a 75mm-250mm will do.  It doesn't have to be exact, just that anything close to these ranges will give you most of what you will likely shoot.  Generally, the "super zooms" are not as sharp. When you go on a trip that 18mm-300mm super-zoom is easier to take, but the photos may look a bit "soft."

 

9) The faster the lens, the more it will cost (all other things being equal) and the better bokeh you will get.  Bokeh?  I think it is a Japanese word--not sure--but it refers to background out-of-focus blur.  A lens that only has an aperture of f/4 may not be able to blur the background as well as a lens of f/2.8 or f/1.4.  Being able to blur the background is very important for portrait, newspaper and other work that draws attention to the subject in the photo.  If shooting wide open doesn't matter to you, you can save money by purchasing sharp and slower lenses. 

 

10) Regardless of what camera you purchase, get at least one piece of good glass.  It doesn't matter if it is a cheap $50 manual prime or an expensive zoom.  There will be times when you want to know you have the best image possible for your camera.

 

11) There are lots of great cameras out there.  Again, you can get more bang for the buck for lenses using a site like photozone.


Edited by quant2325 - 8/24/14 at 7:56pm
post #4 of 24

Some quick thoughts.

 

First, focus (so to speak) on quant's point #1. What do you want to do? Second, be realistic about what your budget is and how that relates to your goals.

 

So yeah, learn a bunch. Be sure to take advantage of www.dpreview.com and http://www.dxomark.com And other resources. And be sure to understand the triangle that is ISO, aperture, shutter speed. Unless you plan to shoot 100% automatic all the time, the relationship between these is important to know.

 

Be extra aware that not all DSLRs were not created equal. Likewise lenses. All the major brands have low, middle and high ranges of each. And the differences can be quite dramatic. Be extra aware of the difference between crop and full frame sensors. They will impact performance. And lens choices.

 

Also know that much of what you can get from DSLRs can be had from today's crop of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. Often more for less $$ - and less size/weight. I am part way through putting some thoughts down on this. Maybe this will motivate me to finish. But the bottom line is that unless you are going for a serious DSLR and matching glass - mirrorless is worth a serious look. The Sony A6000 would likely rate pretty solidly against the D5300.

 

Think in terms of buying into a "system". Once you have in investment in lenses, it is a hassle to switch to a different mount. Likewise, if you eventually have a couple bodies, you likely have lenses to match....

 

Depending on what you want to do, some of the nicer "all in ones" are maybe worth a look. 

 

Most of what I think of as "point and shoot" are dead. Simply fading away in the face of phones taking over,

 

Think about how you might want to shoot. Are you gonna be an all "automatic" guy? Or take advantage of your options. Many of the higher end cameras let you do "more" - in fact that is what they do..

 

Per quant-  think about the balance of camera and glass. If you get a ton of lower end or middle of the road lenses and then upgrade your body, you may well find the upgrade gets you little or nothing. If you get a low end body, you may choose to get lenses that can't really show their stuff yet - but will be able to carry you through an upgrade or two.

 

All that said, you may wish to enter with a lower end setup knowing is intended for you to learn on. And then see where you go.

post #5 of 24
Nikon D5300 is an excellent consumer camera, which will take the same pictures as Nikon's top of the line DX sensor SLR camera because it has the same sensor. (In general, SLRs have either a smaller DX size sensor, or a larger "full frame" sensor that is approximately the same size as 35mm film. While full is "better," it is much more expensive and, IMHO, not worth it unless you have very specific reasons for needing it. Full size camera bodies also generally are larger and heavier). Where it differs is in a less rugged (though smaller, lighter, more portable, and generally more convenient) body, fewer dedicated dials and buttons (requiring some functions to be buried in menus) and omission of some advanced features that you won't miss, at least not unless you get really into technical photography. I shoot with the older D5100, which takes stunning, pro-quality images. The camera will generally come with a "kit" zoom lens, which will be fine for most photography, unless you get serious and want to take lots of low light photos and portraits. Many people then add a fast, relatively inexpensive prime lens, such as Nikom's excellent 35mm and 85mm 1.8 lenses. The one area where I believe the D5300 (and all low-mid Nikons) are lacking is that older lenses won't autofocus on them.

I'm not as familiar with the smaller mirrorless cameras like the Sony, Fuji, Olympus, etc., but those have the same size sensor (DX size) as the D5300. Many pros are using mirrorless now and leaving their larger SLRs at home. They are a lot of camera in a smaller body.

You honestly can't go wrong with a mid-range DX sensor SLR from Nikon or Canon, and the D5300 is a fine one in that range. As others have said, knowing what to do with the camera is far more important than worrying about differences in specs.

With that said, if you will only shoot in auto exposure modes and never plan on using advanced things like off-camera flash, then get an even cheaper, entry level SLR like the Nikon D3200 or D3300.
post #6 of 24

I don't have much to add here, the above replies are really great, and well though out!

 

The only point I would add would be to really be honest about how you will take photos. If you think that you will use the auto feature all of the time, you can probably get a smaller high end point-and-shoot camera and get the same (or very close to) quality photos. 

 

I have a D50 and a D7100, so I am kind of partial to the Nikons.

 

I would have a look at the newer mico 4/3 cameras as well. I am seeing some really nice results with a smaller, lighter overall camera.

 

In addition I (just my preference) don't like to carry the full DSLR while skiing (esp ski touring) or climbing. I am thinking seriously about a Coolpix A or the Coolpix P340. 
The Coolpix A has the same sensor as the D7100, so should, in theory, take some nice photos, but you do loose some versatility due to the fixed lens.

post #7 of 24

I forgot about this one: Get some software so you can shoot RAW.  Why?  If you are going to shoot film in the mountains you will want (at times) the most dynamic range possible.  The dynamic range of a camera sensor is not always enough.  Assuming you don't want to lug a tripod with you on the mountain to take multiple exposures (the files can be merged in camera), then simply shoot your landscape in RAW and merge files of that image that are plus and minus a few stops using software.  That way the patches of snow will not be blown out, there can be detail in the shadows, etc.  Doing too much of this can give you a look you do not want (you would be better off dodging and burning in Photoshop or Lightroom), but it is an easy way to make a good photo better.  There should be free software with your camera.  Once you get hooked, you will want to graduate to Lightroom, Capture One or something similar. 

 

Is a DSLR necessary?  No, not anymore.  As mentioned by remillburn directly above, a decent point and shoot is good enough for most photos and is easy to carry.  But if you want to learn about photography (this means using something other than the green setting all the time), a DSLR is great to learn with.

 

If you are debating between cameras, Borrow Lenses (www.borrowlenses.com) and other camera rental businesses are a great place to try out quality gear.


Edited by quant2325 - 8/25/14 at 4:31am
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 

I forgot about this one: Get some software so you can shoot RAW.  Why?  If you are going to shoot film in the mountains you will want (at times) the most dynamic range possible.  The dynamic range of a camera sensor is not always enough.  Assuming you don't want to lug a tripod with you on the mountain to take multiple exposures (the files can be merged in camera), then simply shoot your landscape in RAW and merge files of that image that are plus and minus a few stops using software.  That way the patches of snow will not be blown out, there can be detail in the shadows, etc.  Doing too much of this can give you a look you do not want (you would be better off dodging and burning in Photoshop or Lightroom), but it is an easy way to make a good photo better.  There should be free software with your camera.  Once you get hooked, you will want to graduate to Lightroom, Capture One or something similar. 

 

Is a DSLR necessary?  No, not anymore.  As mentioned by remillburn directly above, a decent point and shoot is good enough for most photos and is easy to carry.  But if you want to learn about photography (this means using something other than the green setting all the time), a DSLR is great to learn with.

 

If you are debating between cameras, Borrow Lenses (www.borrowlenses.com) and other camera rental businesses are a great place to try out quality gear.

Software is a good point.

Right now you can rent Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop for $10/month (based on a yearly contract I think). 

Seems kinda odd to rent software, but, for Photoshop I believe it is the only option now and it ensures you are up to date, which can become important with new cameras due to the RAW import filters...

post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmillbern View Post
 

Software is a good point.

Right now you can rent Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop for $10/month (based on a yearly contract I think). 

Seems kinda odd to rent software, but, for Photoshop I believe it is the only option now and it ensures you are up to date, which can become important with new cameras due to the RAW import filters...


I switched to that $9.95 contract, and am glad I did.  Everything is always updated.  The Content Aware tool alone was worth the upgrade from CS4, being able to remove anything from a photo without cloning. Getting rid of posts, signs, fences, people, garbage cans, etc. instantly is pretty cool. A couple of months ago I shot a group photo of the cast and crew of a school play--about 70 kids--and extended the background with that tool to get rid of a bunch of crap back of the stage.  Wow.  It took be a few minutes to get it right, but it made the photo a lot better (and raised more money for the organization).

post #10 of 24
Thread Starter 
Many thanks for the great advice so far. Our two prime uses for the camera are taking family pictures with the kids and action shots of skiing biking hiking stuff.

We like that Camera, yet are highly confused by the number of bundles for lenses and the need for autofocus versus manual.

Thanks again.
post #11 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriponsnow View Post

Many thanks for the great advice so far. Our two prime uses for the camera are taking family pictures with the kids and action shots of skiing biking hiking stuff.

We like that Camera, yet are highly confused by the number of bundles for lenses and the need for autofocus versus manual.

Thanks again.


Autofocus is better because it is easier and quicker, and can always be switched to a manual mode when needed.  It is just that those lenses cost more.  Most likely, a kit lens is all you need.

post #12 of 24
I'd add that if you hope to shoot things that move (like kids, pets, bikers, and skiers), then don't get a point and shoot. It just can't focus fast enough. SLRs are super easy to use and handle really well. As far as the lenses, the two kit lenses in the box you showed above are all you'll need for a while. One is more wide angle and the other is longer (telephoto). They are both very sharp and, importantly, light. They just aren't made for super low light, but the camera itself is very adept at shooting cleanly in low light (at higher ISOs).
post #13 of 24

About 4 years ago I purchased a DSLR for shooting pictures at swim meets of our kids.   As funny as it sounds this is actually a difficult environment to shoot in because of the natural, flourecent light, lighting etc.,  low lighting and flash of any kind is not allowed along with the distances and action photos required.

 

Just before purchasing, I discovered that NIKON is one of the few cameras that has a shutter warranty.  This is important as it give you an approximate life of the camera.  I would look at a site called

 

http://snapsort.com/compare

 

this site will allow you to compare cameras and there features and how they rank compared to one another, along with giving you starting point as what else to look for and compare.

 

On cameras, pick a camera that more towards the pro line vs pixel count.  You'll appreciate the flex ability as you expand your picture  shooting skills. I shoot with a Nikon D90 12.5meg camera (this was a lower end pro camera or high end semi-pro camera)  It still shoots images that compare with the latest $7000 body camera under similar conditions and the body back then cost about $790.00.

 

The secret is knowing your camera, understanding the secrets of setting white balance (auto and manually, white shirt is important here)

 

As to lenses, lower F stop is better but costs lots more money.

 

Also if you are looking at lenses, consider lenses that are full frame as it allows them to be used with higher end cameras in the future without hindering their image.

 

With lenses also consider ones that allow auto focus with manual override.  These lenses cost more but let you do a lot more.  Cheaper lenses have either manual or auto.  Try to manual focus in auto mode you'll destroy a lens.  Why is this important, when taking a shot the camera may focus on something other than what you want to focus on.

  

Finally get a www.eye.fi card, makes it easy to save your pictures on the computer, just come home and turn on the camera,  card syncs with the computer via wifi and your photos are saved.  Real time saver for the time challenged. 

post #14 of 24

I shoot a micro 4/3 mirrorless DSLR, the Panasonic GH2 (they are now up to a GH4.  Some things to look for with what you want to shoot.  Burst mode where you can take several shots per second by holding down the shutter button is essential for good action shots.  You will also want a good zoom for taking shots of the kids skiing.  If you are considering shooting video look into the pros and cons of the various different brands.  That is why I went with the Panasonic.  It has features that make it better for video than either Nikon or Cannon and it takes great stills as well, all while being smaller and lighter than the full size DSLR's.

 

I seldom use autofucus though it works fine.  All these cameras will allow you to shoot on a fully automatic mode or choose manual settings.  Another feature I like on the Panasonic (I would think Nikon and Canon also have this) is the bracket mode.  This takes 3 shots with different exposures so you can then choose the best later on when you are looking at your shots on a larger screen.  Like any camera, shoot a ton of pics and throw most of them out - that's how you get those few great shots.  And, again, research the video capabilities as you will likely be shooting video of the kids skiing as well.  One more thing for video especially - get a good tripod with a fluid head.

post #15 of 24
A famous photographer was invited to a dinner party and the host made sure she told him how much she loved his work and that he must have a tremendous camera to take such beautiful pictures. The photographer graciously thanked her and continued to mingle. After the dinner the photographer made sure that he thanked the host for a wonderful dinner and he mentioned to her that she must have a fantastic stove.
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

A famous photographer was invited to a dinner party and the host made sure she told him how much she loved his work and that he must have a tremendous camera to take such beautiful pictures. The photographer graciously thanked her and continued to mingle. After the dinner the photographer made sure that he thanked the host for a wonderful dinner and he mentioned to her that she must have a fantastic stove.

 

I see what you are saying. Totally. However, the right tools make a difference. When a great cook sees  great kitchen, they get excited. 

 

When conditions are optimal, almost amy camera can take a great shot today. Less than optimal and things can change quickly. Low light will show up sensor differences very quickly. Action, or low light plus action and automatic modes often fail badly. Shooting at a distance - athletics, wildlife, whatever - again, better gear gives you a material edge.

 

But it is all about what you are after. And trade offs - a small camera you carry is going to be more useful than a huge one that you do not (though some do carry 30 pounds of kit everywhere...).

 

A few more quick thoughts for the OP...

 

A mirrorless is not a DSLR. Despite some similarities on the higher end mirrorless cameras, do not be confused by the term "mirrorless DSLR". I'm not making a value judgement either way. Just understand the difference if you are going to look at mirrorless (FWIW, I am a fan).

 

Get something with a viewfinder. All DSLRs have this by definition. Some mirrorless have electronic ones ("EVF"). I have yet to see a back panel LCD that performs in all lighting situations. 

 

Since someone brought up RAW. This too is worth understanding. JPEG is a pretty compressed standard & when you shoot JPEG, the camera makes a whole lot of decisions about color, contrast, etc. And you get what it decided. Usually pretty darn good. But your options for post processing/editing can be limited. RAW format captures pretty much everything the camera is capable of capturing (though it still makes some decisions). But as a rule, more post-processing is often needed. You kind of get an initial  cut. It may be quite good. But it may need you to mess with exposure, contrast, saturation, etc more. The good news is that you can (though you can do some of that with JPEG too - to a point). Note that JPEG is a quite complete standard (anything that handles JPEG handles JPEG...). OTOH, RAW information storage format varies by company and even by camera. So every new camera potentially needs a RAW support upgrade from your favorite software maker.... And RAW files tend to be a ton bigger.

 

Cards. Always have a spare or two. If you want to shoot RAW in burst mode, get fast cards. Cards are not all created equal. Cards with slow data transfer speeds can slow things down on cameras with fast bursts and big images.

 

Cameras and lenses vary in their level of weather sealing. Probably not a big deal for you. But something you might just be aware of in making decisions. It is usually more of a consideration factor in higher end gear - but it is one of those things worth being aware of "just because". All other things being equal - obviously more weather and dust resistance is better than less.

post #17 of 24

Oh, one more super important thing. Be OK with feeling a bit stupid for a while. There is nothing magic about using a DSLR or mirrorless equivalent. Anyone can learn it. But there is a ton - just a ton  - of stuff to get used to, and to know over time. Everything from the different ways to get a "correct" exposure, to "don't shoot into the rain", to making sure all the little buttons are still where you thought you left them before sticking the camera in your pack, to burning into your brain that you turn the camera off before taking a lens off, to learning all that jargon (needed, but jargon nonetheless). 

 

Maybe you will avoid this, but I know I'm not the only one out here who has felt pretty damn foolish along  the learning curve (and still often do). And if you are like I am - you will make your stupidest mistakes in the presence of the best photographers.  :)

post #18 of 24
Many years ago, in the film age, I got really into photography. Have two shelves full of books, all read cover to cover. Took several courses as well. Had a nice SLR, complete with a ton of lenses, underwater housings, various types of bags, lots of different filters, etc. Took a ton of pictures back when it cost plenty to develop all that film (digital is a huge blessing!). The conclusion? The best camera is the one you have with you. And actually SEEING what is in the viewfinder is the biggest challenge. You can do a ton of great pictures with a point and shoot and a good software program. You are not going to want a DSLR while you are skiing. Maybe a day here and there, but unless you are a pro photographer, they just get in the way of skiing.

I have a pocket camera for skiing. And a super zoom for wildlife. Both cost considerably less than a DSLR set up.
post #19 of 24

There is no one right answer, because it depends on what you want to really accomplish, what you're willing to spend, how much time you're willing to invest, and what you expect to get out of it at the end of the day.

 

My wife is a point-and-shoot diehard.  She takes THOUSANDS of photos to capture every thing of every event, without regard for composition or technical points.  AT ALL. EVER.  Are her photos good?  Not really.  BUT........they capture moments that we can look back at and enjoy, things that I may have missed.  On the other hand, I use a DSLR, expensive lenses, think about composition, and delete all the crappy shots and just keep the "money shots".  Are my photos better?  Supposedly.  BUT............they're fleeting moments that we wouldn't normally see, and they are limited.

 

Both are good in their own respects, and there are pros and cons to each.  Both tell stories of our family memories, albeit in different ways, and elicit different feelings.  My wife loves the "look" of my photos.  I love the amateur hilarity and sincerity of hers.

 

So there is no "right" answer, only what is right for you.

 

From a technical standpoint, however, here's a photo (stock, not mine) that very easily illustrates the difference between DSLR and Point-and-Shoot/Camera phones.  Note the background blur (bokeh) is generally more important with people and "feature" shots, less so with landscape.  Although the bokeh, a fast lens, and a good DSLR is much better for "proper" action/sports shots.  You can sorta cheat with a Point and Shoot by cropping in tight and applying a couple filters.  The effect won't be nearly as good, but again, depends how good a shot you want.

 

Take a look:

post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post

A famous photographer was invited to a dinner party and the host made sure she told him how much she loved his work and that he must have a tremendous camera to take such beautiful pictures. The photographer graciously thanked her and continued to mingle. After the dinner the photographer made sure that he thanked the host for a wonderful dinner and he mentioned to her that she must have a fantastic stove.
That's it, Phil, just one pair of novice skis for you this season.
post #21 of 24

I'll jump in here.  I have a Sony 65a dslt  (t stand for Translucent mirror, the mirror doesn't move when you take the shot. dslr camera the mirror need to flip out of the way.) Most the Dslr & t's use Sony senors.  The Sony has the Stabilizer built into the camera when Cannon Nikon have them built into the lens making lenses a little more expensive. 

 

I like my Sony. I don't know if this helped they all take great shots.  Editing software something to think about.

 

Hank

post #22 of 24

Little bit of info here, Sony bought out Minolta, so there base is pretty good actually (aside from being a sensor manufacturer).  Nikon lenses are amazing.

 

As to Point and Shoot or DSLR or DLSR mirror less (ie Panasonic and not maybe Sony) it really depends on the conditions and what you are shooting.  Point and shoots are very good and it all my wife and I used for about  20 years.  Now for those few point and shoot moments I uses my iPhone (or what ever brand you want).  When I'm shooting action specific shots the semi pro DSLR can't be beat.  Mind you I shot race car action photos with a point and shoot very successfully.

 

No I'm not a professional photographer and I'm slightly color blind.  I just know a few basics and apply them very well.

post #23 of 24

One thing about point an shoot cameras these days is it's hard to find one with a viewfinder without spending a lot of dough.  Really helps when shooting in bright sunlight.  

post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by crank View Post

One thing about point an shoot cameras these days is it's hard to find one with a viewfinder without spending a lot of dough.  Really helps when shooting in bright sunlight.  

Which is why I haven't given up my Canon 990IS. And also why my super zoom has a high res EVF. Hate those LCD screens.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: