New Camera Ideas?

[Nuts]

Hey Zane, grab an s100 (from Waynes link: http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/previe ... png?v=1707) the next logical step?
I started with entry level Nikon gear ( iirc the reviews for both the 3100 and 18-55? lens are pretty good for what they are) and it's a big step in fuss and weight. I have a s100 and Nikons P7000, you would notice a big difference over the average $100 P&S i'd say (and you get to take control and learn). Whatever you buy will be virtually worthless in a few years anyhow, good money pit to tread carefully around

[wayno]

yeah theres a question now as to how long will any camera last with issues discussed here like lens stabilisers failing taking the whole camera out
i've had a couple of compact cameras die after 5000 shots.
you could spend a packet and have it die have a fault thats too expensive to fix
your'e taking it bush walking the chance of breaking it is higher than normal use,
you have to try and keep it as dirt free as possible and dry, and not bang it or drop it.

review for the s100 is here
http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/ ... canon_s100

you can do a comparison with other cameras here

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras

[Nuts]

Huhr... there's a P7100 & an S110

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compar ... canon_s110

[wayno]

s100 is there http://www.dpreview.com/products/compar ... =ascending

[biggbird]

Girlfriend has an s95 and really liked it when she took it travelling overseas. Decent photo quality, easy to use and light.

I think as everyone here has said, your choice more or less comes down to your budget + your reason for walking. If your reason for walking is walking, and photos are secondary, probably makes sense to carry a bit less gear, as the lighter weight will allow you to enjoy the walks more. If photography is your reason to go walking, then it makes sense to carry the extra weight, as that generally means carrying higher quality gear (and a tripod!).

Mine tends to be a bit of a mix of both, but generally more there for the walking, meaning I usually take my camera (previously a d300, now a d800) and one lens (previous 17-55, will now be a 24-70), plus a bunch of extra batteries + cards. Heavier than what most people are willing to carry, but I really enjoy taking photos along the way, so I don't mind the extra weight. Heading to the Denison Range next weekend and will probably take a tripod too, plus perhaps a second lens also... A new camera body has really helped get me back into photography I guess, plus I have some ideas I want to try!

At the end of the day, everything will be a compromise, and you just have to work out where is best for you But almost all cameras you get these days can take fantastic shots.

Good luck with a tough decision!

[wildernesswanderer]

Yep I go walking to take photo's so I take my camera D700 (about to buy a D800E, once I test the video), a 16-35, 60mm Macro and my 70-200 plus full set of Singh-Ray ND Grads, two reverse grads a B+W 10 Stop ND filter & Polariser, Gitzo CF Tripod and Really Right Stuff Head, not much really

But as has been said you have to weight up whats the most important, the walk itself or the photo's you take on the walk. If your more a record shooter hoping to get some nice images then what I carry will be a major overkill.

It's so much fun shopping for new toys eh

I'm heading off in November and hopefully will be taking the D800E for a test, if not I'll have it at the end of the year for a 4 day hike and test. Can't wait to try it for landscape work.

[biggbird]

^ I seem to read that the video on the 800/800E, while good, still isn't quite so good as the 5d3 etc. Not that it matters to me, as I don't really have any plans to use it, but that's what I hear! Apparently the 800 and E are still pretty good, just their live view which lets them down.

Haha that is a nice little kit, would keep you fit (or injured ). Keep meaning to get some ND grads, but I use a tripod so infrequently at the moment that it really isn't quite worth it for me. With being off to Nepal in just over a month, I may have to see if I can fit something into the budget though... Although I doubt I will Oh well, such is life when you are a student and buy a D800

[nickthetasmaniac]

Also, don't underestimate the Fujinion lenses, Fuji knows this business backwards.

Definitely not underestimating Fuji! I know full well that they've made some outstanding lenses in the past and I've read very good things about the new 35/f1.4 and 60mm Macro (less so the 18/f2). I was responding to the suggestion that Olympus' Micro Four Thirds lenses aren't 'anywhere near as good' as their dSLR lenses...

