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')."

17 of 402 comments (clear)

  1. Learn photography. by Nationless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Learn photography. by wisty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I forgot to add - they are way overpriced, and so are all their gear. You shouldn't pay more than APS-C equivalents. It's just wrong to sell a smaller lens for more. When the price comes down to earth (and maybe Sigma gets involved in making 3rd party lenses), I'll definitely get one though.

    2. Re:Learn photography. by ADRA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why through their entire post did they not once tackle one of the prime reasons to get DSLR's, and that's image quality? Lets assume for a moment that we have a brand new professional photographer that's somehow never bought body or glass in their lives. Would you in all your wisdom, or trey or whomever recommend picking up these cameras to do real work? In 2 years?

      Maybe a more apt question, can one buy lenses in these limtied formats with anything near the level of variety in the SLR world? Yes, it sucks that there are two basically incompatible standards that one will only buy deeper into as time goes by, but at least one knows that the investment is future proof, the lenses made with good quality components to last.

      When I see these pseudo-dslr cameras, the first thing I think is great, now there's 6 incompatible lens standards, everyone is running in different directions, nobody seems to have a good message for why these camera supplant the quality that even mid-range DSLR's accomplish, and in 5 years, will any of these platforms still be here? Forget the cameras themselves, becase even Trey admits that the technology is not here today. Or will the lenses even last that long?

      --
      Bye!
  2. DSLR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:DSLR by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, which is precisely why I got a second camera to complement my dSLR. I love my dSLR for the reasons you list, but ultimately, the best camera is the one that you have with you. I've already gotten a few shots that I wouldn't otherwise have gotten because of the long lens and it being actually on me at the time.

      Personally, I'd pair it up with a good quality monopod for best results.

  3. No reason not to get a dSLR by RDW · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  4. what? by bedonnant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Seems strange to me... by Stoutlimb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  6. My experiences by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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
  7. Don't sell yourself short ... by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want a camera that's better than my phone, but I don't have the technical knowledge to fully appreciate a DSLR.

    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.
  8. Re:two suggestions by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'd say....save your money, and buy the best DSLR you can afford.

    They all have Full Auto settings....so you can start right off using it without 'technical knowledge'.

    But over time, you will have the option to play with the settings and learn the tech behind the DSLR and then be able to use one to the fullest extent.

    Again, they all have full auto...do that and start experimenting and learn more about photography...make it a learning investment.

    Also...more lens options with DSLR and it did sound like that was something he was interested in.

    I'm not suggesting you go overboard like I'm saving to do...I'm looking to get a Canon 5D Mark II (unless the Mark III comes out soon and is better). But the lower level Canon DSLR's are all quite nice and a good place to start. I want the 5D so I can have the high end HD video too...wanting to try to shoot pro level stuff. I live in New Orleans, and there is work for people with this camera...so, figure after awhile I can earn some $$ enough to justify such an expense.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  9. Re:Get a Lumix by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm an ex professional newspaper and sports photographer... and my main camera is the LX5 too... quality is amazing, leica lens, 24mm wide angle, HD video, low noise, good screen.

    DSLR is great, but it's a pain in the butt to carry around. Unless you go out SPECIFICALLY to take pictures, something like the Lumix LX5 is more than enough. There's a great blog post on this:

    http://1000words.kodak.com/thousandwords/post/?ID=7136485015460840984

    MadCow

    Well if you use to shoot sports you should know better than advocating that a point and shoot is more than enough. Try shooting sports one sometime - very limiting.

    It all depends on what you want to shoot.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  10. Re:two suggestions by squidflakes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to break it to you but the FULL AUTO ZOMG setting will make your pictures look just as horrible as a cell phone.

    Full auto is no substitute for knowing how to take photo and the OP is right for wanting a smaller compact camera that is actually designed to do the work for them.

    Let me also dissuade you from the notion that there is money to be made for someone who has just picked up a 5D MkII and intends on holding down the shutter button until the money starts rolling in. Professional photographers have a name for people like that, and the nicest one is sucker. Simply having an expensive camera won't make you a good photographer. You may turn out shots that get you endless ego fellatio on facebook or flickr, but that doesn't make you money. What makes you money in photography is an excellent grasp of the technical aspects of the craft, and a good solid grounding in the foundation of visual arts. Color theory, composition, and lighting and shadow are the places to start, then its practice practice practice until you can consistently turn out well composed shots with good lighting and balanced colors. All the while, you're constantly working the business end, looking for opportunities, networking in many different industries, advertising, selling yourself, maintaining relationships with old clients, pounding the pavement for new clients, and making sure more dollars roll in than out. Once you get to that level, you're going to see why professionals cringe and roll their eyes when they read posts like yours.

    If the OP reads this, and you want to burn DSLR money, look in to the Fuji X100. It has classic camera styling with amazing optics, an excellent sensor, and a very unique processing pipeline that will give your photos a very memorable look. The price is nearly $1000, but there is a reason a lot of pro photographers use this as their walk around.

  11. Skip interchangable by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  12. Re:two suggestions by coolsnowmen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hate to break it to you but the FULL AUTO ZOMG setting will make your pictures look just as horrible as a cell phone.

    I disagree, ...strongly

    DSLR has a larger sensor and gets in more light. This will let you take pictures of things you simply can't take pictures of with a cell phone camera:
        Things moving faster than a snail
        Things not in a perfectly lit room

    For taking pictures at dawn/dusk, to action shots of your kids&friends just playing around, simply: size of the sensor, decent optics will tear apart your cellphone.

  13. Re:two suggestions by CaptBubba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's pretty much no way that a decent DSLR on full auto won't beat the tar out of cell-phone photos, or even a reasonable point and shoot. Just the extra speed and accuracy of the phase auto-focus systems and the advantage of not having a dinky 1.75um pixel pitch in the sensor will give you cleaner photos, to say nothing of having a decent lens on there. The companies put a bunch of work into those automatic systems and they generally are fairly good. Good enough to charge for? Likely not. As good as a pro who knows what she's/he's doing? Certainly not. But still decent enough for a hobbyist and clearly better than anything someone with an iphone will capture.

    Your second point is dead on. Lack of knowledge = unmemorable photos. That's fine if you just want to document the bird you saw or the view from the top of the hike you took, but it won't take you anywhere if you want to enter a field already filled to the brim with professionals and one hundred times as many people who think they are professionals because they bought a nice camera.

  14. Re:two suggestions by icebike · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Let me also dissuade you from the notion that there is money to be made for someone who has just picked up a 5D MkII and intends on holding down the shutter button until the money starts rolling in.

    Where was any mention made of making money with this camera?

    The topic seems never to have been mentioned until you propped up the straw man and handily beat it down.

    The story poster wants a nice camera, he wan't planning to enter the cutthroat business of commercial photography.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.