Best Value in a Digi SLR?

[kidsmoke*]

Gents....I know many of you are avid photographers. I enjoy photography. Not HIGHLY skilled, but I understand the science, and when time allows, would love to have a simple to use, quality tool.

Back in the day, I had a Pentax K1000 (didn't everyone?) and moved on to a Nikon N70. Then came digital, and my last camera purchase was a then progressive Panasonic DMC with a 10X optical Leica lens. it was a nice little camera with a terrible flash.

That is where things have remained for years, since you guys aided in my obsession with guitar and their various accessories. All my disposable income, and much of my NON disposable income has been dedicated to the pursuit of this gear.

Well, I can't take it anymore. Too often I'm trying to take a quality shot in a low light situation and the camera simply can't pull it off.

Since I've been out of the loop, I'm hoping I can mooch off of those who have kept up, and you can help me cut to the chase.

What would you say represents the best value in Digital SLR's today? interchangeable lenses, quality on board flash, relatively logical interface.

Fire away!

[sunvalleylaw]

Can I hop in too? I used to be "into" photography in the 80s and 90s before kids, and still have my Nikon FE with a fixed focal lenght 28mm lens and a 70-150 zoom. I still like to pull it out once a year or so and shoot a roll of family pictures in black and white. I just use the Tri-x equivalent as that was what I was used to way back when. We used to "roll our own" from the bulk supply in my photography class in school.

I have looked at the Nikon DSLR's in Costcto, and have wondered about finding a decent "body" of a camera to use with my lenses. But it seems like the lenses that come with the Nikon would replace the ones I have. I don't know about the quality of the optics on the newer lenses vs. the old Vivitar lenses I have. The 3100/5100 seemed fine, but the Canon Rebel they had almost felt a little better in my hands. But then I could not use my old lenses. They all seem to have more bells and whistles than I know how to use. I like AE oriented auto. It is what I am used to. I passed up the Canon AE-1 back in the day as it had too many bells and whistles being both AE oriented and SE oriented, and seemed like it had more stuff on it to break. Also, I liked the feel of the Nikon FE in my hands.

So, I am not sure which way to go. Feels funny considering a nice DSLR from Costco! A year or so ago, someone was selling a couple Nikon DSLR bodies for about $275. Maybe I should have just grabbed one of those. But anyway, I would be interested in the opinions of the photographers here. The nice thing about a DSLR is that finally I could shoot all the frames I want to get the shot I want, and not worry about having to process all that Kodachrome or Fuji color film, (or Tri-x if I was shooting black and white).

[Spudman***]

I'd steer you towards Canon, Nikon or Olympus. Not necessarily in that order.

I've really liked the quality of Robert's photos and found out he uses an Olympus E510, 10 mp DSLR. I waited patiently on the auction site and got one with only 7,000 actuations, 14-42 and 45-150 lenses, and Lowepro case delivered to my house for well under $300. Not bad for a $1,000 retail camera when it was released.

There are tons of deals like that out there with all the good high quality brands if you don't mind going used. Photographers are more radical gear geeks than guitarists ever will be so they often get rid of their gear to get new stuff. You can often get some good deals because of this.

What ever you do, just stick with one brand so that your lens collection (the most expensive part) stays consistent with any body updates you might desire. Buying all new lenses is really pricey. Lengthy research will be your best friend too. Find out what features you think you'd use in a camera and then look at models that will do it.

[sunvalleylaw]

Funny, before I got my Nikon, I had an Olympus OE-1 for a few days. But it felt too small in my hands. Seems like I should find out about decent Nikon camera bodies, and look online and keep my eye on the paper (deals come up here in this local paper sometimes) for a used one. That way, I can use my old lenses too, though of course they won't do any autofocusing, etc. what megal pixels or sensors should I be looking for, especially in the Nikon line, if anyone knows?

[Robert****]

I'd say the Sony NEX-5N with a 18-55mm lens. $648.00.

Check the reviews.

[Ch0jin]

.... I passed up the Canon AE-1 back in the day as it had too many bells and whistles being both AE oriented and SE oriented, and seemed like it had more stuff on it to break.....

Sorry, but I had to have a little chuckle. I still have a Canon AE-1, as well as an EOS 33 (film) and EOS 20D (digi), and I used to pull the AE-1 out when I wanted to keep it really simple and not have all the bells and whistles I do know what you mean though, it was just funny that I saw the same camera in completely the opposite way.

Anyway, on topic, If I were to buy another dSLR today, it would be a Canon 7D. I'd love a 5D, but I'm a huge, huge fan of the canon 10-22 mm lens, and it wont work on a full frame camera like the 5D.

I also think if you are going to invest in a system (lens/flash etc etc) you are better off going Nikon or Canon. Not that the Sony's etc don't take good pictures, I have a Sony RX100 that is like a little dSLR that fits in your pocket and takes great pics, but Nikon, and to a lesser degree Canon, have demonstrated a willingness to stick to one lens format for many years meaning you don't need to throw everything away every couple of years.

As far as megapixels goes, my 8.3 Mp dSLR takes better pictures than my 20.1 Mp Sony. More pixels means larger images. Not necessarily better ones.

If you want all the hard core (and I do mean hard core) info on a camera, look for a review on dpreview. If you want to get a sense of the kind of results you can expect a normal person to get, go to flickr and use their "camera finder" to show you all the pictures taken with the camera in question.

[markb]

The best dSLR you can buy is the latest model. The best value is last year or so's model at a massive discount . If you like Nikons (and I do even though I currently use a Canon) the D5100 is being cleared out at really good prices. Great low light performance there.
There is no such thing as a good on board flash (except the Fuji X100) but, from experience, I'd say Nikon do better flash metering than Canon for instant gratification.

Also, camera bodies are transient while good lenses will last for years. Look into the lenses you need before committing to a system.

PS: you didn't process your own Tri-x?

[Robert****]

I mentioned the Sony NEX-5N because it's a mirrorless camera, and much smaller than regular DSLR cameras. Still with interchangeable lenses.

If you want a bigger old school DSLR, I'd agree with Mark there. Nikon 5100 or even the 3100. It's under $500 with a lens.

[sunvalleylaw]

If you like Nikons (and I do even though I currently use a Canon) the D5100 is being cleared out at really good prices. Great low light performance there. There is no such thing as a good on board flash (except the Fuji X100) but, from experience, I'd say Nikon do better flash metering than Canon for instant gratification.

Also, camera bodies are transient while good lenses will last for years. Look into the lenses you need before committing to a system.

PS: you didn't process your own Tri-x?

Um, in 1981 for a couple/few months of school, yeah, a little. We had the full old school dark room. Did our own prints too. Learned to burn in, dodge, etc. Long time ago now. Now if I shoot black and white, I have it developed at the local photo store, then they can do prints for me. But that is really expensive, so I don't do that much. One reason I would like a DSLR. I think I will stick with Nikon, and even the lenses it comes with overlap with my current ones, I still may use my old ones occasionally, as I am used to them.

[Tig***]

Um, in 1981 for a couple/few months of school, yeah, a little. We had the full old school dark room. Did our own prints too. Learned to burn in, dodge, etc. Long time ago now. Now if I shoot black and white, I have it developed at the local photo store, then they can do prints for me. But that is really expensive, so I don't do that much. One reason I would like a DSLR. I think I will stick with Nikon, and even the lenses it comes with overlap with my current ones, I still may use my old ones occasionally, as I am used to them.

That's the same year in high school I was in photo class. We had a blast!

[deeaa*]

Funny, I just bought a Nikon D3100 plus an 18-55 lens pack for a little over 300 at a special sale, and it came with a free Nikon photography course as well etc.

Could not be happier, a great cam.

[sunvalleylaw]

Consumer Reports rates the 3100 and 3200 slightly higher than the 5100. Sometime I will look into a deal on one of those probably.

[kidsmoke*]

THIS is AWESOME! Lots to digest! honestly I like the looks of the Sony. I like the external flash capability, the large screen etc, But there is great info here.

thanks for piping up!

[sunvalleylaw]

TK, I hope I did not de-rail your question too much with my own and my own thoughts. I am interested in which you end up with.

[kidsmoke*]

NO!! on the contrary! You're comments are raising issues I may not have considered. Please, have a seat, get comfy. the more the merrier (and more informed)!

[sunvalleylaw]

So I have a question about the megapixels. Consumer reports rates the Nikon D3200, with 24 mp equal to the D3100 at 14 mp, and one point above the D5100 at 16 mp. Can anyone explain what to look for with megapixels as relates to picture quality? It might be splitting hairs, but I would like to understand. Also, any practical advice as between the 3 models would be appreciated.

@Markb, do you think the 5100 has better low light performance than either of the other two Nikons, or just that Nikon does a good job there?

Thanks!

[Robert****]

Megapixels matter when you want to print large prints. Can also be useful if you want to do some major cropping.

Read this http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com...photo-quality/

If you only enjoy your photos on your computer screen, or uploading to a photo website to share with friends, you really only need a 1 megapixel camera. That is because your computer monitor is usually about 1000×1000 pixels = 1 megapixel!

[Spudman***]

More megapixels means that you can make a much larger print and the quality will be maintained as it gets larger. But, as stated earlier in the thread, more is not always better. Lens quality is going to make a big difference on the picture quality as well as camera electronics.

I really wouldn't get too hung up on pixel quantity. Most anything 10 mp or above is going to give great results up to 8"x10" and probably even larger. Pros have been shooting 10, 12, 14 mp for a long time and pictures come out really good, but they are also shooting on $1,000 lenses and $3,000 bodies. Most of us don't require that. It is nice if you can warrant it and afford it though.

FWIW - In the book "Understanding Exposure" the author shows several photos that have earned him a lot of money...and they were shot on a point-and-shoot.

[markb]

@SVL, what Spud said about pixel counts. You need about 5MP to produce 10x8 prints without clever processing. The trouble is that most internet comparisons are the equivalent of ramming your nose against a billboard. At normal viewing distances the differences are much harder to see. I could hand you a stack of prints from 6, 10, 12, 16 or 18MP cameras and you really wouldn't see much in it.

Nikon have been leading at low light performance for a while but again there's really not much in it. The D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000. See http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm for informed Nikon reviews. Or read Ken Rockwell if you like a laugh