[wildernesswanderer]

And they are not near;y as good as the DSLR lenses, Olympus I'm talking about. Nothing in the micro 4/3rd touch their 150/2 and 90-250/2.8 and most people will tell you me included that their 50/2 Macro is one of the best lenses full stop on the market, almost as near perfect as you would get for a lens. They are starting to make some nice primes for the micro 4/3rd system but they are still no where near the same quality as their Professional DSLR lenses.
Not knocking their system, I didn't like the early Pen cameras and I hated the fact they stuck crappy photo filters in their and tried to sell them on the filters in camera. With their new cameras especially the OM-D I think they have returned to what they did best in the film days, simple design, well thought out and made, and the 12, 45 and 75mm primes are nice, just not quite to the same spec as their pro lenses

[wayno]

would you see the difference in these top end lenses on a standard size photo print or computer screen? i doubt they would begin to do them justice

[Drifting]

I don't reckon the 3/4 sensors in the mirrorless cameras are as good as the APS-C cameras. Also, using live view will greatly sap your battery life- when you're out on a track and your trigger happy like me, you want each of your batteries to live as long as possible. Entry-level DSLRs like the Canon 1100D and whatever the Nikon equivalent is have useable viewfinders, so no live view needed.

Also, if you get bitten by the photo bug (a real problem for bushwalkers),you'll want to upgrade, and either Canon or Nikon are clearly the best choice for that, due to a large number of lenses.

The Canon 1100D with the kit lens is like $485 at some retailers. I'm sure Nikon has a similar offering. They'd be my recommendation.

[nickthetasmaniac]

I don't reckon the 3/4 sensors in the mirrorless cameras are as good as the APS-C cameras. Also, using live view will greatly sap your battery life- when you're out on a track and your trigger happy like me, you want each of your batteries to live as long as possible. Entry-level DSLRs like the Canon 1100D and whatever the Nikon equivalent is have useable viewfinders, so no live view needed.

The 16mp sensors found in almost all of the current Micro Four Thirds models are close enough to the best APS sensors (namely the 16mp Sony chip found in the Pentax K-5, Nikon D7000, Sony 5n and others) to be indistinguishable - try it and see. I'd also be interested to see how you find a decent EVF (OMD/G5/GH3/NEX7/XE1) compared to an entry level APS dSLR without a prism finder (for instance, the Canon 1100D). I've found them to be a revelation compared to everything short of full frame slr.

Also, if you get bitten by the photo bug (a real problem for bushwalkers),you'll want to upgrade, and either Canon or Nikon are clearly the best choice for that, due to a large number of lenses.

Very valid point, but I'd have a look at the current Micro Four Thirds lens offerings from Olympus, Panasonic/Leica, Voigtlander, Sigma, Tokina and Samyang, and also the products currently being developed by Schneider Kreuznach. Trust me, there's a ton of very nice lenses to upgrade to

[tsangpo]

Also, if you get bitten by the photo bug (a real problem for bushwalkers),you'll want to upgrade, and either Canon or Nikon are clearly the best choice for that, due to a large number of lenses.

The Canon 1100D with the kit lens is like $485 at some retailers. I'm sure Nikon has a similar offering. They'd be my recommendation.

If you are going for the cheapest SLR camera and then get bitten by the photography bug the camera itself will quickly become the limiting factor due to the lack of control it provides through e-dials and buttons before you have too many lenses. Also the OMD is pretty much on par with the best of the APS-C cameras and the standard good complete APS-C lens kit of 10-20, 17-50, 50-150/70-200, 35, 100 macro only has two full frame lenses so if you do go full frame you have to change over almost all your lenses anyway regardless of MFT or APS-C.

This is coming from a Pentax K7 shooter of 3 years, so I'll just throw in a plug for the water-resistant K30 (APS-C SLR) that no one has mentioned yet as another camera to research .

[wildernesswanderer]

"Also, if you get bitten by the photo bug (a real problem for bushwalkers),you'll want to upgrade, and either Canon or Nikon are clearly the best choice for that, due to a large number of lenses."

While that may be true with the number of lenses available for the system, you only need three lenses at the most hiking, a wide, a small tele and a macro. All manufactures have that covered. More important as stated if the photography bug hits is you will soon find the limitations of entry level DSLR cameras. The entry level DSLR cameras are simply cheap crap, plastic unsealed bodies that have the cheapest sensors and technology in them. For their size a good mirrorless camera will kill them in quality.
I'm a Nikon shooter but unless going full frame I see no advantage in a APS-C DSLR over a APS-C mirrorless camera. Camera such as the 1100D with a kit lens are that cheap for a reason

[wayno]

once again , i think to see the benefits of a full frame camera other others you'd have to be printing posters because the average computer screen or photo print will barely show the difference
the reality is you buy within your budget and dont assume you'll get the camera bug, you can trade up if you do get the camera bug so you don't take a financial bath because you paid a fortune for your kit and dont use it or are selling it again...

