Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Mirrorless, Interchangeable Lens Camera Advice?
jehan60188 writes "I want a camera that's better than my phone, but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR. I think the MILC style will be a happy compromise, but I'm concerned that it might be all 'marketing' and no 'technology.' I don't have a lot of demands, but I do like taking macro shots of things from time to time. Also, my sister is going to China in a few months, so a telephoto lens would probably be good for sight seeing (since I could employ optical zoom instead of the imaginary 'digital zoom')."
Sounds like you want an all around camera, look into the panasonic gx1.
It has fantastic lenses for HD video, and will provide awesome photographs.
You might also be completely thrilled with a Sony NEX5 or new camera.
Currently, only the Sony model offers full (i.e. autofocus) support compatible with their 35mm offerings. Regrettably, the adaptor is expensive. Of course the Leica M lacks a mirror, but I doubt that's what you were wondering about :p
Get a Lumix from Panasonic, to be specific, get the DMC-LX5. Outstanding picture quality and if you need to shoot a video, it's not too bad too. The hardware flip to change from different resolutions is quite nice and the 16:9 format is just perfect for printout once back home.
You don't have the full technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR?
Learn it.
Trust me, the basics are a lot easier than you think. The rest is experimentation, play and frankly, photography.
You'll thank me in the long run when you're not stuck with a million lenses for a camera you've outgrown.
I am a professional so I am a little biased here....I say get a DSLR. The mirrorless stuff is a neat idea but slow and lacks in quality compared to a traditional DSLR. All low end DSLR's have dummy modes that work exactly the same as a mirrorless....so you don't really have to have technical knowledge. Trust me on this, I have many family members and friends who bought low end DSLR's and they use them just like they used there compact NON DSLR's.
With a SLR you will get better quality (well most of the time), more control and usually a wider range of lenses.
Mirrorless basically gets you a smaller camera
There's plenty of technology, not just hype, panasonic and olympus lines are both very nice. Don't dismiss the idea of 'larger' DSLRs though. A basic Canon Rebel or similar entry level Nikon can be used as point & shoot but give plenty of room to learn about exposures and lenses. The main thing the MILC cameras get you is that they are physically smaller (body & lenses) with a slight tradeoff in potential image quality
I'm sure there are excellent 'mirrorless' cameras too, but a dSLR doesn't require any great technical expertise. Just pick up one of the entry-level Nikon or Canon models (which are pretty small, and typically come as kits with versatile standard zooms). You can start off shooting in program mode with the kit zoom, which is no more difficult than using a phone camera. If you choose, you can add dedicated macro and telephoto (or longer zoom) lenses later.
It really has to do with the size of the sensor. The bigger the sensor the better the picture is going to be. The MILC cameras you are referring to have almost the same sensor size as DSLR's and a way way bigger sensor then in your mobile phone. See the article below for more information:
Why your cameras sensor size matters
so you don't have the knowledge to appreciate a dslr, yet you're willing to buy a similarly expensive mirrorless camera with multiple lenses?
~~~ Paf. Le chien.
You are posting on a technical site, say you are very interested in camera technology, but say you don't understand DSLR? I suggest a good DSLR tutorial rather than this feeble attempt at a slashvertisement.
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_pen.asp
I love the retro look of these.
I wont own a Sony because I have personal issues against the entire brand, but the NEX5 NEX7 cameras are awesome at photos and video. The manual controls are easy to use, and the auto settings produce great photos. The only down side to the camera is that it feels like a cell phone that somebody turned into a camera. The sensor is world class tho, and there are adapters to mount old range finder glass onto it. The panasonic micro four thrids cameras are all great. The GX1 with the pancake zoom lens could be really appealing to you. You would also be happy with the GF3 if you want more auto features and features in general, and maybe the G3 if a more traditional dslr inspired design fits your hands better.
Like Woot, saleaday or whatever, and just get what comes up next.
Or wait till some of the comments post a better offering.
Why get one camera with 2 lenses when you could just get 2 cameras?
You want www.dpreview.com
I have spent a good amount of time researching this -- and incidentally, so has the manufacturers. The conclusion is the best compromise between image quality and size is the Four-Thirds sensor. With the Micro Four Thirds bodies, you get better image quality with higher ISO than the Nikon V1/J1 series, and smaller lighter bodies and lenses than the Sony NEX with very little compromise in field of view or high ISO image quality. Moreover, the micro four-thirds lineup has a breadth of high quality lenses, and is adaptable to pretty much anything. I personally ended up with a GH1 as it has a slightly larger than normal sensor for a 4/3s body, making it a good hybrid camera which does 16:9 very well, and is optimized for Video use. On the other hand, if you do not think video is of much importance, the Olympus bodies have in-body stabilization making it possible to use TONS of manual focus lenses for cheap, with low cost adapters yielding amazing results. Bottom line -- don't get sucked into the brand name and the idea of bigger is better for sensor size.
Hi. You might consider a camera such as athe Fujifilm S-2950 or a similar model. While the lenses are not interchangeable, the current crop of such cameras have an electronic vierfinder, 18x to 36x lenses (depending on the model) and are pretty nice cameras that can probably handle all of your needs. Image stabilization helps a lot to get clear shots. I like cameras that take AA batteries, as I can use AA NiMH rechargeable batteries. I am a serious amateur photographe rand I like to try macro shots, night shots and take photos in unusual situations. My Fijifilm S-2950 has never dissapointed me yet.
Has the best performing sensor of any camera currently available that is under $10,000.
They are hard to come by right now due to demand and natural disasters.
Visit www.dxomark.com for details on sensor testing of a large number of digital cameras.
FWIW, the Sony NEX-7 scores better than the Sony Alpha 77SLT, even though they both have the same sensor. The difference is that the A77SLT has a translucent mirror and that detracts from the image quality.
http://www.stuckincustoms.com/2012/01/04/dslrs-are-a-dying-breed-3rd-gen-cameras-are-the-future/
I'd really recommend you go with an entry level DSLR. Maybe the Canon T3 or T3i. I have used the Canon Digital Rebel XT and right now I own the T2i - I've had great luck. Almost everyone uses either a Canon or a Nikon - so I recommend you stick with one of those. I use Canon, but Nikon is just as good. Just keep in mind that you can't switch lenses between the two, so once you go with one, you should stick with it. :)
"The best camera is the one you have with you" is a well known saying in photography. I have collected, and had the experience to work with, over the years, numerous cameras, lenses and videocams. Here are some of my learned truths:
1) Form factor matters - if you don't have the camera, you won't use it. My best pictures are from my DSLR with a big bounce-flash+diffuser and a nifty-fifty [1] prime lens. For close-ups and portrait style, this camera is really hard to beat... however, I almost never have this camera (or it's bukly flash) with me. I've resorted to taking some pretty decent pictures with my wife's point-n-shoot , and surprisingly my iPhone.
2) Video and Still pictures are two separate competencies. My best videos were with the aforementioned point and shoot, the next best with the iPhone. I almost never take video with the bulky DSLR, and when I do, the lack of auto-focus on video makes it difficult to do properly.
3) I've never tried the EVIL/MILC, but they seem like a great idea... just terribly expensive.
My recommendation would be to have several camera types (phone, P&S, DSLR) so that you can have availability and quality. the EVIL/MILC will never beat the bounce-flash equipped DSLR and prime lens (which would pale in comparison to a properly setup studio and multi-flash setup - but I can't afford that). In my world, the MILC would replace the point-and-shoot, and I'd still take the DSLR wherever I would normally take it (parties and events), but it'd be awesome to have almost-DSLR quality on my hikes. Recently I've been very impressed by my new iPhone4S so it might replace the P&S completely.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I've had great experience with a high end pocketable cameras like the Canon G12 or S100, Fuji X10, or Nikon Coolpix P300. The picture quality is amazingly good and the portability means that it is always available. I've carry it on a pouch on my belt while hiking and mountain biking - something that it is hard to do with a DSLR or MILC. The convenience means that I can and do pull it out in an instant. I find myself taking more pictures and capturing more transient events than my colleagues with a DSLR. Plus modern incarnations of many of these high end pocketables can perform high end functions like bracketing to gain dynamic range, full manual control and RAW images.
Look, if you can post a submission to Slashdot to ask this, you can use a modern DSLR.
They've got so much automation built into them that the camera can be operated in one or two modes without a lot of deep knowledge of the fiddly bits. As you use it, you can opt to try some of the new features, but they've still got some pretty good automated modes.
I occasionally do use some of the advanced features, but for the most part the auto modes cover my needs. But, if I want to delve into it, it's all there. You can run that as point and shoot cameras, or you can run them in full-on "stand back, I'm a professional" mode.
If you really want to get better quality pictures, the lens quality of a DSLR gets you to an awfully good level as long as you're buying a good quality lens instead of some of the cheaper lenses that come with the kits. Those are sometimes a compromise which makes for something which is OK most of the time ... I did a little more reading and bought my camera body and lens separate, because the lens I bought was better quality and more versatile than the ones which came bundled.
If you want to be able to change lenses, go with the DSLR and work up to it ... the lenses from the major companies will carry through their models for years. (I still use the old lenses from my film camera on my current Nikon DSLR.)
If you buy something in between, it might not cover all of your needs, and in a few years you might need to replace it all over again.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
We've had a chance to use all of these cameras extensively (and have reviewed most of them), so now seems like the ideal time to look at all the cameras and help you decide whether a Mirrorless camera is for you and, if so, which models you should consider.
It's all right there, apparently. I didn't look around, and I don't really know what these mirrorless cameras are (point and shoot cameras that can take lenses? cool), but I'd recommend looking there.
That said, I've always been highly satisfied with the color and image reproduction quality on Canon products. I won't buy another type of camera (whether still or motion). I think it's superior to the others ( eg. Sony). It's a matter of preference, though.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I am curious what advantages you imagine you'll get from having interchangeable lenses. For macro purposes, a lot of little point&shoot cameras do great with close focus because their sensors are so small. Likewise, smaller sensors allow for long telephoto lenses to still be very compact. If you were saying you wanted better wide angle capability (for architecture and whatnot) or you wanted to be able to shallow depth-of-field stuff (portraiture and artsy stuff) then I'd think maybe an interchangeable lens camera would be best..
I'm not suggesting you get a crappy point&shoot, just that if you're traveling a lot then you'll want something small and durable.. I lug my DSLR all over because I've already made the investment, but it's killer on my back.
Such as the Leica M9. Or if you can't afford that, just learn how to use a DSLR in auto mode. It's really hard (for me at least) to take a good picture without an optical viewfinder.
For non-technical use, why not just get a compact? I have a Canon Powershot SX230HS. Pocketable 12MP with x14 zoom (28-392mm equiv), image stabilised, geo tagging etc. Alot of manual options if you want to get creative, but also full auto available as well. Great for travelling.
I also have a DSLR, but for travelling, a good compact is much more convenient.
With a MILC, you can have better optics (a compact will have to compromise on the optics), but it will also be far bulkier.
but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR
Don't let your own knowledge & skill level be your reason to choose a MILC over a DSLR. The two kinds of camera are very similar in terms of their capabilities.
The major difference in the two is the way you view your scene prior to taking a picture. The "single lens reflex" in "SLR" means that you get an optical view of your scene through the lens you're using. As a result, what you see is extremely detailed (ie: almost as good as your eyes themselves). This is great for manual focusing. It doesn't suck any battery either.
The "M" in "MILC" (typically) means that you don't get this optical viewpath for composing your shots. Instead, you see your scene on an electronic LCD. This can be easier to view in some situations, but is far less detailed (ie: limited by the resolution of your LCD), so manual focusing is harder. Also, you need to drain your battery in order to see anything.
However, without the physical mirror & prism for the optical viewfinder a MILC can be much smaller and lighter than a corresponding DSLR. Typically, they also use smaller sensors, which in turn require smaller lenses. This further reduces size & weight, at the expense of image quality and optical performance.
That tradeoff is a fair one to consider. Let that be your decision factor, not your own knowledge. The techniques you use with each kind of camera will still be mostly the same.
For idiot-proof travel, a DSLR + a Sigma or Tamron "superzoom" will get you excellent pictures, and when you get home you can fit more specialized lenses for whatever it is you want to do.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If you can find one, get the NEX7, and pick a E mount lens that best suits your needs. Then, get an L to E adapter, and you can use 100's of Leicia L mount lenses. Most will only work in manual focus mode, but the peaking display makes focusing easy and accurate.
I just got an Alpha77, which is probably not what you are looking for. I love it, though, and the NEX7 shares a lot of the same technology and features.
You have to ask slashdot for what camera to buy? There are about a hundred thousand better websites geared towards photography you can google instead of listening to a bunch of .\ blowhards grouping themselves into fanboys for one side or the other.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
The system was designed from the ground up for people like you.
I tried it the other day at the store - it's as small as a compact, it was really easy to control, picture quality was perfectly fine, focus speed is as fast as a DSLR.
The big selling feature of it is that it's the first camera to use an SLR-style phase-detect autofocus (look it up) outside of a DSLR, so you can capture action shots, something you can't do with compact cameras and can only do with DSLRs. It just makes responsiveness of the camera so much better, almost like a pro camera, so you don't end up missing shots, or have to tell everyone to stay still all the time.
BTW I shoot fashion & runway shows, including the big New York Fashion Week.
This is a very misleading comment.
The MILC cameras are small enough that it is possible to mount a wide variety of lenses on them, including the full range and history of Leica lenses. Leica lenses are amongst the finest lenses around and are currently hard to find in stores because they're selling them as fast as they can make them.
To reiterate what a few other people have already said: a MILS style camera isn't really any easier to use than a DSLR. However, they do tend to be smaller, which can be a big plus when traveling. My main camera is a Canon 5D (first generation), which is a huge brick of a thing. I'm sure I've missed out on getting some great shots because I couldn't be arsed to bring it with me sometimes.
The article you linked to on DPreview is already a better overview than most people on /. are going to be able to provide - just skip to the section on beginner's cameras and pick the one that calls out to you.
But don't do it because DSLRs are big and scary. Every camera you ever have will have the following controls: aperture, shutter speed, ISO. That's 99% of what you need. Go grab a copy of "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson and the rest will fall into place. (Unless you intend to use external lighting, in which case you've got plenty of time to learn that too.)
read this:
https://plus.google.com/105237212888595777019/posts/fbCZzoFEAz1
I echo many of the other statements posted. I had an Olmpus SP-350 for a long time, great little camera, but last year I got a Canon T2i, which is fantastic; 18Mp and high-def 1080p video to boot. It does way more than I know how to do yet, but the flexibility that it provides, allowing you to 'grow into it' is without equal. You can get its little brother, the T3i fairly reasonable, or one of the other EOS DSLRs. Check your Best Buy or Fry's ads, after going to Canon USA, of course.
Nothing to see here but us trolls...move along...
I think ease of use is the wrong criteria. You choose a mirrorless camera for it's size, flexible lens (you can use a Panasonic lens on an Olympus body) options and live preview, not for ease of use. I have owned both. I liked the Panasonic GH2. The movie mode is second to none.
For a mu43 lens, I don't have any personal experience with it, but I read great things about the Panasonic 20mm f1.4. It should be pretty good in low light. You do need to determine what you think you'll be shooting before you pick a lens.
In the end, I ended up with a D7000. It's good for indoor (low light) sports, which was my primary need. But, if I didn't have that specific need, I'd just get the Fuji x100. Ken Rockwell raves about it.
...but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR...
What the heck? Read a book. It'll take all of a couple hours to learn the basics of how cameras work. There are three core variables. If that's too much trouble, stick with a fully automated point-n-shoot.
Have the sony 5n. Great camera, ok len selection. Advantage of larger aps-c sensor without the bulk of mirror & viewfinder. If you need better lens selectiontry micro 4/3, but for me the 5n is on par with better dslr's for image quality.
The reason you get a MILC over a DSLR is "size", not because you "don't have the tech knowledge".
Having said that, the recent crop of "prosumer" point and shoots is excellent. Including the LX-5, Olympus XZ-1, and Canon S100. Consider all those and check out the reviews from dpreview.com. They also have some great reviews of the MILC.
Also CES is next week, and Canon is coming out with the new G1X (a replacement for the G12) and there should be a lot of other announcements, so whatever you do, wait a week.
I'm also a camera idiot. I bought a Nikon D40 back when it was their most popular low end DSLR camera on the market. I keep it in auto mode all the time with the rare exception of telling it I want it to explicitly flash/not flash. The only thing to concern yourself with is where the mechanism is for the autofocus. In the D40 it's in the lens, which means additional lenses are expensive because they have motors inside them. This isn't a problem for me as I only use the lens that came with it. More expensive cameras have the autofocus mechanism in the camera, so the lenses are cheaper. You can use the cheaper lenses on ones like the D40 but you have to manually focus. Since I'm a camera idiot that's a non-starter for me. Anyways, the picture quality out of this very very low end of DSLR cameras is so much better than any camera I've had before it that I would definitely recommend getting a similarly low end DSLR if you're on the fence. Even an ignorant person like me can take some pretty amazing pictures with that thing. And no.. I have no affiliation with Nikon whatsoever.
I fully reccomend the HX9V at less than $300 new for under-experienced.
You lose the interchangeable lenses and the fruity other stuff, but it fits in your pants pocket and helps you learn to frame and shoot awesome pictures and not try to compensate with a camera to do it all.
I spent a lot of time looking into this, and went with the new Lumix GX1. For several years I've had a small point and shoot, and found that I simply didn't want the bulk of an SLR. Smaller camera bodies and smaller lenses was the big selling point, especially now that the Micro Four Thirds cameras generally have the same picture quality as entry-level SLRs. For me it came down to the Lumix G3 and the GX1; I decided I didn't need a viewfinder and tilt-and-swivel screen, and so went with the GX1. I used to be a big SLR fan when I took pictures with film, but I find now that I have to wear glasses having a viewfinder is a nuisance.
Also, my sister is going to China in a few months, so a telephoto lens would probably be good...
I was going to say that even a good telephoto lens won't help you see your sister if she's in China until I read:
...for sight seeing (since I could employ optical zoom instead of the imaginary 'digital zoom').
Even still, a telephoto lens is a lot less useful than you'd think, in my opinion. Artistic closeups of far-away objects are nice, but for wide vistas a standard or wide angle lens might be more useful. Telephoto lenses tend to be bulky and they're very frustrating when you suddenly want to take a picture of something close to you. A lot of photographers seem to carry multiple cameras these days instead of switching lenses all the time to alleviate this problem, but again, if you're traveling this is cumbersome and expensive.
There is a class of high-end non-SLR cameras called "ultrazoom." They don't have removable lenses, but the built-in lens is versatile (with long optical zoom as well as macro capability) and they are smaller and lighter than SLRs or probably MILCs. It's a good compromise if you don't think you'll appreciate the SLR or if you're on a budget.
I've has a Sony DSC-HX1 for a few years and have been very happy with it. Looks like you can get one new for $350 on Amazon. It has a 20x optical zoom, gyroscopic stabilization so you can actually take reasonable pictures at those zoom levels without a tripod, and of course a host of software features including a pretty smart "intelligent auto" mode. The quality of photos is excellent: I've framed some 18"x12" prints as gifts, and people have been surprised when I tell them I took the photo myself.
Review sites often have a separate category for these ultrazooms, e.g.: http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/Extended-Zoom.htm. Good luck in your search.
Decide first on the form factor. For me that is 2 decisions. Does it fit in a pocket or not. Does it have a view finder or not. I've used a Canon S90 for years, that's my pocket size camera I always have, either in a pocket or backpack. A really great camera and if you are a geek, it has the huge benefit of CHDK for hacking the software. Not many other cameras offer that. I often wish I had another camera with me for a longer lens, but at least I always have something. When I'm planning on taking photos I'll take either a Sony Nex 5 or Sony A33. Either camera requires that I carry a bag just for the camera and minimal lens set. I had the Nex first, and loved the ability to put any old lens on it (I use old Minolta lenses from eBay), but the lack of a view finder is a killer for me. Can't see at all in sunlight. Got the A33 just because of that, but ended up carrying it less because of the extra bulk. If it wasn't for the floods in Thailand, I'd have a Nex 7 now. That camera will replace both the Nex 5 and A33 for me since it has a viewfinder. But I'll still have the S90 around for a long time. And i also rely on my iPhone a lot. It actually takes the best photos in many cases because of the HDR, and the photos/videos can be uploaded instantly to the internet.
This is a nonsense question. The car analogy is like saying you don't have the technical knowledge to drive a hybrid. There is no special knowledge required to use a DSLR... other than perhaps being careful when changing the lense (which mirrorless share).
Even the last (non digital) SLR generations had full auto modes and a full suite of scene modes, just like a compact.
I got a Canon G10 (what 2 years ago now?) and it's been a great entry into DSLR. I can take full control when I want it, or I can just play point-n-shoot. And it's not ridiculously expensive. Of course, do the reviews and find out what gives you a better upgrade path for your lenses. What I've heard is that the nikon entry dslr is more compatible so any lenses you buy will work with a new body if you upgrade down the road.
Can any Canon or Nikon pros or reps add on to my thoughts above?
OK, you don't understand DSLR and want optical zoom capability. Since you mention travel, I'm not sure why it's just DSLR vs. MILC. Yes, DSLR can get you some great lens, and yes, MILC could leave you with a bag full of proprietary lenses that can't be used when you upgrade. But traveling with bulky DSLR/lenses, or even a MILC w/lenses can be a real pain. Why not get a good compact camera? There are some really good ones out there, the Canon S95 being one that has a better than average sensor, low light capability, etcetera. For the record, in the Canon/Nikon holy wars, I lean toward the Canon camp, but I don't own the S95. I mention the S95 because it's a great example of why it's not all about how many megapixels you can cram into a sensor. I'm sure most of the major players out there have similar high-end compacts. For travel, you'll be more likely to get some memorable shots if you don't have to lug around a big heavy bag with camera and lenses, pick and switch lenses, and so on.
I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
The biggest issue I have with the mirror less / micro four-third camera families is with ergonomics. These cameras are:
1. Too big to put in your pocket/purse/etc. so you don't carry them around as much as a point-n-shoot or a cell phone.
2. Too small to hold for a good posture to take pictures (one hand under the lens) yet the weight dictates some sort of two-hands operation.
3. Additionally, the "advanced" controls are buried deep under layers of menus, make them less usable than some of the more advanced point-n-shoot (like the Canon S100)
4. Lenses are not interchangeable with SLRs, so there is no upgrade path for those investments.
I would recommend you look at an entry-level DSLR (since the price points are close). Started out with the "green square" (automatic) modes, then learn to shoot in "P" (programmed) mode, adjusting ISO and compensations. Then move on to Av / Tv / M modes.
What you learn using a DLSR will be applicable to all cameras, and your investments in lenses won't be wasted.
Don't get me wrong, I think the mirror-less stuff is great, but the current crop of cameras leave too much out.
I'm an experienced photographer. To simplify your search, there are only two features/metrics that you should look for: (1) the option for the camera to shoot both JPEG and RAW (a manufacturer-proprietary format that captures more data for important pictures, which you can then subsequently convert to JPEG); and (2) sensor pixel density.
For (1), Dpreview.com recently published a nice roundup of RAW-shooting compact cameras. You can't go wrong with any camera in that group even if you never use the RAW feature.
For (2), look for cameras with a sensor size at least as large as APS-C; a larger sensor will capture more light, and for a given number of pixels, a larger sensor will produce less noise than a smaller sensor. APS-C signifies a sensor size around 23mm x 15mm. (A full-frame sensor is 36mm x 24mm, which is found in high-end DSLRs.) An APS-C sensor can fortunately now be found in several small cameras that have come out in the last year or so, but they are still relatively rare and relatively expensive. Such APS-C compact cameras include: Sony Nex-3, Nex-5, and Nex-7; Fuji X100; Samsung NX100 and NX200; and Leica X1. The Micro-4/3 MILC cameras typically have a sensor size around 17mm x 13mm. Note that the compact cameras listed in (1) above have even smaller sensors around 8mm x 6mm.
the mirror is outdated - QED. that technology is simply extra parts when you think about how a digital camera works. there really is zero reason to have a mirror in the camera, all it does is make the device bigger and heavier. look into the micro 4/3rds line of camera, i love the G1 that i have. camera + 3 lenses comes to ~$1200 total, giving me everything from 16mm to 400mm. and it doesnt hurt my back when im walking around with the kit
with a pinhole camera
It seems the movable mirror in the SLR design is an anachronistic piece of baggage left over from the days of film cameras. The mirror and pentaprism were necessary to get true "through the lens" viewing to accommodate different lenses, etc. The mirror introduces a lot of complexity, weight, and problems such as lag, mirror shake and problems doing video.
I am surprised the the mirror persists in the digital camera age. In reading the comments, it seems that the DSLR cameras have nicer sensors, features, lenses, etc. but there is no reason these could not be fitted to the mirrorless designs.
Is there any good reason to still have a mirror?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
It will be the best mirrorless camera evarr. X100 is cool but non-interchangeable lenses suck. Fuji interchangeable lens version should drop at CES in a couple days. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't know anything about cameras. Seriously.
They aren't going to win as long as they keep changing to non-compatible standards, Four Thirds System vs Micro Four Thirds System.
Give another couple of years and they'll update the standard again so people will have to buy all new lenses when they update or replace their cameras.
That said, if you can live with an extremely compact zoom (there is only one model that I know of that telescopes and has motorized zoom) or even a fixed focal pancake lens, then you actually can pocket an interchangeable lens camera. Nikon also makes their 1-series cameras with smaller sensors and interchangeable lenses, but I feel they have the worse of both worlds (sensor of a compact and price of a slr).
As usual here on the internet I'm going to recommend something different than what you asked for: a dslr. Go with Nikon D5100 or canon 600D as an entry level camera. Keep your phone or a good compact camera for snapshots.
The linked article is a good start - my personal preference would be a panasonic GX1 at the moment - it offers enough control so that you can grow with it and the panasonic G series cameras have generally been of fairly high quality for the field.
If I didn't have a DSLR, I would probably get one of these as in most situations (especially when size is an issue when travelling) these cameras can produce images as good as a similar level DSLR.
the mirror is outdated - QED. that technology is simply extra parts when you think about how a digital camera works. there really is zero reason to have a mirror in the camera, all it does is make the device bigger and heavier. look into the micro 4/3rds line of camera, i love the G1 that i have. camera + 3 lenses comes to ~$1200 total, giving me everything from 16mm to 400mm. and it doesnt hurt my back when im walking around with the kit
EVF and other compromises are atrocious for low light. Until they get better it won't be outdated. I look forward to that day.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I have more cameras than sense. After many years experimentation I find that I chose the camera for the job at hand. If I'm going to take pictures of highly mobile grandkids or in low light, nothing but a fast SLR is going to do the job. If I'm walking around in a perhaps unsafe foreign city, I'll take a small pocket camera. For general travel a rangefinder with interchangeable lenses is ideal - it's light, generates superb pictures and doesn't stand out too much.
The other thing to be aware of is that sensor size matters. The SLRs take better pictures because they have bigger sensors. The average point-and-shoot camera has a tiny sensor and the image quality shows it. A nice compromise is the Canon S100 (or a used S90 or S95). It has an intermediate-sized sensor; it fits in your pocket; and it takes nice pictures. Unless you care a lot about image quality, it makes a terrific travel camera. If you do care a lot about image quality then you should get an SLR or one of the high-end rangefinders.
You'll thank me in the long run when you're not stuck with a million lenses for a camera you've outgrown.
Uh - all the major mounting systems (Canon, Nikon, four thirds, Leica) are not going away soon. They'll work just fine with newer cameras. There is a little risk with the APS-C lenses (Canon calls them "EF-S", Nikon "DX"), but both companies sell buckets more APS-C cameras than they do pro cameras which have larger sensors. They're not going away any time soon.
What you should NOT do is buy an emerging, unestablished lens mount system, like the Nikon 1. Also, if you have a large collection of old Nikkor AF lenses (or anticipate wanting to collect old, probably overrated and outdated lenses) that need a camera motor drive, some cheap Nikon dSLRs don't have that.
In terms of "outgrowing":
Please help metamoderate.
Yes. It's outdated unless, of course, you shoot fashion...or night shots...or action....
And Micro 4/3 is great...unless you want decent quality glass and high iso performance and....
I love these discussions...people who know nothing about photography pontificating on photography.
one thing to consider with any camera purchase is how much the lenses cost between brands. There can be a massive difference with seemingly no quality difference. if your juggling between a few models pick a few lens sizes you think you'll get and do a comparison search. there are plenty of forums where people have shot identical scenes with different cameras/lenses and rated them.
Consider a Light-Field Camera.
"If you can shoot first, focus later, it's going to be the fastest camera you've ever used," Ng said in an interview with PCMag. "Because when you press the shutter button, it takes the shot instantly. It doesn't have to wait for the lens to move." That's the promise of Lytro's upcoming light-field camera, which the company says will be on store shelves by the end of the year.
I can not imagine what void an EVIL camera would fill. The phone fits in my shirt pocket. It even has an LED flash and is never farther from my body than arms reach. The P&S lives in the car and goes in my back pocket on suspicion. A DSLR goes when there is a definite possibility of great photos and I configure the kit based on the opportunity anywhere from one lens to the big Halliburton.
All your database are belong to U.S.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/2/2663464/camera-buyers-guide /thread
"...but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR"
So this makes you essentially the same as 98% of other DSLR owners! Just buy a DSLR and just put it in AUTO mode. Done. If you don't have the technical knowledge to use a DSLR's fancy modes, then you wont be using a point and shoot's fancy modes either. Virtually every camera out there will take great pictures on auto mode, no questions asked.
If interchangable lenses are what you want, you want a DSLR.
I had the same quandary. I have a panasonic compact which is great,but pants in less than optimal light. I looked at 4/ 3 cameras and was tempted by both sony, panasonic, and olympus offerings. However they are expensive, poor lens choice, and are not really pocketable . In the end you would be better off with something like a sony a35 dslr. Which is comparable price, has a viewfinder but has live view and a bettee selection of lenses
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
I have a Panasonic GH2 and I couldn't be more happy with it. As for slow... whether you are talking about focus speed of aperture, I wouldn't agree on either.
In terms of focus speed, the GH2 is very quick with the latest generation lenses, apparently rivals most entry level DSLR's in most situations. As for aperture, yes, currently there is a shortage of fast lenses in the tele region(though the new lenses Pana is releasing soon should fix this) but the shorter lengths are covered with some great compact lenses. For my usage the shorter stuff is more important as it is usually what you want indoors. I've got the 20mm f1.7 lens and it covers me well in this regard, though it does suffer the occasional focus hunting issue. I've got the 14-140 lens which to me is a fantastic lens, offering a useful range, fast focus and good video usage, I use it for everything except low light or fast stuff.
As for the whole optical vs EVT, my personal preference is that I love the EVT. I specifically waited for an EVT(I was waiting and wondering BEFORE the first interchangeable lens EVT's were released) camera that met my needs because I didn't want a clunky mirror that flips in and out of place while taking a photo and I prefer the what you see is what you get. Of course, it's all a compromise and the biggest advantage of a real DSLR in my opinion is that it is a little more friendly for manual focus but given the readers question, I doubt that this will be a common use case.
Also, a good mirrorless camera(GH2) will beat a DSLR for video. This is because when recording video, the DSLR can't use it's phase detect auto-focus system so it's severely hamstrung, it has to use contrast based focus like the mirrorless.... only the current generation of mirrorless cameras are much much better at doing contrast detect focus because their manufactures have invested a lot into this.
In summary, the OP is looking for a small camera that is not a DSLR but has all of the DSLR features macro, zoom, fast, etc.
I could recommend getting a Canon S95 or S100 which would provide a pocketable camera with near DSLR photos and decent macro. Both of these cameras have larger sensors so they do well in low light. However it has a very little zoom.
I could recommend a Canon PowerShot SX40 HS which has a 24 – 840 mm (35×) zoom. It's the size of a small DSLR. It would give you much better photos than a phone, but not as good as a DSLR.
Personally, I have a S95 that I always carry with me when traveling. It's a great dinner, club, walk around camera. It's also great for people shots as it is less intimidating than my DSLR. I also bring a 40D with me with a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens that I use for travel photos. It doesn't have a huge zoom on it, but it does a good enough job.
The problem with any decent zoom lens for a DSLR is that it is large and heavy. Carrying it around all day can be a pain, just to get that one shot that you needed the zoom for. Personally, I find myself taking wider scenic shots than close-up zooms. Of course, the OP could be into taking pictures of birds and animals, so this may be needed.
Mamiya C330. It's a 150 megapixel mirrorless camera. Yeah, I doubted, too, until I had one. Now I have three.
You think? About an intelligent answer instead of just posting a link?
Nothing in the article you linked to address the fact that a DSLR will have better autofocus and high ISO performance.
At this point MILC are less portable than a point a shoot with none of the advantages of a DSLR.
As it happens, I wrote a long document, initially for my friends, but others in this same situation might find it helpful.
http://www.cs.rice.edu/~dwallach/step-up-camera2009.html (which I updated a month ago for the most current cameras)
In short, there's no one-size-fits-all answer. For many people, a high-end compact camera like a Canon S100 or Panasonic LX5 will give them everything they want and then some. For others, the mirrorless compact cameras will be more attractive than a big DSLR. And there's no rule that says you're not allowed to own multiple cameras.
Seriously -- you should look into the Sony a55 camera. It produces AMAZING images with little to no knowledge. If you want to learn, there are a plethora of used Minolta lenses that work well with the camera. This camera is great for beginners to experts alike. Don't waste your time and money with anything less. Many of the mirrorless cameras cost almost as much, aren't as easy to use and provide MUCH less room to grow.
Comparable quality and price, yet MLC wins on weight and compactness.
Should you decide to stick with MLC, I recommend Olympus or Panasonic, since their Micro Four Third standard is supported by both companies and has a better chance of becoming an industry standard. Stay away from copycats like Nikon and Kodak. For example, I am using a Panasonic lens with my Olympus PEN. As someone already mentioned, choose carefully as the lenses are an investment, and you get stuck with the camera type once the choice is made.
Arguments for MLC: Lightweight and compact, both the camera and lenses. Lack of internal mirror allows for better video recording, such as dynamic focus adjustment during video is not something a DSLR can do.
Arguments for (half-frame) DSLR: Slightly better quality and low light performance. More lens variety on the market, at lower price, but the cheap ones are probably a "you get what you pay" deal. It is bigger and heavier but it is not like you can shove an MLC in a pocket either.
If what you really want is just to be able to shoot a wide range, just get something with an appropriate lens. I got my wife a Canon SX-10, which is 28-560mm (35mm equiv.) over 2.8-5.6f. It's good for almost all uses and much cheaper than a DSLR. I can't see why she'd use a different lens, and it's not removable.
I use something different but it's great for her needs.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I like the micro 4/3 format. There are LOTS of lens choices from Panasonic, Olympus, and a few third party makers (including a real nice full frame fisheye for under $300). In addition there are adapters that let you use lenses from Leica, Canon, Nikon and many others (mostly in manual focus mode). Since I came from the DSLR camp wanting a lighter and smaller camera while keeping the eye level viewfinder I prefer the cameras made by Panasonic under their Lumix brand. I own the G3 and I'm very happy with it. If you want a few more gizmos in the HD video department then the GH2 is the camera for you. Teamed up with the 14-140mm F4 zoom you probably won't need to buy another lens. I have the 14-42 and 45-200 lenses with my G3 that just about cover everything. (I also have a "T" adapter for u4/3 that lets me use my old Spiratone 400MM manual lens ... that's an 800mm 35mm equal on the G3!)
