Hi,
Does anyone reading this own a DSLR Nikon D40, D40X, D70S, D90 or a Sony Nex 5??
Trips to various retailers have confirmed the Nikon is more comfortable than Canon for me and no other models interest me.
I'm thinking of moving up from a simple compact digi camera and have toyed with the idea of buying a DSLR s/hand on Ebay but prices there seem a little high and the other camera I'm taking a look at, the Sony Nex 5 is actually cheaper to buy new than s/hand from some sellers on Ebay. Crazy!! is I don't I don't want to buy a poor example of a Nikon costing £250-£350. When Currys/JessopS and the like will sell me a new Sony Nex 5 FOR £375. Truth is I can't make my mind up!
The other problem I have is big hands. the Nex 5 is smaller than the current DSLR's which are smaller again than the film slr's I used to own before going digital. I'm drawn to it because of it's brilliant image quality. But will I find it comfortable?
It's taken me a couple of years to work around the various settings on my current camera and the Nex 5 has been criticised by reviewers as it has too few buttons and most setting are buried deep in the camera's sub menu system.
What experiences can you share with me? Which is best, Nikon DSLR or Sony NEX 5?
|
I went from a Nikon Coolpix compact to a Nikon D3000 DSLR and treated myself to a 55-300mm lens too.
I haven't regretted it.
|
You might also want to consider bridge cameras. They are much cheaper than SLRs (typically £250-£400) and have mostly the same features. The only difference is you cannot remove the lenses.
I bought my Panasonic FZ7 bridge camera four years ago and never had a reason to upgrade it.
It depends how much money you have, if there is no budget go for the SLR.
|
If the Nex5 is too small then check out the new sony dslrs. Jessops do a couple that are around £300. In body stabilisation and lots of choice in second hand minolta glass.
The nikon dslrs don't have inbody stabilisation unlike most bridge cameras so you have to spend more on lenses to get stabilisation.
Friend has a d90 and it is pretty good but it has hissy fits every now and again and needs turning off and on again.
Panasonic fz45 is another good choice. Bit noisy at higher isos though. I've had an fz50 for a few years and it has been great.
|
I have a Nikon D90 with the 18-105mm zoom lens which replaced my film equivalent (Nikon F401 body and Tamron 28-200mm lens).
I wouldn't swap it for all the tea in China at the moment....:-)
It's certainly never had a "hissy fit"..........
The resolution of the lens is at, the least, on a par with the Tamron, itself an absolutely top notch AF offering for the Nikon F401, although I've still to use it on the D90.
The follow up to the D90 is:
www.dpreview.com/previews/nikond7000/
|
I have a D300 with about 8 lenses. My everyday lens is the 18-200 which is quite superb. Also have a D100 which preceded it. No problems with either.
Nikon do some good 1-day training courses - not cheap but I let the family club together to buy me one for Christmas.
Its also worth getting Capture NX for manipulating the images from the camera - you can improve them no end.
|
|
Have had a D90 for 18 months or so - no problems so far - went through a very wet week's shoot in Scotland a couple of months back without hesitation. Most used lens is the 16-85VR - wide enough for landscape, and long enough for general walk-round use. Agree with Tigger regarding Capture NX2 - great software with a reasonably short learning curve. One thing I've learned from photographic workshops is importance of tripods - decent one is next priority before a second lens
|
I have a D60 (son of the D40X). With the exception of the D90, the Nikon models you quote are all quite old. IIRC the D40 was followed by the D40X (10 MP) was followed by the D60 was followed by the D3000 was followed (last autumn) by the current model the D3100 as the entry level DSLR.
I can't compare the Nikon with the Sony as I've not had my hands on a Sony. The Sony does appear to have been slated by the camera press for handling and image quality whereas the "gadget / general" press seem to love it. It looks to me like the approach was to develop a compact with a big sensor and exchangeable lens rather than to develop a DSLR without the prism / mirror if you see what I mean. 'scuse terminology which hasn't settled down yet. For reviews, see DPREVIEW, can't be beat. Barney on there used to write for Amateur Photographer. I believe the site is owned by Amazon.
I can only say that my Nikon is ace. I too use it with an 18-200 lens (Sigma), the supplied 18 - 55 has been little used. I have contemplated buying a 14 - 24 / 12 - 24 lens as most of my photography is landsacpe but I think I could be heading for a divorce if walks were held up even more while I faff about with changing lenses. Using it is easy. It is a very friendly, easy to use camera despite all of the knobs & buttons. In my opinion it tends to overexpose so I either use exposure compensation or manual exposure, both of which are dead easy to use.
As the D3000 is recently superseded you might even find a new one one within budget.
Good luck!
John
Last edited by: Tooslow on Sat 22 Jan 11 at 15:08
|
Have you considered the Canon G12. I've used a G7 for years and the image quality is great but I believe the G12 is even better.
vitesse
|
Photographyblog, dpreview and imaging resource all have good comparative reviews. Press can't always be known for having 100% unbiased reviews when there's advertising involved...
Nikon use sony sensors so they can't be that bad :-)
The too small camera seems to be a trend as the budget ones from canon are a bit on the small side too.
|
A friend has a Sony Nex5, and it's a cracking camera. He's well happy with it.
As a long standing Canon EOS fan/owner, I can't possibly comment on Nikon DSLRs ;-)
|
How's about this camera then, it was featured on QVC over the weekend,
I have a FinePix S5800 which 'does the job', but this new model seems great, for the money,
What is a 'bridge' camera, is it a bridge between a point & shoot, and a DSLR?
www.amazon.co.uk/Fujifilm-FinePix-S2950-Digital-Camera/dp/B004G8Q600/ref=sr_1_1/276-9742622-4400622?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1296041615&sr=8-1
|
Yes. Tends to have a non-interchangeable wide-to-tele zoom. Check that you can get on with the electronic viewfinder, which is an LCD screen viewed through a prism like an SLR's but without the mirror to allow you to view directly through the lens. The one I tried gave me a headache.
I'd far rather have an SLR. I often carry mine with just one small lens when a bulky bridge camera might get left behind.
|
>>Yes. Tends to have a non-interchangeable wide-to-tele zoom<<
Thanks Will :)
|
The lens on that Fuji S2950 has a focal length of f=5.0 - 90.0 mm,
which is equivalent to 28 - 504mm on a 35mm camera.
How absolutely A-mazing!
|
>> How absolutely A-mazing!
I'd *still* prefer something like a WB600 (or 650).
|
>>I'd *still* prefer something like a WB600 (or 650)<<
Samsung, Panasonic etc. etc., they're all damn good cameras,
I'll have to do some research before getting my plastic out.
|
It goes *this* wide:
"-------------------------------------------------------------------"
Last edited by: FotheringtonTomas on Wed 26 Jan 11 at 14:29
|
Yea! I noted the 24mm Ultra Wide Angle lens FT :)
|
|
My Panasonic TZ65 does 25 - 300, without trawling through the EXIF data for each photo I reckon about 80% of my photos are taken between 25 & 30mm equiv.
|
>> You might also want to consider bridge cameras. They are much cheaper than SLRs (typically £250-£400) and have mostly the same features.
I have a bridge camera (which offers all sorts of manual adjustment like DSLR) but two main problems with bridge cameras
[1] they offer CCDs which are much smaller than DSLR's. Since picture quality depends on CCD size, this the reason why bridge cameras can't produce same image quality as of DSLR's.
[2] Bridge camera lense seldom goes beyond 27 mm (though their zoom often goes till 500 mm). Most DSLR has lense 18-55 mm range. So a bridge camera won't work like a good wide angle lense (and I find wide angle a more essential feature than zoom/telephoto).
|
>> [1] they offer CCDs which are much smaller than DSLR's. Since picture quality depends on
>> CCD size, this the reason why bridge cameras can't produce same image quality as of
>> DSLR's.
>>
>> [2] Bridge camera lense seldom goes beyond 27 mm (though their zoom often goes till
>> 500 mm). Most DSLR has lense 18-55 mm range. So a bridge camera won't work
>> like a good wide angle lense (and I find wide angle a more essential feature
>> than zoom/telephoto).
>>
i'd say there's more to image quality than sensor size, but yes, in the final event, a DSLR should be capable of better technical quality.
In terms of focal length 18-55 kit lenses are the equivalent of roughly 28-90 in 35mm terms, assuming an APS sized sensor.
|
>> In terms of focal length 18-55 kit lenses are the equivalent of roughly 28-90 in 35mm terms, assuming an APS sized sensor.
But using that logic, a bridge camera lens will also change because of high crop factor due to tiny sensor size.
|
>> >> In terms of focal length 18-55 kit lenses are the equivalent of roughly 28-90
>> in 35mm terms, assuming an APS sized sensor.
>>
>> But using that logic, a bridge camera lens will also change because of high crop
>> factor due to tiny sensor size.
>>
>>
Bridge and compact camera focal lengths are almost always quoted as 35mm equivalent; 25 ish to 500 ish seems par for the course these days. My Fz20 bridge only goes down to 35 equivalent hence my purchase of the TZ65 with it's 25 at the wide end..
Last edited by: spamcan61 on Wed 26 Jan 11 at 20:05
|
>> [1] they offer CCDs which are much smaller than DSLR's. Since picture quality depends on
>> CCD size, this the reason why bridge cameras can't produce same image quality as of
>> DSLR's.
The size of the sensor is not a real issue, few people actually use the full benefit of the larger sensor size. The one in a bridge camera is good enough unless you want to produce posters. The quality of the image is more a factor of the Optics.
>> [2] Bridge camera lense seldom goes beyond 27 mm (though their zoom often goes till
>> 500 mm). Most DSLR has lense 18-55 mm range. So a bridge camera won't work
>> like a good wide angle lense (and I find wide angle a more essential feature
>> than zoom/telephoto).
Anything wider than 28mm is essentially useless unless you have expensive compensation to remove the visual distortions.
Its a bridge camera for me, for me, every time. Instant usability, the longer zoom, and lower weight and smaller size makes it far more usable in real life situations.
|
>>
>> Anything wider than 28mm is essentially useless unless you have expensive compensation to remove the
>> visual distortions.
>>
I'm not sure about 'useless' but yes they'll be some degree of barrel distortion in most really wide zooms unless you spend megabucks. There are various tools around to correct it, some are certainly expensive, however PT lens is 25 bucks and can be used stand-alone or as a plug-in - I think it works with Irfanview for example.
epaperpress.com/ptlens/
>> Its a bridge camera for me, for me, every time. Instant usability, the longer zoom,
>> and lower weight and smaller size makes it far more usable in real life situations.
>>
Like he said; although I'm now going even further down the convenience route and using a 'travelzoom' as my main camera.
|
>> The size of the sensor is not a real issue, few people actually use the full benefit of the larger sensor size
The main benefit of the larger sensor is really it's increased sensitivity to light and therefore allowing you to use the camera in low light conditions without the resultant photos being noisy. And DLSRs typically benefit from fast focussing.
I agree the image quality on most cameras these days is good enough. But they soon show up noise in low light conditions.
|
I don't entirely agree with Zero on this though I don't have problem with bridge cameras - they are generally brilliant now, but they are a compromise, if a very good one. If I only had one camera it would be a bridge/superzoom.
General snapshot images on sunny days will not suffer unduly as compared with a DSLR, but there are two notable areas of compromise. One that will affect most people is the speed of the lens you get and the poor performance of the small sensor at high ISOs - in low light you will either be using slow shutter speeds or more likely high ISOs. Small sensors can show lots of noise at high ISOs. The other is depth of field control - you will have vast DOF at standard/portrait focal lengths even at the largest apertures and that will make it difficult to de-focus backgrounds.
The point about wide angles is an interesting one. My current favourite camera is a Panasonic LX3
www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmclx3/
which has a 24mm eq. wide angle. Looking at the raw files shows a lot of barrel distortion. This is not apparent in the jpgs out of the camera because it is corrected in firmware!
The perspective distortion introduced with wide angle close ups of buildings can also be corrected for with the image processing software bundled with the camera (Silkypix Developer Studio) which will also apply camera-specific correction of the barrel distortion to raw files.
The LX3 only has a maximum zoom of 60mm eq. It's now been superseded by the LX5 with a 24-90mm, and if I didn't have an LX3 I wouldn't hesitate to buy one for that fantastic wide angle - but it's not really the best choice if you only want one camera, when I'd go for the bridge.
EDIT - written before I saw rtj's similar comments on noise.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 26 Jan 11 at 20:52
|
Good point about DOF - even the standard lens on my Panasonic Lumix G2 can defocus the background when needed. And it can do this sort of thing for video too.
>> Looking at the raw files shows a lot of barrel distortion. This is not apparent in the jpgs
>> out of the camera because it is corrected in firmware!
A lot of lenses now have distortion and are corrected in camera or via the RAW conversion process. If the lens is never used (or cannot be used) for a film camera, it is easier/better to correct than make the perfect optical lens ;-)
|
Buying a new camera maybe - TheManWithNoName