[wayno]

theres a national geographic photo exhibition on where i live. poster size prints.. most taken with cameras with aps-c sensors some as old as the nikon D200 and theres nothing wrong with the prints. the images havetn reached their limitations by being blown up....

[biggbird]

Only serious limitations I can see with entry level SLRs is weather sealing. Other than that, they do more or less all the same things as higher level SLRs, just not quite so well. They might only auto bracket 3 shots, but you can manual bracket if you like. They might not be quite so good at low light, but there is plenty of noise reduction software out there. They might not have quite as much dynamic range, but neither did higher level cameras of 5 years ago or 50 years ago, never stopped anyone taking great photos then.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that nobody should ever upgrade and we should all go back to view cameras etc as they do the same basic thing, but I think people rarely exceed the possibilities of even an entry level DSLR these days. There are definitely some noticeable exceptions, such as poor AF for sport, BIF, outdoor use etc, but generally an upgrade seems to be more for convenience than anything else. It definitely was when I went from a D40x to a D300, I could have got more or less all the same photos with my D40x that I got with my D300, but it was easier with my 300! And the weather sealing was nice too

[Drifting]

I completely disagree that the sensor output is the same on these cameras. But this is a matter of taste. I'd go onto PBase and see if you're happy with the pictures from whatever camera you're looking at. Also, lens choice is severely limited for most camera brands. Nikon and Canon have huge batteries of lenses, which other manufacturers can't match. Chances are you'll upgrade a lens before a body, as they are more important to your image quality than a sensor.

A camera is a tool. Why buy a tool that is specifically designed for the photographic equivalent of the "home handyman" when you can buy a tool that is designed for the apprentice, looking one day to mature into a professional? Makes no sense to me.

Also, as bodies develop, the lenses are often transferrable from one type to another. Canon L lenses have gone from film bodies, to APS-C, to the 1/3 crop 1Dx's, to full frame, and are excellent in all formats. Good luck trying that with a Sony.

My 2 cents worth...

[wayno]

few people will ever output a full frame image to do it justice, if you're not putting the image onto a large poster, you'll struggle to see the difference between full fra and aps or possibly even a micros four thirds...
the chap here posted a question about buying a first slr, no way he should consider full frame for a first slr, unless he has too much money for his own good, its off topic.

[photohiker]

I agree that the original poster probably has no need to be delving into the ins and outs of aps-c versus fullframe at this stage.

On the other hand there is far more difference between the two than just the max print size capabilities.

[wildernesswanderer]

Well all I said that if I was buying a DSLR camera I wouldn't waste my time buying a APS sized sensor, if I was going to buy a crop sensor I would buy a mirrorless camera as I don't see the value in a cropped DSLR camera. Just have a look at Nikon and Canon, all major releases are all full frame.

I think for the OP they would be better off with a mirrorless camera than a entry level DSLR

[wayno]

my comments werent directed at one person

[Drifting]

If you read my posts carefully you'll see that I suggested that choosing an APS C would give him the opportunity to buy into a lens system that could lead to a full frame camera. I certainly didn't suggest he buy a FF right off.

[wayno]

by now i wonder if he has clear ideas there's so many conflicting opinions piping in about what constitutes decent cameras and what doesnt the thread is full of contradictions now of people who want to be pendantic about what consitutes a decent camera and what doesnt.
we dont even know what his budget is to be clear on what the proper advice should be.. this is more of a debate now about peoples personal opinions on what consitutes a good camera versus a bad camera when we actually hace little information from the original poster as to what he wanted to do with his camera and how fussy he was on quality, any limitations on size or weight and what he could afford. a lot of this discussion should be in a seperate thread, it's gone off topic

[wildernesswanderer]

That's ok it's a forum, always going to be difference of opinion, lets look at the Equipment forum and check out opinion on weights,

But really a lot depends on budget and no knows that yet, nor what he wants to achieve or anything else,

[wayno]

it's easy for a person who knows their cameras to call something crap... if they've had the advantage of being able to use expensive top of the line gear who would want to go back , its easy to look at entry level gear as "rubbish", but our poster here is new to SLR's ad probably cant or wont ever own to of the line gear and to label low end cameras as just cheap gear is an exageration when its still hundreds of dollars that a lot of people dont even have the money to buy.... it still beats a compact camera in quality.
in teh current climate a lot of people dont have the luxury of buying much in the way of a camera if they can afford one at all. top end gear is the domain of the priviledged few, lets not be camera snobs on the gear here. i'm envious of anyone with really good gear but i can't justify spending more money on that gear so it's just a pipe dream for me, but good on anyone who gets to put it to good use but lets not stereotype some entry level gear as rubbish when thats all a newbie may be able to get their hands on, an entry level slr or micro four thirds or interchangeable lens camera is better than no camera.

[wildernesswanderer]

Hey my point is if your looking at a ENTRY level DSLR you would probably want to have a long hard look at the mirrorless cameras like Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, Fuji simply because for the money your spending on the entry DSLR the others in a lot of cases are not only better, sensor wise but also offer more features. For instance the new Olympus OM-D is weather sealed, has better colour bit depth, better dynamic range, better high ISO sensitivity and their are heaps of lenses for the cameras now. With the cost of some of the mirrorless cameras I feel they are better value.
Even some compact cameras, while not having all the lens options are just as good sensor wise, or very close to the entry DSLR, Canon's own G1X is very close to being as good as a 1100D. If compactness was what your after then the G1X would actually be a better camera.

[wayno]

fair enough, people need to be careful of using loaded words like "rubbish" in a situation like this, it's not that oejctive or helpful for someone starting out buying a camera..

[tasadam]

If you want something proven good, at a great price, consider this - viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11184

[phan_TOM]

theres a national geographic photo exhibition on where i live. poster size prints.. most taken with cameras with aps-c sensors some as old as the nikon D200 and theres nothing wrong with the prints. the images havetn reached their limitations by being blown up....

Great point wayno, I believe the submission requirements for anyone wanting to send photos in to National Geographic for publication is that the file must be no less than 6mp (or 1600 pixels on the longest side). 6mp!

I have a friend who owns and runs an art gallery and he uses an old 6mp Nikon and easily makes prints up to 1 or 1.5m wide... and they are as sharp and detailed as you would want from a fine art print and I doubt anyone could tell that he is not using the latest 20mp camera or would care, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. How many people even print their photos I wonder? I'd say most of them are displayed on 72dpi monitors whch works out to what, 2mp or something silly...

I think the problem is that too many gear heads are focused on, not taking good photos, but on 'gear'. Quite simply they are gear freaks, not photographers, and its disappointing that most people who feel like they should satisfy their creative need to get out and take nice photos are caught up in the whole confusing mess. There are endless discussions like this one where all the experts rant about their gear but personally I'm only interested in seeing photos that show empathy for their subject or tell a good story or are just plain beautiful. Your camera has nothing to do with making a great photo. I'd like to visit the online gallery of all the experts and see their photos, it seems that most of them have $10 000 worth of the latest gear but the best they can do is crap on about 100% crops of their dogs whiskers and how bad the noise is at ISO 25, 600 and how the camera manufacturers better pull there socks up etc... Show me the money errr pictures!

On the other hand there is far more difference between the two than just the max print size capabilities.

I don't know about far more but there is some difference Its easier to get a shallow DOF for instance (there are some pretty fast lenses out for aps-c or micro 4/3 though which provide a nice bokeh), there may be an advantage in dynamic range (is it seriously going to make that much of a difference n your photos though?) and also with noise at higher ISO's but it wasn't all that long ago people were making breathtaking photos in tough conditions with only ASA400 film...
A significant disavantage (for me) is size, compare m4/3 vs aps-c vs FF. when my 40d gives up the ghost I'll seriously consider something like an OMD, its half the size and has superior IQ compared to the 40d and the 40d is already a great camera

As to the original post, I would go with an entry level DSLR or mirrorless system thats within your budget and has manual adjustments so that you can do lots of experimentation and still take great photos without breaking the bank. The sensors in the latest crop of available cameras are pretty amazing and if you get a nice versatile kit lens (an 18-55 or so) the only limits will be you! and then after two weeks when you decide to be a 'pro' like everyone else you can invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in the best gear and go chasing your dog around the house to your hearts content