Think hard about buying a DSLR. I went with mirrorless after doing a ton of research, and also because of what I saw with almost every single one of my friends who bought into the DSLR "monopoly": they stopped using their cameras after a couple of months. Why? Because it's too big. The body is large, the lens are large. And heavy. Odds are, this will happen to you too.
As other posters will mention, the best camera is the camera you have with you.
Mirrorless cameras are a compromise. They are a compromise between image quality and size. For a lot of people, this is a worthwhile compromise over DSLRs. Honestly for most people, with the exception of pro photographers, MILCs and high end compacts (Canon S100, Panasonic LX5, Olympus XZ-1, etc) will do just as well as a DSLR. Most people will not be able to tell the difference in image quality between these cameras, especially photos taken in good light.
With most MILCs, you get enough shallow depth of field with the right fast prime lenses and you don't feel like you're carrying a brick with you. People are more relaxed around you, because they won't think twice about that "large" point-and-shoot you're carrying.
In my opinion Micro Four Thirds (Olympus + Panasonic) are the most viable MILCs now, due to the large number of high quality native lenses (disclaimer: I own an Olympus E-P3 and love it to death). Sony NEX series follows - they just need to release better/more lenses. Nikon's new 1 series (V1, J1) aren't of interest to me due to the small sensor size.
Go to DPReview.com and read, read, read.
A blurry noisy pic shot with a pocket-size compact camera is infinitely better than a technically superior quality image not shot with that beautiful, expensive DSLR you left at home because of its weight and size.
to my knowledge, none of these kinds of cameras (milc) have tethering software available. i too would like to use one but my task is shooting timelapse to a laptop. i also use an external trigger. basically, i use the tethering app to define camera settings and the external trigger to actually take the shot. without the remote control software for this, i'm stuck with the larger dslr. if anyone knows otherwise, please advise. if you ever might need anything like tethering, you might be out of luck for these mid-range cameras. seems like the manufacturers have reserved the tethering for the pricier models. BabaG
I picked up a Canon S95 after owning an older model that lasted me for years. The S100 is the newest model upgrade from that, fits in your pocket, and has a fully manual mode, right down to the focus. Not bad for a point-n-shoot. The lens is the equivalent of 24mm-120mm zoom on a 35mm camera.
Pretty decent range of capabilities out of the box, but you can also expand on the range using CHDK, if you don't mind getting a bit technical.
It really depends on what you want form the beast, but I would suggest looking into Pentax Q camera.
Strong side: really small (camera and lenses), solid, has controls of a DSLR.
Weak side: expensive, small sensor, not many lenses (without adapter at least).
Small sensor is not always a bad thing. It depends, if you want to fight with focusing.
More important than MILC or DLSR or XXXX is a separate viewfinder. Cameras with just an LCD/LED/OLED panel on the back really don't cut it. Especially outside during the daytime. I think a viewfinder (through lens or separate) is much more convenient.
I'm (mostly) happy with my Lumix GF1 -- I bought mine with the 20mm lens, which is nice for indoor shots without a flash, and the 45-200, which is a nice lens for the money -- though the 100-300 is better for birds (also more expensive) -- I spent around a grand for everything including, a glass screen protector and uv(c) filters to protect the lenses, extra battery, lenspen and Bag. I also got a converter to use my old nikon manual lenses, which is fun.
I think the GX1 is a little better, but my one wish is that my GF1 had less noisy high-ISO. I can't really use anything beyond about 800, and in a lot of cases, really more like 400. I had hoped (based on reviews) that 800 would be usable. Perhaps the review sample's sensor was better then the one in my unit.
The other thing is that I don't really care for the "fly by wire" manual focus. I'm getting used to it, but I prefer the manual focus on my old Nikon lenses. I'm thinking of investing in a ClearViewer, for shooting in bright sun, since I don't have the EVF, since I figured that'd defeat the purpose of having a bulky, but still pocketable camera.
If I were doing it again now, I'd probably get the T3i -- though the GFX with the 14-45 pancake does look nice, and would certainly be in the running.
I do appreciate the fact that even full of kit, my bag is pretty light, and if I want to, with the 20mm pancake, I can put the whole camera in my coat pocket and run out the door. Can't do that with the T3i. There's the adage: You can't take any good photos if you don't have your camera with you. So there's something to be said for (relatively) light and pocketable.
I used many cameras since around 1975 specially while traveling.
While backpacking for many moths I liked to have the camera with me at all times. Weight, bulk and robustness are important on the road, so I would not recommend a heavy DSLR for this purpose. To have a good camera built in the phone is very handy because it reduces the bulk and weight so much. A small camera also reduces the shines-factor if you take informal pictures of peoples.
I used to have a waterproof, 2nd camera with me and appreciated not to have to worry about it on the beach, on boats or in the rain/dust.
For macro photography a closeup lens can be handy, it is inexpensive and lightweight but requires a thread in front of your lens to mount it. Clip-on macro lenses could be available for your phone.
A viewfinder is a must for a 'serious' camera, in my opinion. Make sure a digital viewfinder has a good resolution so that you can verify the sharpness of your picture (more than 1 M pixel).
I am using a 'Four Thirds' http://www.dpreview.com/news/2010/3/7/panasonicg2 format camera for a year now and am very happy with it. I used 'Super-Zoom' cameras before because they are low weight an all-in-one but the image quality was rather poor. I can not recommend this type of camera.
In the end it will payoff to do your home work: make a list of features required and read as many reviews as you have time for.
if money is of the essence, get a dslr - you'll probably get more bang for the buck and the auto-modes are just as easy to use as the ones on the MILC. (and manual modes are easier still, because of more control-elements) if it's not about the money, the MILC gives you the smaller package. if you like to photograph on concerts, the MILC is the way to go - i've been denied entrance more than once, because a DSLR is considered a "professional Camera" whereas the MILC is not. having said that - you'll get good pictures with both of them, it's lenses, lighting and first and foremost the photographer who makes a good picture. go into a store, try both and buy whatever feels best in your hands. you could also bring your own memory card, and compare the pictures you took at home. for a MILC i'd go with the micro-four-thirds system. the sony-nex series seems to be quite good as well but you won't have as big a choice of lenses as you get with the m43 DSLR: + more lenses, more accessoires + cheaper (and bigger used-market) + seem to focus faster + real viewfinder (useful if you need to take a pic in bright conditions) + better manual controls, if needed - bigger, heavier, lenses also tend to be heavier MILC + smaller body, prime lenses (no zoom) can be quite small + the best camera is the camera you have on you + option to use as good as any lens out there with the right adapter (but you'll have to use most of them manually - so at least as complex to use as a dslr, probably more complex because of lack of manual controls on the camera) - more expensive - less accessoires
Check out the Nikon 1... It has two types of bodies, one with optical through the lens viewfinder.
And several lens types are available.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Nikon-1-Cameras/index.page
A monpod is ideal for travel, since it can be used for the camera where a tripod is inappropriate or lengthly to setup, and also as a walking stick. Going back down the Great Wall of China (near Beijing) it proved invaluable as a time saver, even though I am a relatively fit senior.
Ask your question at a dedicated photography website, try the forums at dpreview to start with.
...now taking 2 exposures simulatenously - 1 flash and 1 ambient
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I recently got a Nikon J1.
It's an awesome camera. It has a hybrid phase detection / contrast detection auto focus system, which makes focusing on par with DSLRs. I needed good auto focus, because I mostly take pictures of my kids.
You'll see people complaining about its small sensor size, but in my experience the camera takes amazing photos. You could get better high ISO (low light) photos out of micro four thirds cameras, but what good are they if their auto focus sucks?
I got the 10mm f2.8 lens and the stock 10-30mm lens combo. The 10mm lens is amazing, it's what I use most of the time. With the 10mm lens I can also carry the camera in my pocket.
The camera also takes very nice full HD videos. And the 400fps shooting mode (although at lower resolution) is a lot of fun.
The most accurate review of the camera (ie the one that actually matches my experience) is this one:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11666-11988
I want a camera that's better than my phone, but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR.
I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but there's very little difference in "technical knowledge" required to operate DSLR vs. a MILC. The fundamental differences are mainly that DSLRs offer larger sensors and real optical through-the-lens viewfinders, while MILCs are a bit smaller and quieter.
Also, no one has technical knowledge to appreciate a DSLR until they start to play around with one for a while. I suggest trying as many models of each as you can, in person, at a knowledgeable camera store or by borrowing from friends. The ergonomics and convenience of a camera are at least as important as its technical capabilities in terms of allowing and encouraging you to take great photos.
My bicyles
fuck sony
Seriously. Unless you have a very special need, it's mostly geek bling. Same with a good SLR.
Go with a compact superzoom (preferred, you'll carry it everywhere), or a regular superzoom if you have the patience to carry a bulkier camera. I've had probably a dozen cameras over the last 8 years. I am an engineer who has to evaluate buildings, so I'm outdoors, shooting stuff on roofs and up in attics, down in subgrade basement/steam tunnels. Good lighting, crappy lighting, close to stuff, far from stuff. I've got a Lumix ZS5 and a ZS7. I put a carabiner on the wrist-strap ring and clip it to my side belt loop. I get surprisingly good pictures - not perfect, but I never miss a shot.
FWIW, I also own a D3 and about $10k worth of glass, from a 14/f2.8 up to 300/F2.8. It takes fucking awesome pictures, and I get stuff that's just darned near impossible to do with almost any other camera. You know what I take on vacation? Yup - the ZS5. I don't want multiple pieces and I don't want a camera bag.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...if you actually had it with you.
I have a Nikon DSLR, a smartphone with a camera and now a Nikon J1.
Before I got the Nikon J1, I found that most of the photos were taken with my phone's camera, because the DSLR is just way too big to carry around.
I wanted better photos, but carrying an extra bag with the DSLR everywhere was not an option. So I got the Nikon J1.
The auto focus on the Nikon 1 is incredible. As fast as DSLRs (if not faster than). The images are awesome, despite all the people who never owned 1 (lol) complaining about the small sensor on the internet.
Now I still have a DSLR that stays at home (just like before), and the Nikon 1 in my bag or pocket that takes amazing photos.
I'm pretty sure that other mirrorless compacts cameras (NEX, X100, 4/3s etc) are also great. What sold me on the Nikon 1 was the auto focus.
If your starting photography, I would try a good P&S that has control of aperture,. shutter and manual. It's easier to carry. Most DSLR kit lenses won't give you significant better quality pictures than a P&S camera. I would read various photography web sites.
The following are my favorite sites:
photo.net anything there is great reading.
lensrental.com: the owner has gone the gamut of different purchase, DSLR with cheap lenses, expensive zooms, expensive primes.
Lenses Don't Collect the Whole Set
Best Canon EOS lenses
Canon Lenses Reviews
And as another note, I would ask what type of pictures are you taking. Because there isn't one universal solution.
Option 1: I was very happy for years with a high end point and shoot like the Canon Powershot models. And really like the ones that use AA batteries. The upper end models have full control over aperture and shutter. And I was able to experiment with try different type of pictures. At the top, the G12 has one of the best lenses for a P&S. I usually went with lower priced models like the SX130/SX150. The SX130/SX150 use AA batteries. I kept spare rechargeable and spare alkaline AA batteries so I rarely had problems of batteries. Limitations: No interchangeable lens. Dust and water can easily damage camera.
Option 2: Waterproof/Shockproof/Dustproof camera. I would pick one of these for travel. They should be able to handle beaches, storms, etc.
Option 3: Indoor photography. I started to take indoor photography where flash is prohibited or the subject was too far away. So I needed something with a fast lens. This option eliminates almost all Point and Shoot cameras. I bought a DSLR with a 50 mm (f1.8) lens just to get the feel of this photography. And was able to take indoor pictures that were impossible with a P&S camera. I added a 100mm f2.0 lens to take indoor gymnasium sports photos. Limitations: larger, not as convenient to carry.
Other options: scaba diving, outdoor sports, race cars, museums, portraits, travel etc.
I haven't used the smaller 4:3 frame cameras. I do like the smaller size. But I like the versatility of the DSLR or the compactness of a P&S.
WhatMeWorry!
So I suggest the Canon T3i DSLR, as the lens is everything in a camera, megapixels not so much, however the T3i has plenty of megapixels too.
It also doubles as a 1080P video camera and since you can change the lens the video options are fantastic for the price point, the Canon software that comes with it lets you control the camera tethered as well as teach you what the functions do as you get instant feedback when changing the settings.
So even as a novice it's easy to use, looks great, takes fantastic pictures/video then when you're ready, you can get very deep into it and creative.
Seriously consider it.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Right now I'd suggest a higher end point & shoot (e. g. Canon G or SX series, depending upon what you're looking for) more than a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. The image quality, particularly at high ISO, will indeed be better with an EVIL due to the larger sensor (although some of the EVIL cameras, such as the new Nikons, use a rather small sensor), but they're less convenient, and don't really have more features, than a good P&S.
My Canon SX-1, for example, has the equivalent of 28-560 zoom range, and quite good macro capability. It can also use an E-TTL flash (I use my 550EX on it, occasionally). Some of the newer ones have wider angle lenses than that, although not as wide as the Olympus 7-14 (14-28 equivalent) lens available on micro 4/3.
But if convenience and telephoto capability is more important, a P&S will still beat an EVIL, and for a lot less money to boot.
The basics of photography are a simple equation made to appear complicated by using obscure notation.
Exposure = Shutter Speed x Aperture x Sensitivity
Exposure is the total amount of light captured, and the camera attempts to guess at what the correct exposure is. When it's guess is not what you had in mind you use Exposure Compensation to tell it what you want, or go to full manual mode and take control, though the camera will still show you how far you are away from what it thinks.
The reason why you can change different parameters is that in addition to affecting exposure they also have additional effects on the image.
Sensitivity is the simplest since it is just the gain applied. The tradeoff for increasing the gain is more noise and therefore less image quality, but otherwise doesn't change the image.
Shutter Speed affects how motion is captured, including your own motion while holding the camera.
Aperture is the most complicated. First it's expressed in an obscure form such as f/2.8 that you can't plug into our equation, but just know that one click of the dial when you change the aperture has the same effect as one click on the dial when you control the shutter as far as the exposure is concerned. What it affects in the image is called the Depth of Field, which is how far in front and behind the plane of focus will be sharp. But Depth of Field is also affected by the distance to the focal plane and the focal length of the lens. This is where there is no substitute for experience. The smaller the aperture (bigger f number) the more depth of field.
One of the main reasons for using a dslr is that the image sensor is larger, which means you use longer actual focal length lenses than a compact camera. This in turn gives you less depth of field for the equivalent field of view. A compact camera with a small sensor gives you very little control over the depth of field except at very close focus distances.
That's it. The various modes of the camera are just about which of the variables you are going to control and which you are going to let the camera control. But only in Manual mode will the camera not balance the exposure out for you, so don't be afraid to turn the dial away from Auto or Program. I use Aperture Priority 90% of the time, since that's the one that has the most effect on the image.
The Micro Four Thirds format for lenses appears to be ruling the mirror-less market by now. I'd recommend looking into the Olympus E-PL3 or a 'bigger' model. Micro Four Thirds lenses are interchangeable between manufacturers, so you'll be able to use Panasonic lenses with Olympus and vice versa.
But most important, get a book on photography, preferably before buying a camera.
I'm currently reading "Understanding Exposure" by Brian Petersen.
My first book on photography. It's very good and I recommend it highly.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
An Olympus PEN.-3 series has great specs and size. I hope to get one if my work bonus comes through.
The electronic viewfinder is brighter and more flexable (detachable, movable, etc.) than that of any of the dslr finders that I've looked through.
Well, the submitter was asking about something better than a cellphone camera and not knowing the benefits of DSLR. So my suggestion would be to get a high-end "prosumer" point-and-shoot with optical zoom and (pseudo) manual focus. Sure a professional photographer would find the images wanting, but if all you want is stuff you can upload on Flicker or Picassa, it's better to get a single camera that you can slip into your handbag than a DSLR that needs its own backpack and a fair amount of lens juggling just to get a good on-the-go shot.
This is especially good advice unless you're planning to shoot a lot of low light/night-time scenes, which is where P&S typically fail relative to full DSLRs. (I've never been able to produce a night shot with my high-end P&S that approaches the clarity of one taken by my friend's low-end DSLR.) Haze is also a problem. For fair weather use a good P&S with optical zoom is more than up to the task.
Ignore the people telling you to get a DSLR because it has better picture quality.
There are a lot of factors that determine the quality of your images, but the most substantial is sensor size. The sort of DSLRs that you would buy (that is, the ones under $2000) use APS-C sized sensors.
Guess what the Sony NEX-5N (a MILC) uses? An APS-C sensor. And it's arguably the best APS-C sized sensor on the market.
The NEX-5N takes pictures that rival any APS-C DSLR, and it does so for a considerably lower price than many DSLRs.
There are still a lot of good reasons to buy an APS-C DSLR over the NEX-5N:
custom quick menu. Still, DSLRs typically have more buttons which means easier access to settings quickly.
And there are a lot of good reasons to buy an NEX-5N over an APS-C DSLR:
I love my NEX-5N. It is not perfect for everyone, or for every purpose. But if you aren't interested in buying a ton of lenses, you don't like using a viewfinder, and you prefer a compact camera without crappy picture quality, the 5N is a really good choice.
...if you insist on comparing apples and oranges. Yes, a high-end DSLR will obviously outperform any mirrorless except the M9 because there are no high-end mirrorless cameras except the M9! That said, I guarantee that my $200 NEX-3's sensor will outperform any DSLR at that price point. And those DSLRs can't even mount any of the lenses I own. For me, the choice is obvious.
