Help - Compact System or DSLR
Discussion
I had narrowed down my choice to a Nikon 5100 or possibly the new Nikon 3200 but am now back looking at the new Olympus OM-D.
Budget wise I can go to around the £1200 but don't want to buy a camera way advanced that what I am. (had some SLR cameras pre digital but have only been using compact digitals over the last years)
Now I want to get into photography more seriously (car shows, landscapes, sport) so have been looking at the above cameras, I am very taken with the Olympus regarding the shape / size design and what the camera offers (all be it I haven't had it in my hands yet) . I suppose the main worry is that buying a Compact Camera does not give me the same options to improve and develop the same as having an DSLR ( I may and probably will be totally wrong here)
Not much to go on but any bit of advice will help me hopefully make the right decision.
tighnamara said:
I suppose the main worry is that buying a Compact Camera does not give me the same options to improve and develop the same as having an DSLR ( I may and probably will be totally wrong here)
A compact might be frustrating on speed of use, shutter lag, viewfinder, restricting depth of field, lens choice, upsetting your bank manager and exercising your biceps. Otherwise you'll be fine either way.....Compact systems have all the disadvantages of s dslr but offer no advantage over them.
I see no reason why anyone would but a cs over a dslr. They aren't really that compact. Can't fit one in a pocket. Still have to lug around extra lenses. Dslrs offer better picture quality from bigger sensors. Dslrs have proper ttl view finders, most these days have live view. Cs cameras cost just as much as a dslr.
They are just Pretend dslrs marketed at people who think dslrs are hard to use.
I see no reason why anyone would but a cs over a dslr. They aren't really that compact. Can't fit one in a pocket. Still have to lug around extra lenses. Dslrs offer better picture quality from bigger sensors. Dslrs have proper ttl view finders, most these days have live view. Cs cameras cost just as much as a dslr.
They are just Pretend dslrs marketed at people who think dslrs are hard to use.
I'm a DSLR user, but got a compact 10x recently to see if they've got a place in my photography life. It fits in a coat pocket and has all the controls I'm used to, and the focal range is amazing, but the glass and sensor are small so exposures are long and quality is lower than I'm used to. The shutter lag is appalling, so no use for anything that moves.
So yes, they have a place, but no, it doesn't sound like the right choice for you.
As the camera is the easy bit, work out what lenses you want. Then choose the body. I went Canon because I think they're better vfm than Nikon, but 3/4 of my money has gone on lenses...
So yes, they have a place, but no, it doesn't sound like the right choice for you.
As the camera is the easy bit, work out what lenses you want. Then choose the body. I went Canon because I think they're better vfm than Nikon, but 3/4 of my money has gone on lenses...
tighnamara said:
Am I correct in saying that the camera does not have built in auto focus motorand that I need to ensure lenses are fitted with the auto focus motor.
Yes, but most lenses you are likely to need, at least for a while, have it. Look for 'AF-S' on Nikon lenses and 'HSM' on Sigma lenses.tighnamara said:
Looks like i have it down to a Nikon 5100 body along with a 18 - 200 mm f/3.5 - 5.6 lense. ( budget spent)
How about the D5100 + 18-55mm VR + 55-200mm for £755.99 ? rather than the 'all in one' 18-200mm lens.Leaves you budget for a 'fast' lens like 50mm f1.4@ £292.90 or 35mm f1.8 @ £160.95 & budget leftover for bits 'n bobs like a bag, memory cards, etc...
(I'm no Nikon lens expert, may be best to check (or if some Nikon users could interject) what those 18-55 and 55-200 lenses are like beforehand
)flat-planedCrank said:
tighnamara said:
Looks like i have it down to a Nikon 5100 body along with a 18 - 200 mm f/3.5 - 5.6 lense. ( budget spent)
How about the D5100 + 18-55mm VR + 55-200mm for £755.99 ? rather than the 'all in one' 18-200mm lens.Leaves you budget for a 'fast' lens like 50mm f1.4@ £292.90 or 35mm f1.8 @ £160.95 & budget leftover for bits 'n bobs like a bag, memory cards, etc...
(I'm no Nikon lens expert, may be best to check (or if some Nikon users could interject) what those 18-55 and 55-200 lenses are like beforehand
)(spending money is supposed to be easy)
Can anyone follow up with any advise on Nikon lenses, want to make sure the lenses I purchase are of a good quality and that they will last.
tighnamara said:
flat-planedCrank said:
tighnamara said:
Looks like i have it down to a Nikon 5100 body along with a 18 - 200 mm f/3.5 - 5.6 lense. ( budget spent)
How about the D5100 + 18-55mm VR + 55-200mm for £755.99 ? rather than the 'all in one' 18-200mm lens.Leaves you budget for a 'fast' lens like 50mm f1.4@ £292.90 or 35mm f1.8 @ £160.95 & budget leftover for bits 'n bobs like a bag, memory cards, etc...
(I'm no Nikon lens expert, may be best to check (or if some Nikon users could interject) what those 18-55 and 55-200 lenses are like beforehand
)(spending money is supposed to be easy)
Can anyone follow up with any advise on Nikon lenses, want to make sure the lenses I purchase are of a good quality and that they will last.
....and from that, it looks like it's these lenses:
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-t...
