DSLR Camera

[Gary Hodgin]

I'm thinking about a new camera. Currently, I have a Nikon P80 point and shoot, but it's getting a bit old and it seems the quality of the pics has deteriorated somewhat. We've taken a bunch of pics with it over the last 3 to 4 years.

I thinking about a Nikon D5100, which is a newer version of the D5000. It comes with 16.x pixels, which is a bit more than the 5000 or the D90. Does anyone have experience with this camera or any recommendations? I'd probably go with the standard 18-55mm lens and a 55-200mm or 55-300mm for distance.

I'd still keep the P80 for those times when I don't want to wag around a larger camera.

[Greg Portland]

The quality of your glass is more important than the pixel count + the glass can be used in future cameras. IMO, go take a look at a camera site (dpreview.com, etc.) and see what users have to say about the camera body. I would use well over 50% of my budget on 2 lenses.

What kind of photography are you hoping to do? For many people a good point and shoot with manual modes & a tripod is all they need.

[Gary Hodgin]

The quality of your glass is more important than the pixel count + the glass can be used in future cameras. IMO, go take a look at a camera site (dpreview.com, etc.) and see what users have to say about the camera body. I would use well over 50% of my budget on 2 lenses.

What kind of photography are you hoping to do? For many people a good point and shoot with manual modes & a tripod is all they need.

Greg,
My use is for general photography. Everything from inside family stuff at reunions, dinners, birthdays, and so on to outside action shots of grandkids playing ball.

My P80 (18x optical) has a 27-486mm f/2 8-4.5 lens, which is great if the quality was better. It seems the pics are grainer now than when I got it. They really don't look that good in digital photo albums. In most cases they're good enough, but some of the inside family type pics should be much better. I don't believe the lens is very good. I guess the flexibility comes at a price. I don't think the flash is particularly good either. Not all that bad, but I'd like to improve things.

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.
Gary

[Dan Hintz]

I purchased the Canon T2i when it first hit the shelves last year. I have been VERY happy with the results. I even handed it over to my brother (a semi-pro photog back in the day) to take all of my wedding pics. With the 18-55 lens in the box, it was $900... deals can be had for less with a little looking. Do not bother with the T3i as it's a minimal upgrade, at best, and not worth the extra money.

[Andrew Pitonyak]

My experience is that Canon has better market share amongst the professional photographers. I opted for a Canon primarily because I knew people that owned Canons and then I stuck with them.

DPReview is an excellent suggestion, by the way.

Although I have a strong preference for Canon, my experience is that very few people dislike either their Canon or their Nikon.

I am partial to the non-full-frame cameras from Canon because they have smaller lighter lenses, and yet, I can still use their full frame lenses. I own a few thousand dollars worth of lenses, which pretty much will keep me in the Canon camp.

[Ted Calver]

I've had the Nikon D7000 for a couple of months and have been very happy. 18-105mm, 1:3.5-5.6 and 35mm, 1:1.8 lenses. I don't think you can go wrong with either Nikon or Canon

[Joe Angrisani]

Gary... Don't get caught up in the megapixel thing. Nothing is more meaningless to the final result, and in many ways, LESS megapixels is better. The "grain" you speak of from the P80 is probably electronic noise, especially if you've unknowingly set it to Auto ISO. 3MP is more than enough for a sharp 8x10 if you do things right.

I would also suggest you stick with Nikon because you are familiar with the way Nikon does things on their cameras. Nikon and Canon both make great dSLRs, so going to Canon would only serve to set you back in the learning curve again. Anyone who claims one is better than the other is blowing hot air.

I'd suggest going for a slightly simpler body, upping the ante on the glass, and adding a flash. My first pick would be the old D40 for it's low light performance and nice, compact files sizes, though many people will suggest the newer stuff. I would consider the 18-105mm VR for your basic lens, and the 55-300VR or 70-300VR if/when you want to add more reach (though 300mm/'450mm effective' is nearly impossible to handhold with great results). The 18-55 is a good lens, but you are going to feel crippled after your 18X P80. Finally, the SB400 is a nice compact flash that should do all you need.

I would trust "CametaAuctions" on eBay for older bodies and refurbished bodies, and also check the used departments at B&H, Adorama and KEH. Craigslist is also a great source for used gear since you can put your hands on the goodies first.

[Gary Hodgin]

Thanks guys, I think I'll wait till we return from vacation to make a decision. We leave in a few days and I was thinking about getting something before then. I'm going to take the P80 and play around with it as Joe suggests and see if I can improve things. More than likely I'll do get something but I'm going to give it a little more thought.

The reason I was focused more on the Nikon was that I have two friends who have D90s and I've seen some of their shots. It's my understanding that the d5100 is similar in performance to the d90, but the body has more plastic and it's a few hundred bucks cheaper.

I'll take a look at the Canon TS2i. I had an old Canon AE1-program that I really liked. Unfortunately, my wife took it to my daughter's softball game and it got soaked during a thunderstorm. Had it repaired but it didn't last long.

Thanks again for the suggestions. I had a feeling some of you guys would know something about cameras.

[Joe Angrisani]

The reason I was focused more on the Nikon was that I have two friends who have D90s and I've seen some of their shots. It's my understanding that the d5100 is similar in performance to the d90, but the body has more plastic and it's a few hundred bucks cheaper.....

Yes and no. The main reason why the D5100 is cheaper is that it doesn't have an autofocus motor in the body. Nikon's newer lenses are "AF-S" lenses, and they have the motor in the lens. The middle-road bodies like the D90 (with their body motor) let you use the older Nikon AF lenses that don't have their own motors. But that doesn't really apply to you if you're going with newer glass. The main difference is body size. All the motorless bodies (the D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D5000, D5100) are noticably smaller than the "consumer" D80/D90 and "prosumer" D200/D300 lines.

The main difference in going to a dSLR is the sensor SIZE, not the megapixels. The physically bigger sensor means bigger individual pixel sites (for a given resolution), and bigger pixels equals less electronic noise. A 10MP dSLR is going to smoke a 10MP point & shoot or 10MP "P80-type" camera because the sensor itself is so much smaller in the P&S and P80-type cameras.

I am a big fan of the compact bodies. I shoot a D300, but I also love love love my D40 because it is "go anywhere" small.

:::::::::::::::

A few things to try on your vacation: Turn off the Auto ISO Sensitivity and shoot at ISO 64 (or ISO 100 max). Jack up the ISO only when you need the extra sensitivity and are willing to trade off quality, but try to stay below ISO 400 no matter what. Also try shooting in Aperture Priority mode with the aperture set to f/5.6 or f/8. This puts you in the sweet spot, optically, and you'll get better quality corner-to-corner. Finally, learn to use the histogram to nail your exposure - I would set the camera so the histogram comes up with the review image after a shot. The histogram is your friend. Get to know it.

[Dave Gaul]

LOML has a D7000, LOML Jr. has D3100. LOML JR III has D40. All of them are excellent. The D5100 is sure to please. I value the information found on Ken Rockwell's site greatly, check it out for some great info on Nikon's.

I've always preferred Canon compacts & point & shoots, but Nikon DSLR's & Nikkor lenses are top pick for me. LOML Jr had a Canon DSLR that her (bio mother) got for her, and it was not so great (I'm sure there are plenty of great Canons though).

[Ole Anderson]

My previous digital camera was a Canon PowerShot S2IS. So when I decided to step up to a DSLR after retirement, I went with the Canon T2i with an 18-55 and a 55-250 autofocus/image stabilized lens. Whole rig is currently going for $900 on Ebay. http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170534313798

Previous film SLR's were Konica and Pentax. My main reason for going to a DSLR was to get a true optical viewfinder with WYSIWYG. I want to be able to take good pics outside in the sun. As mentioned you also get a bigger sensor. Slightly smaller (by a factor of 1.6) than a full 35mm sensor on the big boys. So your 250 lens will have the same magnification as a 400 lens on a 35 mm camera. You can spend as much on lenses as you would like, up to $14k for the EF 800 super telephoto. While not a video camera, it will take some serious 1080p video.

Why do you want lots of mega pixels? So you can crop the heck out of a photo and still get a great shot.

[Art Mulder]

I thinking about a Nikon D5100, which is a newer version of the D5000. It comes with 16.x pixels, which is a bit more than the 5000 or the D90. Does anyone have experience with this camera or any recommendations? I'd probably go with the standard 18-55mm lens and a 55-200mm or 55-300mm for distance.


Lots of good info in this thread, Gary.
I'm also dSLR shopping/looking, and I've pretty much been aiming for the same camera setup as you describe.

Though I'd probably be perfectly happy with a d90 if that one goes on sale before the d5100 does. I might check out the 18-200 lens first, though.

(and I second the kenrockwell.com recommendation. I find dpreview to be overwhelming and hard to wade through. snapsort.com is another good one for quickly comparing different camera features.)

[Joe Angrisani]

.....Why do you want lots of mega pixels? So you can crop the heck out of a photo and still get a great shot.

Bad idea. Yes, you can crop in. But there are overpowering reasons why fewer megapixels are better. Better dynamic range (which results in better color and better shadow detail). More creative depth of field (and creative slower shutter) choices because your f/11 and f/16 shots don't go to hell because of diffraction issues. Less noise at any given ISO. Megapixels is a marketing thing, and I think you've taken the hook, line and sinker, Ole. :) Less is more, my friend.

You'll never get a great shot cropping in. Put your feet and camera in the right place and choose the right focal length for your composition. If you can't make your shot with a 400mm effective focal length, give it up. Great shots are made BEFORE you press the shutter button. And more often than not with wide angle lenses. Not by cropping and photoshopping.

:::::::::::::::

Gary.... To touch on what Art said, the 18-200 is a great all-in-one lens. The ease of having the 18-55 and 55-200 without swapping lenses is super handy. If it's in the budget, I'd take it over the 18-55/55-200. But don't underestimate it's weight. All choices come with a compromise. You just have to choose your compromises. The "best" setup in the world is useless if you start thinking "I don't feel like lugging it along today". Try a D40 with the 35mm/1.8 on it. Joyously lightweight. My digital FM2 for you "old timers".

[Kevin W Johnson]

I have the D5100, and so far i see it as a great upgrade to my D40x. One of my favorite things to photograph is lightning, and the D5100 has remote release capabilities that my D40x doesn't have. The movie feature, even though limited to 20min increments is also nice in that if i want/need video footage, i don't have to carry a separate camcorder.

[Ole Anderson]

Bad idea. Yes, you can crop in. But there are overpowering reasons why fewer megapixels are better. Better dynamic range (which results in better color and better shadow detail). More creative depth of field (and creative slower shutter) choices because your f/11 and f/16 shots don't go to hell because of diffraction issues. Less noise at any given ISO. Megapixels is a marketing thing, and I think you've taken the hook, line and sinker, Ole. :) Less is more, my friend.

You'll never get a great shot cropping in. Put your feet and camera in the right place and choose the right focal length for your composition. If you can't make your shot with a 400mm effective focal length, give it up. Great shots are made BEFORE you press the shutter button. And more often than not with wide angle lenses. Not by cropping and photoshopping.




Sometimes you do what you gotta do to get the pic, never say never. Joe, I appreciate your comments, but if I have a hook in the corner of my mouth, so do all the pros. If you are going to dumb down technology, why not go all the way, I hear you can get a great pic from a pinhole camera. So which 3 megapixel pro camera do you recommend? Hard to believe you aren't just trolling (fishing, hook, line and sinker, get it?):rolleyes:

[Joe Angrisani]

Sometimes you do what you gotta do to get the pic, never say never. Joe, I appreciate your comments, but if I have a hook in the corner of my mouth, so do all the pros. If you are going to dumb down technology, why not go all the way, I hear you can get a great pic from a pinhole camera. So which 3 megapixel pro camera do you recommend? Hard to believe you aren't just trolling (fishing, hook, line and sinker, get it?):rolleyes:

Sorry for the long post. I'm not ranting. Just lots of info.

Never say never is right, I'll agree. But cropping into a shot almost always leads to boring composition. That was my point. Same thing happens when you compose your shot with the zoom. Boring, vanilla, document-the-spot pictures. A "great" photograph requires interesting and engaging composition. Just like a piece of furniture needs the right design to look good.

I am not dumbing down technology. I was talking about the endless marketing of megapixels when it is not needed. When the dSLRs reached the 10-12MP range, they didn't need to get more resolution. They needed more dynamic range and decreased noise levels and better internal processing. Instead, pixel counts shot to 20MP and more. THAT is marketing to the masses, not technology advancing to improve the results. But try explaining to John Q Public, who must woo his friends and justify his upgrade, that "increased dynamic range" is more impressive than "24 million pixels". They've convinced you. That was the root of my hook/line/sinker/smiley joke.

A big problem with these high megapixel-count cameras is the teeny pixel sites. No worshipping of technology will change the fact that serious diffraction occurs at the sensor. Prove it to yourself: Point your 18MP Rebel at something with fine detail (a building with balcony railings or window framing works great). Put it on a tripod to eliminate your errors. Take one shot at f/5.6 and another at f/11 or f/16. Then look at the images. The f/5.6 shot will be FAR sharper than the f/11 shot (which goes against logic somewhat). The reason is diffraction at the sensor. Put that same lens on a 6MP Rebel, and f/11 will be vastly improved. The camera with fewer megapixels produces a more-detailed image. It's not about pixel counts, Ole.

You bring up a good point with the pros. Look at Nikon's D3S pro body. THEY'VE FINALLY started improving things where it counts. Instead of the 24-25MP of the Nikon D3X and Canon 1D MkIV, they've gone with 12MP on a full-frame sensor. Sensitivity levels were improved instead. Noise levels are almost non-existent. Shadow details are unmatched. The pros have called for an end to the megapixel wars, and the manufacturers just might be listening.

But pros shooting professional level dSLRs (like the D3X or 1D MkIV, not consumer cameras like your Rebel or Gary's potential D5100 or D40) are doing it for the durability of the bodies and the burst rates. Most pros shooting dSLRs need reliable speed. That shot for the newspaper requires perhaps 0.5MP, so it's certainly not about resolution. It's about getting the shot, in the rain, after the camera has been rolling around in a camera bag for a year or three. Pros shooting landscapes are shooting large format film or medium format digital (again, large pixels sites, not resolution).

And you CAN get a great picture from a pinhole camera IF the diffracted results from shooting at f/250 match your previsualization of the shot. Results are almost Renoir-y. You can even do it with your dSLR by drilling a wee hole in a body cap (actually, you're better off drilling a 1/4" hole, covering it with HVAC foil tape, and putting the wee hole in the foil tape). Talk about a low cost lens!

My 3MP reference was to a fine point & shoot Canon I had (A510 if I remember correctly). I'd be glad to e-mail you some shots from that little bugger that will print out to 8x10 and still show individual strands of hair without stairstep pixelization. Color gradations without banding. Smooth, remnant-free, out of focus areas. The problem with the old, first-generation dSLRs, by the way, was not their low pixel counts. It was their SLOW internal processing.

[Dan Hintz]

Sometimes you do what you gotta do to get the pic, never say never. Joe, I appreciate your comments, but if I have a hook in the corner of my mouth, so do all the pros. If you are going to dumb down technology, why not go all the way, I hear you can get a great pic from a pinhole camera. So which 3 megapixel pro camera do you recommend? Hard to believe you aren't just trolling (fishing, hook, line and sinker, get it?):rolleyes:
Ole,

I think Joe's comments were geared more towards properly framing your subject matter. It's better to use a lower-pixel count imager and fill in the viewfinder with your subject than using a higher-pixel count imager, not zooming in as much, and then cropping after the fact. Square inch for square inch, a lower-res imager will usually have better noise performance, so don't waste the performance try to get an ultra-high res imager if you're only going to crop heavily after the fact.

Of course, it's a fuzzy line in the tradeoff, but both points are valid to some degree...

EDIT: I see Joe has answered...

[Mike Cutler]

Gary

I have quite a bit of experience with the D-90. I've been using it for a few years now and it is a very good camera.
The learning curve can be a little steep though. It is a powerful camera, with a wide assortment of functions and capabilities, and it takes a bit to get used to.
I operate mine primarily in the manual mode, and manipulate the focus mode and auto focus to suit my needs.
if you do get one, keep the histogram up in the LCD diplay. It's a very good, quick reference, that your shot was exposed somewhere near correct.

I agree 100% with Joe. The better the image coming in, the better the end result will be. Shoot the pic you want from the get go.

[Ole Anderson]

Gary, sorry for the hijack.

Agreed, that great pics are much more the result of who is behind the camera than the equipment. Sometimes circumstances dictate that you don't have time to properly compose your scene. Do you not take the pic of the bear at Denali at 300 yards because you don't own that 800 mm lens? Or the breaching whale a quarter mile off you know you will not likely see again? The great thing with zoom lenses is that you can zoom into the proper frame much quicker than you can move your feet to do the same thing.

[Gary Hodgin]

Ole,
No hijack, I'm was looking for information and that's what I'm getting. Thanks for posting!
Gary

[Ted Calver]

if you do get one, keep the histogram up in the LCD diplay. It's a very good, quick reference, that your shot was exposed somewhere near correct.


Where does one learn how to interpret the histogram? I sounds logical, but some of the nuances of owning these DSLR's don't show up in the owners manual.

[Joe Angrisani]

Where does one learn how to interpret the histogram? I sounds logical, but some of the nuances of owning these DSLR's don't show up in the owners manual.

In a nutshell, the right side of the histogram is your bright stuff, and the left side is your dark stuff. The curve represents the brightness and darkness that each pixel is seeing; nothing else. Under perfect morning "magic hour" light, the sensor can capture the full range from bright to dark that's out there. With midday light, forget about it. The range is now too wide (wider than what the sensor sees, dark-to-light), with dark shadows and really bright whites. So, in the perfect light of dawn or dusk, just adjust your exposure so the full curve of the histogram is between the sides. In conditions where the range is wider than what the sensor can capture, you have to decide what you want to give up. (Hint: Give up the shadows) To keep from overexposing and blowing the highlights, just keep the right side of the histogram from touching the side. In midday conditions, some of the dark stuff in your scene will be lost off the left side of the curve that you can see.

That's not to say there aren't times you want to overexpose or under-expose. But above explains the histogram for an average exposure.

Put your camera on Manual Mode and set the lens to f/5.6. Take a shot and look at the histogram. Adjust the shutter speed up or down and you'll see the histogram curve move left and right. The curve stays the same because it represents the scene. Changing the exposure moves the curve left and right across the range of light values the sensor can see.

[Glenn Clabo]

Here's a pretty good video...with one word use exception.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3yiz1sBKLc

[Ted Calver]

Joe and Glenn, Thanks for steering me in the right direction. Both Joe's explanation and Glenn's video were very helpful. Now to figure out how to turn on the histogram. :) :)

[Karl Card]

Just remember what your english teacher in high school should have told you, quality over quantity. There are basically two ways a camera can capture images and in the past they were very far apart in that one would eat batteries like crazy but give very good pics, the other would be easy on batteries but pics werent so good. I personally have a Nikon D40X and I really like it. What i do not like is my lenses. I have a nikon 18-55mm and a 70-300 tamaran and I find there is quite few times I need the space in between the 55 and 70 that I do not have. I am also waiting till tax time and am going to upgrade my 70-300 to a much better lense. The two lenses I have do great outside and they do great in dark but not moving pictures but I need a lense that lets more light in.

[Dan Hintz]

If you go for the T2i, let me know and I'll hook you up with a program that enables a lot of extra functionality in the camera (it also supports a bunch of other Canons)... real-time histogramming is one toy.

[Jim Becker]

I'm a Nikon fan; others are Cannon fans. You really can't go wrong with either. I literally just ordered a new D3100 a few minutes ago from RitzCamera.com to replace the old D70 and some unused older lenses I traded in to take the bite off the cost. The D5100 you are considering is even nicer...