You like SLRs, and that's fine. It doesn't mean they're better, it only means you prefer them.
sup
I recommend (and have recently purchased) the Olympus E-P3 because it has the largest sensor that provides sensor-shift type image stabilization, and because micro four-thirds cameras have available very nice primes that are physically smaller than comparable lenses for DSLRs. If sensor-shift type image stabilization (which works with the huge number of non stabilized lenses that can be attached via third party adapters to that camera) isn't something you think you'd find valuable, then you might want to consider the Sony NEX series. If the physical size of the lenses for NEX works for you, I think Sony has more money to spend on updating their sensors for future bodies.
...Panasonic forum. There are probably dozens of threads like these, among the other DPR forums. These get into Micro 4/3 vs superzooms, in particular. There are good arguments for both sides of the debate.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=40183848
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=40183973
While you are staring into the lcd view finder of a so called mirrorless or P&S with the camera at arms length away from your body you introduce a lot more shake and rotation on all three axes vs holding an optical viewfinder camera close to your body while you peer through the optical finder. After using a dslr I now prefer to look through the little pinhole view finders on pocket cams instead of looking at a 2" lcd. Not all mirrorless cams come with optical view finders. Why buy an expensive camera that forces you to hold it far from your body and suffer all the extra shake and vibration. With mirrorless you get a smaller noisier sensor and less compatibility with the manufacturer's past 20 years of products that work with its entry level dslr. Each major manufactuer's entry level dslr costs less and does more commonly desired photography tasks better than any mirrorless or 4/3.
Just about any camera over say $50, is going to be light years better than a cellphone camera.
Only buy an interchangeable lens camera if:
1. You've already spent significant time with a prosumer camera(Canon s100/Panasonic lx5/other large sensor compact cameras), and you have run into their limitations.
2. You plan to spend many times more money on lenses, than you did on the camera itself.
3. You're absolutely sure you want to lug it, and all of it's lenses and accessories, around with you everywhere you might want to take pictures.
Excluding telephoto ranges, a prosumer camera, with it's matched optics is going to perform as well or better than a low to medium end DSLR or other interchangeable lens camera, and do so for a lot less money.
If you really really need telephoto type ranges, then you'll have to settle for the limitations of a pro-/con-sumer super-zoom, or spring for, and lug around, an interchangeable lens camera. In some cases a better option is to buy the equipment to hook up a pro-/con-sumer camera to a spotting scope. In any case, even a consumer super-zoom will still be way way way better than a cell phone camera.
And I will echo, that the only current mirrorless camera system, that might be worth the money, is probably the Sony.... But I hear it lacks for great lenses. And ugh, it's Sony....
I would say, if you just want a camera to take "good" pictures with, in decent to great photographic conditions, buy a super zoom of some sort. If you also definitely want to try your hand at really learning how to take pictures, then either give up the super-zoom, for a small prosumer camera. Or... buy both. Even together, they'll take up less space and weight, than a single decent DSLR or micro-4/3rds telephoto lens. And with 2 cameras, you'll have a backup in case one breaks.
Wait until CES 2012 next week and see if Fuji announces their LX mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. If the rumors and leaked photos are accurate, it will be like the highly-rated X100 except with interchangeable lenses.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Taking a picture is taking a picture. 50 years ago they took great pictures with much lower quality hardware and technology than there is today. Thus the art of photography is the shot which you take, not the camera you take it with. So I'm all for MILCs. As a category they are in my opinion the best compromise between utility and portability currently available. I have an Olympus PEN E-PL1 with a general purpose lens and a superzoom lens. Its smaller and lighter than my old prosumer camera, with better controls and low light quality. Works great. I'd say try the different MILCs and pick the one you like the best. I liked the Olympus and Sony ones best personally. The Panasonics and Olympuses share the Micro Four-Thirds lens system, so they both get a wider variety of lenses, which is nice. If I were doing it over, I'd honestly just go for another E-PL1 at $280 new. The newer versions are better but not worth the extra $ in my opinion.
A couple of things -
MILCs aren't mature, they're overpriced, and it only takes a short amount of time using any sort of electronic viewfinder to learn that they *all* are incredibly frustrating when compared to actually seeing your subject via photons bouncing off and coming into your eye. You can do that with an SLR or a viewfinder camera.
Ken Rockwell has lots of haters but he tends to provide reasonably good info. Read the whole page, but start here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm#people
Most of the highly rated comments in this discussion are as silly as highly popular comments in the "technical discussion about computers etc.," in photography sites like dpreview.
Seriously, dpreview would give you better advice
1. Handle cams in your budget. Remember, its you, not a reviewer who is going to use it
2. Read in depth reviews(dpreview). Do not go by reviwers observations completely, also look at samples at 100%(if you like to print), or 25%, or if you pictures will rarely leave the screen
That said, the Panasonic GH/X/G series are nice cams in the EVIL space(yes, we call them EVIL, Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens.
Olympus is decent too, but I feel panasonic has better handle on the Micro 4/3 and 4/3 space
If you want a larger sensor, then Sony NEX-7(or 5N) is your best bet. The 7 is truly a wonderful cam.
That said, only advantage a Mirrorless will have is size.
It will have the same gazillion settings(M mode,. Aperture, Shutter.... as a DSLR).
BTW, I had a 350D, and shifted to D7000. I also own a FZ35(Panasonic), and love the little cam. However, I sometimes do take 15-20 minute + exposures, so I have to stick with Canon, Nikon or Sony. Since Sony is very frightfully expensive in India, I went for a Nikon(Sony sensor).
Lastly, the Nex-7 sensor is truly a class apart. I wonder how could they control noise in such a densely packed sensor.
The 4/3,m4/3 cams will be noiser, and if you frequently use ISO 1600+, you will have trouble.
Other than that, they truly rock.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I personally use the Panasonic DMC-GH2, and I am reasonably happy with it (though not ecstatic). The kit lens provides for a 28-280mm zoom range, which does not have enough telephoto magnification for my tastes, but there are relatively cheap telephoto lenses available. The GH2 is somewhat unique among its class in that its autofocus performance is almost instantaneous; in fact, it's faster than on my old Canon Digital Rebel.
Pros:
+ Relatively small size
+ Fast autofocus
+ Excellent movie mode with full manual control
+ RAW support
Cons:
- Noise; anything above ISO 800 is pretty much unusable, and you really need NeatImage or some similar software to get rid of noise even at lower ISO ratings.
- Noise, again; at ISOs around 400 and above the camera sometimes produces streaky noise patterns that are hard to get rid of
- Slower autofocus performance in low light
- Poor color balance; photos can appear drab and yellowish without extensive tuning and/or Photoshop tweaking
- The "i.Dynamic" mode sounds awesome but does nothing
Despite the cons, I still prefer this camera to full-sized SLRs. This is the camera that I most often take with me when I go somewhere.
-
I recently got an Olympus E-P3 and am very happy with it. The kit 14-42mm zoom lens is surprisingly sharp for a zoom, and while it's true that a DSLR with a larger sensor will do better in low light, I'm not having any problems with it, even indoors with limited lighting. There's a good review at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusEP3/.
I've heard good things about the Sony someone else recommended, too.
I'm an experienced photographer.
But apparently not experienced enough to know the quality of the optics are as important as the sensor size & far more important than the ability to dump raw (unless you're planning on spending a lot of time on post-processing)
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Sony A77. DSLT.
I purchased an A55 last year, and after a number of professional photographer friends played with it, when the A77 was announced they got them for themselves for Christmas.
One was seriously ticked off that Nikon has left the "pro-sumer" bodies dangling with no hope of a new one in sight. He dumped all his Nikons and glass, and bought the A77 and appropriate new glass. He's already shooting above the quality level of his high-mid-range Nikon bodies.
The other was an old Minolta fan from way back and that's really the key to Sony's latest lineups... they didn't innovate. They bought Minolta. Then they made adjustments to what Minolta was already doing both in the real-world, and R&D.
The result is the A77 is one hell of a camera.
Entry level DSLRs from Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sony are all capable of taking great pictures. They all have auto settings that function like point and shoot, They have relatively large sensors, and would often be the best bang for the buck option. I have been using Nikon SLRs and DSLRs since 1973. My D700 is very good, but heavy.
Mirrorless means smaller size and weight, and they can use any old system camera lens for Leica, Contax and Nikon rangefinders and practically all SLR system lenses ever made.
I have a Sony NEX 5n that gives me incredibly good image quality with old manual lenses. It is almost as good as my D700 in low light, and it also has visibly better sharpness. Focus peeking makes manual focus easy and accurate. At $699, it was a bargain compared to other options in the same price segment. And the camera body with an APS-C sensor is like a point and shoot in size and weight. The lenses have to be bigger to cover the larger sensor.
No, I am not selling any of the mentioned products. Just sharing my opinions.
Get an unbeatable entry level, Nikon D3100, kit lens 18-55mm, by "telephoto" in your post I bet you meant telescopic, aka zoom lens. Get one more 35 1.8 dx af-s prime lens for the "standard" (50mm in full frame terms cuz your cam is an APS-C).
Shoot that until it hurts, until you learn the light. Or you can study it on wiki whatnot. But shoot that until you can shoot with your eyes. And then we'll welcome you to the bankruptcy of buying more gears.
My advice, Be a Man. Haul a dinky light plastic DSLR and 2 lenses for now and don't settle for the mini's. You'll thank me when it's too dark for that that shot with a smaller sensor. The NEX with the same size sensor though, is fine. But if you learn to shoot with the optical VF first, you'll be much better. You'll notice the shutter speed and aperture better.
Come back when you're broke.
Just be careful of the MILC drawbacks; slow to focus (a couple of people have already pointed this out), and poor(er) handling in low light (there was another dpreview article, mirrorless primer or somesuch, that also mentions this). Between my (aging) LX3 and a full DSLR, until they improve the 4/3 and m4/3s in terms of performance (and remember this is a very young market), I am still considering upgrading to an LX5 as I feel there's nothing in-between worth spending the money on, to fill that gap. ...
The other drawback we've encountered is that the Mirrorless cameras we've tested so far can struggle to focus in low light to a greater degree than most DSLRs do. And, as the result of the way they focus, they don't always see the same benefit from using an AF illuminator as DSLRs do.
Ah, here's the article: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0344780582/mirrorless-cameras-a-primer
and quote:
The first is the inability to match the autofocus speed of DSLRs when conducting continuous or predictive AF. Single-shot AF tends not to be so much of an issue, with most recent Mirrorless models able to match or, in the case of Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic, exceed the single-attempt focusing speed of most DSLRs.
In close reading of the original request, I think a DSLR is overkill for the skills and needs (and probably, the budget). I had close to the same requirements as the requester and ended up with a Fujifilm 2950, which is absolutely great. It has a viewfinder (LCD) for when the sun is too bright for the 3" LCD on the back. It will take macros. It has an 18x optical zoom. It uses AA batteries, so you won't have a problem on your trip to China. It is so simple to use that my wife stole it from me and gave me her Canon that I had bought for her Christmas present. And the price of $150 on Amazon is not a budget buster. (And, yes, it does take videos too)
I can say from the perspective of using S3 for 4 years and G3 for 1 month and give You some comparison. Get a superzoom is my advice. I had Canon S3 IS and am having Lumix G3, so i can tell You - Canon superzooms macro is superior to the G3. Putting aside the sensor and image quality difference (resolution, sensivity), you can shoot things that lay on the lenses. With G3 i have to be at least 20cm from the object. I hate the way i have to hold G3 - S3 was far better to handle and easier to control via many dedicated buttons. Articulated display is also very helpful with macro (both my cameras have it). Superzooms also cover you sister's travel you've mentioned. Size wise these cameras are the same. Do i regret having G3 instead of another superzoom ? A little, yes. I miss my S3 (it broke down) :(
Their "old" models (1-2 years old) E-PL1 or E-PL2 are dirt cheap - the E-PL1 can be found for as little as 400 with an additional zoom lens and its image quality is superb. Their newer E-P3, flagship model, might be too much, but you can get the E-PL3 which is basically the same camera in a different form factor with less contol buttons, OR the E-PM1 which is even more simplified.
Olympus uses the same sensor on all their EVIL cameras so they're all pretty much paired regarding image quality. Newer models will give you a much faster autofocus, increased shutter speed, newer "art filters" and HD video. All Oly cams are renewed for their great JPEGs right out of the camera, though they all shoot raw if required.
I've recently bought a E-PM1 with the kit 14-42 lens and a 14-150 zoom lens for about $600. The camera is small (almost pocketable), lightweight and takes stunning pictures, rivaling entry and mid-level DSLRs. It has few buttons and a scroll wheel, but it is very controlable. It's a ridiculosly good bargain - i couldn't be happier.
DSLR have incompatible lenses too.
So choose Micro 4/3 as your mirrorless lens system and bingo you get multiple vendors for lenses, bodies and accessories.
The Nikon D3100 is a great DSLR for beginners. It has a good selection of auto and pre-programmed settings like good point-and-clicks. It has menus that walk you through setting the camera for certain effects. And of course it has the fully manual settings.
It's designed to step you up to being an expert.
I think you can get a beginner's kit (2 basic lenses and body) for about $850.
NEX might have a nice sensor but Sony doesn't make any worthwhile lenses except the Zeiss and it costs 1000 dollars. I also dislike the operating principle where you can't blind press any buttons for immediate effect as their function has to be looked up from the screen.
So if you're going to buy practically any lenses, there's only one choice, Micro four thirds (well Fuji just announced a new system but it's super expensive). There are at least some lenses for it since there are two manufacturers. (Oly 12 mm F2.0, Pana 14 mm 2.5, Pana 20 mm 1.7, Pana / Leica 25 mm 1.4, Oly 45 mm 1.8, all are sub 1000 dollars.)
Or then a DSLR.
If you take photos in anything other than bright daylight, you need lenses with f 2.something aperture and it's even better if they are 1.something.
Forget megapixels, top ISO, zoom factor blah blah blah, all these generally will make your photos only _worse_, not better. I certainly wouldn't want to be a camera engineer - all the technology for making awesome camera _systems_ has been around for five years but the manufactures only seem to be able to only bring mediocre stuff to market at best. I can imagine how frustrating it is.
Disclaimer: I have two micro four thirds cameras and four lenses. I use only primes myself, keep my camera with me almost all the time (under the jacket) and shoot often in challenging lighting conditions. An SLR would be too big and a lousy kit zoom would be too dim (and too big as well).
Too long, DR:
Forget camera, big aperture is king.
Wait.. you already know DPReview exists, which is a community full of dedicated photography people.. yet you come to /., which is full of self-ascribed 'geeks' of all walks (read: not dedicated to photography) to ask what camera you should get?
Seriously.. you already know of a better resource.. why do you need to ask here?
Vote OP: -1 Redundant.
----- The internet has given everyone the ability to have their voice heard equally as loud.. even if they shouldn't be
I own a Fuji X100 and love it, but I wouldn't recommend it for someone looking for someone not interested in technical details associated with a DSLR. The Fuji X100 is an awesome camera that can produce some really stunning images, but it can also be a quirky and frustrating little bitch. It is not for someone looking for an "automatic" camera.
I've been shooting with an Olympus ZX-1 for the past year. I'm not a professional photographer in any way, but this camera has helped me understand macro shooting, aperature, shutter speed, F stops, and ISO. The image quality can be as good as a DSLR, but it's still a compact size camera. It has all the manual control if you want it or you can set it for point and shoot if you like. It also has the option to screw on different lenses...although the camera's firmware only supports one telephoto lens right now. It's a bit spendy at $500, but it's worth the price in my opinion.
3rd Party review of the camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusXZ1/
A sample picture taken by me:
https://picasaweb.google.com/107447757368097456440/Inveraray_Castle2011#5600078227148903858
You shouldnt worry about learning the DSLR, you must first learn photography. Understanding photography concepts will help you find a DSLR the best fits your needs.
I'm a pro photographer and sometimes teach. I have a rather different viewpoint than most of the posters, as I get to see what regular folks have trouble with.
In a nutshell, any camera designed for consumers is likely to be pretty easy to learn. They drive me nuts, because they hide the controls I want to get to. Pro cameras have lots of controls, less automation, and will drive you nuts.
Frankly, a entry-level dSLR is your best value by far. The Nikon D3100 and D5100 are excellent beginner camera, and can be set for full auto for the rest of your life, yet have plenty of controls should you decide you want to master it. Canon also has really good beginner dSLRs, but I'm not a fan of their low-end lenses.
MILC - I was excited when they first came out, but with a single exception, I have been quite disappointed. This is a new field that will most likely become dominate, but right now they are as refined as a $99 Android 1.5 tablet. They simply are not very refined, unless you use them full auto - so you would be better off getting a non-IL camera like a Canon G12 (pretty much THE camera that pros buy as a point-and-shoot).
The exception is the Nikon 1. I thought it was going to be pretty crappy until I used one. Holly crap - it's really fast, really good, lots of fun to shoot and makes impressive photos. I have not used the Sony NEX-7 but Sony controls seem like a non-photographer designed them. And the super thin body means each lens has to be longer by the same amount, so the lenses are pretty large.
So here's my list of camera you might be happy with. Go to BHphoto and Adorama and see what refurbs they have.
Compact - Canon S100 or the older S95
Not-so-compact: Canon G12 or any earlier model, Nikon P7100 (NOT earlier models)
MILC - Nikon V1, J1 or _maybe_ the Sony NEX 5 or 7 (but these are more expensive than entry-level dSLR).
Entry Level SLR: Nikon D3000/3100/5000/5100.
Used SLR - Pretty much any Nikon or Canon dSLR.
Best bang-for-the-buck: Refurb Nikon D3000 - US$370 @ BH Photo. Get the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S lens (~$200) or the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S lens (~$200) for low light (indoor). These are amazing lenses (close to pro-quality) for not much money.
I'm sure Canon users will take issues with this, but that is how I see it. I'm sure to get flamed.
Disclaimer: While I've owned Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Leica, I have developed a strong preference for Nikon. My 40 year old Nikon lens works fine in current model cameras. That means you have a huge market of used Nikon lenses for very little money.
Place nail here >+
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38589290