Both seem to review ok - bearing in mind that 'professional' lenses can cost mega-money
tighnamara said:
Decent shout and makes sense, I have contemplated that package but not sure on the quality of the lense within the package.
(spending money is supposed to be easy)
Can anyone follow up with any advise on Nikon lenses, want to make sure the lenses I purchase are of a good quality and that they will last.
I am an enthusiast rather than a professional and have the D5100 camera, 18-55 mm VR AFS and the 55-200 VR AFS lenses from Nikon. Far as I am concerned they are the donkeys do dahs with clear pics and excellent colour. Superb choice in my humble opinion. I gather that these are considered budget lenses by the professional crew but they are excellent nevertheless. (spending money is supposed to be easy)
Can anyone follow up with any advise on Nikon lenses, want to make sure the lenses I purchase are of a good quality and that they will last.
steveatesh said:
I am an enthusiast rather than a professional and have the D5100 camera, 18-55 mm VR AFS and the 55-200 VR AFS lenses from Nikon. Far as I am concerned they are the donkeys do dahs with clear pics and excellent colour. Superb choice in my humble opinion. I gather that these are considered budget lenses by the professional crew but they are excellent nevertheless.
Agree. If the picture is set up correctly you can achieve stunning results. 55-200mm makes sense to buy but for me the really good buy is the 35mm 1.8. It's in a different class to the 18-55 kit lens (which I rarely use and haven't even unboxed from the new kit I bought). The OP mentioned the new Olympus OMD and also the word 'compact'.
The OMD is not in the sense as we understand it, a 'compact' camera ....
.... it's just smaller than a DSLR and I doubt it has the downsides of
a 'compact', but we don't know that yet as I think it's only been on sale
here for a few days.
The downside I'm sure it will have, is that its CDAF tracking autofocus
will not be nearly as good as the PDAF of a DSLR (but possibly more
accurate with static subjects).
The OMD is not in the sense as we understand it, a 'compact' camera ....
.... it's just smaller than a DSLR and I doubt it has the downsides of
a 'compact', but we don't know that yet as I think it's only been on sale
here for a few days.
The downside I'm sure it will have, is that its CDAF tracking autofocus
will not be nearly as good as the PDAF of a DSLR (but possibly more
accurate with static subjects).
Edited by Elderly on Saturday 21st April 09:17
marcosgt said:
WHY are those saying DSLR is the automatic choice?
Coming from a 35mm SLR background, I've a DSLR, but on paper these Compact Systems seem to make a lot of sense - What do people see as the 'obvious' advantages of the DSLR?
M
Well for starters, the OP says he wants to 'improve and develop' - how many lenses are available for the OM-D, how much do they cost and can you find cheap ones on eBay? What about flashguns? Will it trigger/work with studio flashes?Coming from a 35mm SLR background, I've a DSLR, but on paper these Compact Systems seem to make a lot of sense - What do people see as the 'obvious' advantages of the DSLR?
M
Despite the lump on the top that you fondly think might house a pentamirror, it has an electronic viewfinder. Do I want to compose my photos on a television? No thanks!
And it doesn't fit in a pocket any better than a DLSR, so whilst it is 'smaller' it's not usefully smaller.
I suspect Olympus and others go off on these routes because they can't tackle the established names head to head. Nothing wrong with it if that's what you want, and it will take perfectly good photos, but I think you will quickly hit expense or brick walls if you want to improve and develop.
Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 21st April 10:34
OM-D could fit in a coat pocket if fitted with one of the pancake lenses. The problem IMHO will be be more with the viewfinder sticking out and the rubber eye cup dragging on the pocket. I used to have an E420 SLR which had this problem, it frustrated the hell out of me because physically it would fit but was difficult getting in and out. OM-D is a tiny bit smaller than the E420. I don't have this problem with the E-P2 and carry it pretty much everywhere. Remote flash is one of those odd things that Panasonic doesn't seem to think important but various Oly bodies do it. Do a search on flickr or have a browse on here to see pictures taken with m4/3rds;
http://www.mu-43.com/f53/
The tracking AF is a big question mark with the OM-D, no one really knows yet if it is any good but honestly on my E-P2 anything other than S-AF is hopeless. Having said that though it depends how important to you that is, it seems to me that for most users its more about being able to take pictures of their kids running around. The internet seems to have forgotten that it wasn't that long ago that AF was but a dream and yet talented photographers still managed to get great shots of wildlife or sports.
Size is often mentioned but honestly it was weight that pushed me towards m4/3rds, seems to be the same for many other uses which is why the new Fuji x-pro is so interesting because when you add up the weight of body and lenses its comparable but in slightly bigger easier to handle package.
http://www.mu-43.com/f53/
The tracking AF is a big question mark with the OM-D, no one really knows yet if it is any good but honestly on my E-P2 anything other than S-AF is hopeless. Having said that though it depends how important to you that is, it seems to me that for most users its more about being able to take pictures of their kids running around. The internet seems to have forgotten that it wasn't that long ago that AF was but a dream and yet talented photographers still managed to get great shots of wildlife or sports.
Size is often mentioned but honestly it was weight that pushed me towards m4/3rds, seems to be the same for many other uses which is why the new Fuji x-pro is so interesting because when you add up the weight of body and lenses its comparable but in slightly bigger easier to handle package.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff