Good affordable camera for beginner enthusiasts
Hi everyone, I'm interested in buying a new camera because Danny's photos of Japan has me very intrigued with photography. As of now, I take photos with an old Canon digital camera (don't remember the model). I mainly take photos of figurines, but now I also want to take more scenic photos. Thats why I'm looking for a more professional camera, but for a beginner like me.
Right now I'm interested in some of the more compact cameras like the Lumix gf3 which has changeable lens. But I'm not sure if that will suffice in terms of quality when compared to an actual DSLR.
So the question I want to ask is, would it be recommended to buy a compact digital camera with interchangeable lens or are they completely trumped by dslrs in terms of quality? Or should a beginner like me start with a good point and shoot like LX5? And I also would like to add in price as a factor. I'm aiming to spend around $600...
I would recommend you look at a used DSLR. It will give you more experience with using a DSLR if you ever decided to upgrade, and you may decide that upgrading is unnecessary. You'll have a much wider variety of lens options this way, and you can definitely find one within your budget!
The LX5 is a very, very good camera for general purposes, I seen it for for about $360 USD nowadays. The GF series from what I see is pretty much a an LX5 with interchangeable lense, pretty much the same sensor.
The LX5 and GF series both offer easy to use manual controls that are there for when you want to try out to have more control over your pictures.
It comes down to whether you want more lenses or not and how much you want to spend.
The Lumix GF series actually use the Four-Thirds sensor, which is substantially larger than the 1/1.63" sensor found in the Lumix LX5, meaning a potentially shallower depth of field given you are using lenses with a wide aperture and allowing foe better quality photis especially in low light situations.
With that said, it really comes down to what you are willing to invest in. If you must have the best image quality possible, you're probably better off with a DSLR as their sensors are slightly larger than those of Four-Thirds or if you're satisfied with the limited lens selection, you can go for the smaller Sony NEX series which use the same-size sensor give or take. If you want something easier to carry, then go with a compact system camera with a pancake lens or an enthusiast compact like the Lumix LX5. The main appeal of compact system cameras is image quality to a DSLR
(Continued from above due to accidental submit via phone and correcting the last line of my previous comment)
The main appeal of a compact system camera is image quality comparable to that of a DSLR in a small package. Do keep in mind that most of these compact system cameras are targeted toward people wanting to upgrade from point-and-shoot cameras.
I would ask your priorities a different way: how much do you want to carry around? Don't underestimate that - a camera that is "too annoying" to lug around is not a camera you'll be using for long.
- If space/size/weight is no issue, then nothing beats an SLR or mirrorless camera for operation speed, image quality and performance in low light. This is the best value in the long run.
- If you do care about fitting the camera into a pocket or small pouch, take a premium compact, like an LX5 or an S100. Mirrorless cameras can theoretically get this small... but usually are stuck with a non-zooming lens as a tradeoff; whether this bothers you is personal.
Sony NEX is the best choice of camera you can ever find for compact if you don't have money for Leica M series
I believe Danny said that he went from Lumix GF2 to Sony NEX-5, but then back to Lumix after realizing it's a tad better. O:
Nope - still using NEX ^^
Then it must have been my imagination. ^^;
So the NEX really worth the rather large amount of money????
The best thing I've ever bought ^^
Why Sony NEX is the best compact you can ever find in this world:
1) It is using a DSLR grade sensor, which can be found ins the a55 and so on.
2) Sony Bought off Minolta Imaging department, which highly accelerate their R&D in their imaging products like camera.
3) Sony produces Sensor for Nikon as well.
4) Sony NEX lens can be exchanged, you can mount A-mount or F-mount lenses (Nikon) if you have the proper adapter.
Although I am not an expert in camera and photography, but after handling all types of camera, I can see the NEX is a proper camera that save up a lot of your space with it's compactness and it's price is reasonable as well. That's why, Sony NEX is the best compact ever.
The most important thing is the contrast based manual focus, this means you can actually focus on manual lenses.
If you can mount A-mount/F-mount lenses, I will be damned if Sony doesn't implement that by default.
If you aren't into PROFESSIONAL photography, or want something easy and light to carry: go with micro four-thirds. There's not too many choices for lenses right now, but after it dominates the market in a few months, you'll see a lot more lenses coming out.
I'm regretting the fact that I bought an DLSR when what I need most is portability.
Quality and Spec-wise are basically the same if you compare higher-end micro four-thirds with entry/mid-level dslr.
Rule of thumb: don't by Nikon, they are a bit more expensive compared to the same thing on Canon.
MY DREAM micro four-third: Sony NEX-7.
One more thing: DO NOT BUY ENTRY LEVEL DSLR. It's like buying clothes during puberty, you'll outgrow it quickly.
You are being Bias lol. What do you mean by "don't by Nikon". have you ever tried their Nikon D7000? it's expensive for a reason.
Nope, I'm not being biased. I own a D7000. And it IS GOOD. (I also said don't buy ENTRY level dslr's, i'm pretty sure d7000 isn't an entry level...).
When I say don't buy Nikon, I'm thinking about the extra cost for the lenses. For example: Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 is $700 more expensive than the same lens for Canon.
ALSO, I will support Nikon (dslr) for as long as I live.
But anyways, don't you agree with the fact that the current micro four-thirds are almost on par with some of the dslr's?
I am not commenting about not buying entry DSLR ^^;; I'm just saying out why don't buy Nikon.
And for me, Nikon gears are always more expensive, no doubt. Also the maintenance, is also expensive. No doubt on that as well.
Check this guy out: http://jerryghionisblog.com/2012/01/hello-my-name-is-jerry-ghionis-and-i-am-a-nikon-shooter.html
The only camera worth buying so far in Nikon is D7000 lol. That's my Opinion.
But if you want alternative, Sony Alpha, with CZ lenses is definitely much cheaper.
For Micro 4/3 camera. None of them is on par with any DSLRs.... except the Sony NEX. Sony NEX is a beastly compact hah. Sony make a right move by putting a DSLR sensor in that small body. Gotta love Sony <3
I use a Nikon cool pix L120 it is a great all purpose camera with 21X optical zoom but it is about 300usd i have been constraining getting a NEX-5 because Danny talks so highly of it but i say for a affordable good camera go with a Nikon
Thanks for the help guys. I've decided to get a Sony NEX 5N. I'm going to order one when I return back to Australia after my trip to HK. I checked the price for NEX 5N here in HK and it is slightly higher than what I can get on the internet.
I also want to add that I went to stores today and held the camera! It felt amazing. It was the first time I've held a camera of that size and weight. After playing around with it for a few minutes, it made my old point and shoot feel like a toy!
Sony NEX series rock.
Get the Sony NEX-5N, better than any Lumix counterparts specially on low light :)