DSLR Camera

[DRIFTER_016]

When getting into the DSLR game, what people really need to realize is that their investment should be in glass (lenses) not the bodies (Go figure I just upgraded to a 7D mk II, lol).. Bodies change, great lenses should be looked at as investments for the most part. You could have the greatest DSLR body, but put that behind a crappy lens and nothing is going to help.

 

YUP!!!!

Image quality is all in the glass!!!

FYI, that's the body I want!!!

[Jon]

Good information already provided so I don't have too much to add. I have a Nikon D5300 but I'm sure a similar Canon would be comparable. My decision to go with a Nikon over Canon was more feel than photo quality. At the time, mirrorless cameras didn't exist so I don't know too much about them. DSLRs are very versatile but do come with additional bulk and cost of lenses. And with a DSLR, there are filters, tripods and other things to spend money on. There is no one camera fits all solution so I also have a Nikon mega-zoom point and shoot for those far away birds and a GoPro for underwater video. I like them all for varying reasons and use each one for the jobs they do best. I rely on the DSLR more than the other cameras since it gives me a lot more flexibility when shooting (higher ISO, longer exposure, manual focus, etc.). I echo the idea that glass is for life while bodies are disposable. I don't like a camera that doesn't have a viewfinder of some sort since I find the screens aren't very good on bright days.

 

Enjoy your purchase when you finally pull the trigger!

 

Jon

[BillM]

I wish Canon didn't remove some of the cool features from the 70D when making the 7D mkii. I would have loved to keep the swivel/touch screen as well as the wifi. I definitely don't need GPS. Magnesium/weathersealed body is killer though.

[Dan668]

Im also experiencing a camera dilemma. I own a nikon d5100. Only have the 18-55 kit lens. Want to expand to get a prime. But undecided on whether i should do that or grab a new dslr or mirrorless as those glass arent compatible with the newer stuff.

[Rodbender]

Im also experiencing a camera dilemma. I own a nikon d5100. Only have the 18-55 kit lens. Want to expand to get a prime. But undecided on whether i should do that or grab a new dslr or mirrorless as those glass arent compatible with the newer stuff.

Always glass first I still have my D5100 and it's on mt 18-105 love that combo for walk arounds in Cuba and Florida

[Canuck]

Good advice above. the micro 4/3 from Olympus get good reviews. My brother has one and it takes great pictures. Extra glass is pricy like the Sony line though.

 

The major advantage of DSLR is flexibility. The DSLR are much better in low light wiht good lenses. I went to Europe and took hundreds of no flash pictures in dark places that simply could not be done with non DSLR. You can also leave them in full auto mode and they will take better pictures on average than other Cameras.

 

I am a Nikon guy. Have invested a bit in lenses back when I was using film. You can use those lenses on the new cameras, although some are motor less so can only autofocus and meter with the higher end Nikon bodies. The Nikon D5300 is pretty nice model that you probably won't outgrow. The D7200 is even better. Used Nikon's hold their value pretty well too if you decide to upgrade later.

 

Nikon lenses are in my view the best value for the money. You have to spend a lot to get great Canon glass. Great Nikon lenses are available at better pricing IMO. Canon pro lenses are awesome but you need a mortgage to buy them.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Canuck

[BillM]

Good glass definitely isn't cheap, but there are some examples (Like Canons EF 70-200 F4 L USM) which is a steal at $649. It's definitely an investment no matter which camp you choose.

[SirCranksalot]

One more basic question:

 

I find that the apertures on my SX 20 don't work the same was as they did on my old film camera. i.e. if I used a larger aperture such as f5.6 on my film camera objects out of the focus plane were rendered 'fuzzy' (or out of focus). This is much less so on my SX 20. As I recall, I read that depends on the size of the sensor on digital cameras. Do DSLRs function like the old film ones in this respect? Do the mirrorless cameras dp likewise? thx

[Raf]

Yes they do. It is a function of sensor size. Google for a comparison of the various formats.

 

A very simplistic way to look at it is the crop factor. A micro 4 3rd system has a crop factor of 2. Meaning a 25mm 1.4 m4/3 lense is really more like a 50mm 2.8 full sensor dslr / 35mm film equivalent.

 

Both mirror less and dslrs can do the shallow depth of field to a much greater degree than a tiny sensored p&s bUT if this is really your thing go dslr.

 

There are smarter people here than I who can explain this better

[Raf]

Yes they do. It is a function of sensor size. Google for a comparison of the various formats.

 

 

Both mirror less and dslrs can do the shallow depth of field to a much greater degree than a tiny sensored p&s bUT if this is really a priority go dslr.

 

There are smarter people here than I who can explain this better

Edited March 25, 2016 by Raf

[Canuck]

One more basic question:

 

I find that the apertures on my SX 20 don't work the same was as they did on my old film camera. i.e. if I used a larger aperture such as f5.6 on my film camera objects out of the focus plane were rendered 'fuzzy' (or out of focus). This is much less so on my SX 20. As I recall, I read that depends on the size of the sensor on digital cameras. Do DSLRs function like the old film ones in this respect? Do the mirrorless cameras dp likewise? thx

That is the big advantage of DSLR. I did not mention in my last post to avoid getting too technical. A DSLR allows full speed, aperture ISO and focus flexibility as well as auto, apperature priority, speed priority, flash timing flexibility. If you know what you are doing you can have a lot of fun and get fantastic photos. Anyone that loves taking pictures and playing with lighting and focus NEEDS a DSLR. Edited March 26, 2016 by Canuck

[SirCranksalot]

That is the big advantage of DSLR. I did not mention in my last post to avoid getting too technical. A DSLR allows full speed, aperture ISO and focus flexibility as well as auto, apperature priority, speed priority, flash timing flexibility. If you know what you are doing you can have a lot of fun and get fantastic photos. Anyone that loves taking pictures and playing with lighting and focus NEEDS a DSLR.

I'm glad you said that! I was at Henry's today and bout a Canon Rebel T5. .

The decision to get a DSLR rather than mirrorless was largely based on the info posted here that they have greater control on depth of field. The other more expensive cameras has better features for video such as improved sound but I'm not that much into videos. My videos are mostly short clips of people or animals. No music or anything that would need hi-fi.

 

Thx again for all the advice offered here, folks, incl the news that Henry's prices are going up in April. That got me off the proverbial pot.

[MJL]

Congrats on getting your first DSLR...I'm sure you will enjoy it. The T3 was a great camera and the T5 should serve you well. Time to go lens shopping

 

A little late, but in terms of getting shallow depth of field, there is no difference between a mirrorless camera and a DSLR with the same sensor size. When you are comparing cameras that have the same sensor size (ie. both have APS-C sensors like a Canon T5 VS Sony A6000), the same lens focal length (as an example 50mm) and using the same lens aperture (As an example - F/2.8), you will achieve the same/similar results.

 

Of course this does not mean that the quality/smoothness of the 'bokeh' (ie. the blurred background) will be the same. The quality and construction of the lens plays a bigger role in that.

[BillM]

Look on Kijiji for used glass. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM is a killer walk around, day to day lens. Add to that a Canon EF 70-200 F4 L USM and you've got a lot of the range covered.

Edited March 28, 2016 by BillM

[craigdritchie]

Look on Kijiji for used glass. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM is a killer walk around, day to day lens. Add to that a Canon EF 70-200 F4 L USM and you've got a lot of the range covered.

 

 

Also look at eBay, though I'd stick to buying from people who have tons of positive feedback. Henry's has an eBay presence, and they sometimes have smokin' deals.

 

Late to the party here but can't agree enough with those who suggest you put your money into lenses rather than bodies. I consider DSLR bodies as being disposable. Not that the body will fall apart or anything like that, but no matter what you buy, after two or three years another newer body will come out with way better performance and it will only cost half the price. Because of that, bodies depreciate in value really quickly. But today I can still sell lenses I bought 15 years ago and get pretty much what I paid for them. Good glass doesn't depreciate at all.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Craig_Ritchie

[SirCranksalot]

Thx again folks

 

I think looking on Kijiji for lenses is generally good advice---subject to the usual caveats re buying used.

Henry's 55-250 lens was list as $370 but was offered as part of the pkg for $200. That sounded too good to pass up.

[DRIFTER_016]

Thx again folks

 

I think looking on Kijiji for lenses is generally good advice---subject to the usual caveats re buying used.

Henry's 55-250 lens was list as $370 but was offered as part of the pkg for $200. That sounded too good to pass up.

 

It's a decent lens.

Far from great but it's well worth the $$$.

It's the first lens I bought for my setup too.

It even works well for taking pics at the good old hockey game!!

 

 

 

 

 

[35Wailin]

Depending on what kind of photography you are into, if like me you like to take it hunting and fishing and wildlife photography, look into a Pentax. I was set on a Nikon last year. I walked into Henry's and started talking to a guy i knew from a local fishing website. He turned me around to Pentax. A K-50 to be exact. It came with an 18-55 and I picked up a 55-200 for $100 more. The Pentax is weather sealed and the WR lens series are weather sealed as well.

 

I found the 55-200 wasn't long enough for my liking and found a 55-300 WR on a photo website. Sold the 55-200 and the 55-300 ended up costing me $50.

 

There are many legacy lenses available that wil fit, although you lose the auto focus and weather resistance.

 

I keep my camera on the boat seat beside me and don't worry about one of my partners not thinking about it and passing a dripping net over it, or a light rain shower.

 

Th guy I sold my 55-200 to told me he mounts his older k-5 on th front bumper of his jeep to capture video.

 

Something to consider.