Trying to sort out fact from fiction re: camera purchase

[Dazz1]

A lot of people have already helped my understanding of what might suit me for my next camera purchase. I have been doing a LOT of research, especially about DSLRs as many recommended. There are a few things which I am not sure about with DSLRs, maybe some wouldn't mind putting me straight about them...

1. A few things have worried me about the entry level DSLRs. I handled a D3100 and a Sony A350 in a second hand store, and some of the lenses seemed very light and plasticky - in fact one was broken. I also see a LOT of these cameras being sold on eBay secondhand, even though they are still being sold new in stores. One camera shop assistant was of the opinion that the 1100D and D3100 were not good quality, and a proper starting level would be more like a 600D or D5100.

2. It appears that most kit lenses on entry level DSLRs (D3100 1100D 600D etc and maybe kit lenses on any model) do not do macro (or maybe just not very good macro) One thing I read, inferred a closest focus of 9 inches or so for a 18-55mm kit lens, and I am used to 1 or 2 cm on my cheapies.

3. I have read that a lens that does the full zoom range, i.e. 18-300mm as an example, will not be very good quality (maybe no better than on bridge cameras) and that I need to get 2 lenses at least, say 18-55 and 55-300. If I also need a macro lens (see #1 above) this is getting expensive!

4. I read that some cameras do only compressed RAW. As one of my reasons for getting a new camera is to get one that does RAW, is this a problem?

[ricktas]

Entry level camera are good. They take great photos. Yes you can buy kit lenses and they are cheap, but an entry level camera will take the pro level lenses for the camera mount. If you want lenses for macro work you need to invest in a macro lens. Kit lenses are called KIT for a reason.

Superzooms. 18-300 are a compromise, especially at the $$ offered and yes one of the compromises can be image quality. Any zoom lens, even a pro level one is a compromise compared to a prime lens (non zooming). Compare an 18-300 lens to the price of a 300mm prime lens Here is the Nikon 28-300 (http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/nikon-af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-lens-affordable.html) and here is the 300mm prime (http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f2.8g-ed-vrii-lenses.html), guess which one will offer better image quality at 300mm? But as a beginner you may not move your photography past the hobby phase and as you have found spending $thousands may not be for you. So kit lenses give you access to gear at cheaper prices..with a few compromises, but they are still quite capable of being used to take great photos by a photographer who knows what they are doing, understands the gear, its limitations and works within those limitations.

Photography gear is expensive! Photography is not all about gear. You could spend $40K and you will still be a novice, or a professional photographer could spend $500 on a kit and take great photos.

I have not heard of a camera that only does compressed raw, but most have an option for the user to select raw or compressed raw

[Dazz1]

Entry level camera are good. They take great photos. Yes you can buy kit lenses and they are cheap, but an entry level camera will take the pro level lenses for the camera mount. If you want lenses for macro work you need to invest in a macro lens. Kit lenses are called KIT for a reason.

I was mostly looking at buying a camera kit with the required lenses, maybe one of the twin-lens kits. I may be reading too much into what you said, but it sounds like you would purchase a body and lenses separately.



Superzooms. 18-300 are a compromise, especially at the $$ offered and yes one of the compromises can be image quality. Any zoom lens, even a pro level one is a compromise compared to a prime lens (non zooming). Compare an 18-300 lens to the price of a 300mm prime lens Here is the Nikon 28-300 (http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/nikon-af-s-nikkor-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6g-ed-vr-lens-affordable.html) and here is the 300mm prime (http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/nikon-af-s-nikkor-300mm-f2.8g-ed-vrii-lenses.html), guess which one will offer better image quality at 300mm? But as a beginner you may not move your photography past the hobby phase and as you have found spending $thousands may not be for you. So kit lenses give you access to gear at cheaper prices..with a few compromises, but they are still quite capable of being used to take great photos by a photographer who knows what they are doing, understands the gear, its limitations and works within those limitations.

Photography gear is expensive! Photography is not all about gear. You could spend $40K and you will still be a novice, or a professional photographer could spend $500 on a kit and take great photos.

I have not heard of a camera that only does compressed raw, but most have an option for the user to select raw or compressed raw

I had to search a bit, but I found it again. http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D5100/D5100A.HTM

"The Nikon D5100 can capture still images as .NEF-format compressed RAW files, JPEG compressed files, or as both types simultaneously. Unlike the prosumer D7000 model, the Nikon D5100 doesn't provide an option for uncompressed RAW files."

If this is the case for the 5100, I wonder about the 3100/3200 models too.

[ricktas]

Yes, I would buy the body and then buy the lenses separately. But I have the advantage of having been a photographer for years and knowing what genre I want to shoot and what lenses I would need. Many beginners do not, and thus the kit lenses give them some good all-round lenses.

Ah. did not know that about the D5100. I would be asking Nikon directly re your question on the D3100/D3200 or looking at their site, rather than asking a salesperson (who probably really would have no idea). However, I know quite a few Pro's who shoot compressed raw, it is a lossless format so you do not lose data (sort of like a ZIP file) rather than like a JPG file.

[ameerat42]

That's interesting: compressed raw? I will admit I know NOTHING about it. Gosh, Wet, you sound like me when I'm doing homework.
One thing seems certain: you'll not rush in foolishly where certain celestial beings have been known (Sorry, said) to hesitate.
Am.

[swifty]

As Rick said, the compressed NEFs are lossless and arent' an issue. Its a true RAW file, just compressed to take up less space.
It differs from eg. sRAW option on Canons which aren't true RAW files. But as far as I know, all Canon DSLR will let you shoot true RAW files in addition to giving you sRAW, mRAW etc. options.

[WhoDo]

One piece of advice I'd like to give that I wish I'd had when I started; don't start with old technology!

You are clearly keen on photography as a hobby, rather than just taking happy snaps for the family album. At least start with something that is reasonably up-to-date, technologically speaking. Here is a review of the D5200 (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d5200-review-21020) for your information.Whatever you decide on price, if you have the option to choose the D3200 over the D3100, or the D5200 over the D5100, I would do so to stave off the inevitable time when you feel a need to upgrade.

I currently have a kit lens combination that has served me well ... the 18-55mm and 55-300mm. Both lenses may be "kit" in nature but I'm happy with the way they perform, within the limitations of any zoom lens, as Rick points out. To these I subsequently added a dirt cheap 50mm f/1.8D prime for portraiture (my particular passion). These are all you could need for some time, unless macro is your passion. In that case purchase a Tokina AT-X Pro 100 macro lens (sub-$500) instead.

As you can see, I'm almost 3 years into my photography adventure and I haven't added much to my kit. When I did, I added a 300mm f/4 prime for chasing birds because I can use a cheap 1.4X TC to give me over 500mm FOV on my crop sensor without spending thousands on a long prime lens. If I continue to grow, photographically, then I'll likely go for a second body rather than extra lenses now; a D600 or maybe a D800 when the time is right. I can still use those "cheap" kit lenses and primes on the FX body, so I'm pretty future proofed.

I hope that helps your decision-making, WP.

[ROA44]

I bought the D5000 over the D3000 only because I couldn't afford the D90 at the time. How ever I did get the twin Kit lenses at the time & wish I had just bought the body only and purchased a better quality prime lens. I have no problem with the D5000 but did not want to get the very bottom of the pack. Not sure what you already have but if you at least get better quality lenses then you can always upgrade the body with out having to get new lenses.

[Dazz1]

That's interesting: compressed raw? I will admit I know NOTHING about it. Gosh, Wet, you sound like me when I'm doing homework.
One thing seems certain: you'll not rush in foolishly where certain celestial beings have been known (Sorry, said) to hesitate.
Am.

Yeah, I do go overboard sometimes, but I really like to understand things, especially when it effects the outlay of my hard earned. :)

- - - Updated - - -


I bought the D5000 over the D3000 only because I couldn't afford the D90 at the time. How ever I did get the twin Kit lenses at the time & wish I had just bought the body only and purchased a better quality prime lens. I have no problem with the D5000 but did not want to get the very bottom of the pack. Not sure what you already have but if you at least get better quality lenses then you can always upgrade the body with out having to get new lenses.

That would be nice. But it might depend a lot on what I can get a good deal on, particularly if I go secondhand. At least, I want to be informed enough to know what I am getting into, and whether it is indeed a good deal or not.

- - - Updated - - -


One piece of advice I'd like to give that I wish I'd had when I started; don't start with old technology!

You are clearly keen on photography as a hobby, rather than just taking happy snaps for the family album. At least start with something that is reasonably up-to-date, technologically speaking. Here is a review of the D5200 (http://www.ephotozine.com/article/nikon-d5200-review-21020) for your information.Whatever you decide on price, if you have the option to choose the D3200 over the D3100, or the D5200 over the D5100, I would do so to stave off the inevitable time when you feel a need to upgrade.

I hope that helps your decision-making, WP.

It IS all helping. I am much less confused than a week or two ago. I have to temper the desire to not go with old technology, with the possibility of a really good deal on last year's model.

For example, as a lot of D3100 cameras seem be on the market, close to half price sometimes, and they are only one model old, that makes it a tempting option.

[arthurking83]

I tend to tell (Nikon) people that to begin with and for good value for money, a DSLR at a financial level that you can accomodate PLUS the Nikon 18-105VR kit lens is about as good as it gets.
This lens, whilst is only a kit lens is immensely capable, and in some instances can compete with lenses that are much higher in apparent ability and price.
So just to begin with, this kit lens is about the only one I'd really consider a keeper.
So knowing that finances are a concern to you(just as they are to me and billions of others out there, I'd say a DSLR at a price you can afford PLUS the 18-105VR. This will get ya going.
From there, many other lens types can be had for a pretty low price, if you look hard enough.
But be warned tho, with your DSLR, a handy feature to have up your sleeve is the ability to drive screw driven lenses(AF-D type) and also handy is the ability to input manual lens data into the camera for meterign with non electrically connected lenses(really old lenses!) That means at the cheapest end, a D7000 or D7100 if you want both features, or a D90 if you only want screw drive focus.
It may not be important today, but tomorrow it may!



A lot of people have already helped my understanding of what might suit me for my next camera purchase. I have been doing a LOT of research, especially about DSLRs as many recommended. There are a few things which I am not sure about with DSLRs, maybe some wouldn't mind putting me straight about them...




1. A few things have worried me about the entry level DSLRs. I handled a D3100 and a Sony A350 in a second hand store, and some of the lenses seemed very light and plasticky - in fact one was broken. I also see a LOT of these cameras being sold on eBay secondhand, even though they are still being sold new in stores. One camera shop assistant was of the opinion that the 1100D and D3100 were not good quality, and a proper starting level would be more like a 600D or D5100.

I wouldn't worry too much about this idea of plasticky! I had a few of these plasticky lenses and they work well .. because they were designed well.
Had a friend that broke her 18-105VR dropped off a shelf with the camera, and I had it fixed in a matter of minutes .. ie. easy fix. (cost about $5.50) from memory.
Plasticky lenses can be bad, but usually because they were a bad design to begin with.


2. It appears that most kit lenses on entry level DSLRs (D3100 1100D 600D etc and maybe kit lenses on any model) do not do macro (or maybe just not very good macro) One thing I read, inferred a closest focus of 9 inches or so for a 18-55mm kit lens, and I am used to 1 or 2 cm on my cheapies.

They don't do proper macro .. and in reality shouldn't be used as such if you really want high quality images. BUT! they can be pushed into such use with half decent results. If you need this to begin with then you may be quite happy .... until you want more(quality that is).



3. I have read that a lens that does the full zoom range, i.e. 18-300mm as an example, will not be very good quality (maybe no better than on bridge cameras) and that I need to get 2 lenses at least, say 18-55 and 55-300. If I also need a macro lens (see #1 above) this is getting expensive!

It's not that they will be 'not very good' by way of comparison to themselves ... it's only when you compare them to really good lenses that you will notice that they're not quite up to what's actually possible.
FWIW: try to stick to about a 4x zoom ratio for good quality long focal length lenses.



4. I read that some cameras do only compressed RAW. As one of my reasons for getting a new camera is to get one that does RAW, is this a problem?

As already replied, uncompressed raw is nice to have, but not essential. Compressed raw is OK. For info, the section of the raw file that is actually compressed is apparently not visible to the naked eye.
That is, the compression algorithm works it compression at the very high highlight end of the tonal range. While it is technically possible to show the difference between the compressed and uncompressed versions of the same scene ... I think those differences are not visible to the naked eye under normal viewing conditions.
It's only if you push process really hard(in the highlights) that you may find a 0.1Ev advantage in the uncompressed raw file.
Actually that number is a randomly guessed at value .. just to indicate a point that this feature is not really going to help. Better shooting practices will help tho!

I think that a long term game plan may be required if you want to choose the right camera(ie. DSLR).
That is, think of medium to long terms goals you want to achieve.
I see you have done some macro work recently, so maybe macro is something you want to delve into.
Something that may cost you a bit more now, but may save you some money in the medium term is a camera with massive cropability!
(ie. 24Mp! :th3:)
While this may only be a pseudo macro form of photography, at least it gets you started!

How this pans out in a market place comparion:

how much would a D7100+50mm f/1.8 cost 'ya compared to the alternative of say a D7100+kit lens, plus a dedicated macro lens for eg. a Tamron 90mm f/2.8.

That is, is the cost of the extra gear now going to be worth it in the long run.
99% of us with an eye on the financial side of it, will invariably end up with at least another lens(usually 12! :P) .. so remember looking at it from the longer term approach is a good way to get some images for now, and at some point getting the right equipment later on(usually at a much reduced price.
So instead of paying $400 for the macro lens now .. you can sometimes find them on ebay (S/H) for about $150-200 .. and then you have what you want for a much better price.

The point is, just as there are many ways to remove the outer furry coating of a feline, there are many ways to achieve a 'magnified' macro shot too(and a landscape and a portrait .. and so on).

My recommendation(based on a reasonable financial strain) is a D7100 + a 50mm f/1.8(AF-D version may actually be a better option overall ;))

I don't know enough about Canon and Sony (how they work and operate) to recommend any of them gear stuffs. But with those two items, plus one or two cheapie accessories, you may be able to get much of what you like to shoot.

[Boo53]

I don't know much about the Nikon range, and that seems to be well represented in the responses.

You mention the Sony A350 as well. I would think that its a reasonable entry level DSLR, certainly shoots in Raw & Jpeg, but it was new in 2008 (when I bought mine - since given to eldest son) and has been superseded by at least 2 new models since then. I know 1 white goods store in Shepparton still had one on the shelves last year at its original rrp, but the store has disappeared now.

As for kit lens I would imagine most of us started with them and upgraded when we had a better idea of what we were interested in and could afford.

I had a minolta 18-200 zoom I bought new, still in its box, from an ebay seller about 3 years ago & was happy enough with it when it suited my purposes. It was as sharp as the kit lenses but not as sharp as 16-50 2.8 that tends to end up on the front of one of my cameras a fair swag of the time. I gave that to eldest son as well, as he was going to Cuba on holiday, and replaced it with a sony 18-250 that is much the same quality.

[swifty]

AK: I believe Nikon has moved to a truly lossless compression as of the D3 generation ie. zero loss of data. At least that's true of camera categories such as the D700 that I own. I must admit I haven't checked the lower end models to see if lossless compression is available.
Maybe you're thinking of the very minute difference between 14 and 12 bit ADC?
But either way as has been mentioned, its all technicalities and pragmatically speaking there's really nothing worth worrying about.

[Dazz1]

I tend to tell (Nikon) people that to begin with and for good value for money, a DSLR at a financial level that you can accomodate PLUS the Nikon 18-105VR kit lens is about as good as it gets.

The point is, just as there are many ways to remove the outer furry coating of a feline, there are many ways to achieve a 'magnified' macro shot too(and a landscape and a portrait .. and so on).

My recommendation(based on a reasonable financial strain) is a D7100 + a 50mm f/1.8(AF-D version may actually be a better option overall ;))



Thanks. I will look into the lens you mention.

Also, are extension tubes, or magnifying filters, considered inferior ways to get macro capability, or do they produce good results?

Haven't seen many D7100s on sale yet, but I will keep looking.

- - - Updated - - -


AK: I believe Nikon has moved to a truly lossless compression as of the D3 generation ie. zero loss of data. At least that's true of camera categories such as the D700 that I own. I must admit I haven't checked the lower end models to see if lossless compression is available.
Maybe you're thinking of the very minute difference between 14 and 12 bit ADC?
But either way as has been mentioned, its all technicalities and pragmatically speaking there's really nothing worth worrying about.

Very good to know, thanks.

- - - Updated - - -


I don't know much about the Nikon range, and that seems to be well represented in the responses.

You mention the Sony A350 as well. I would think that its a reasonable entry level DSLR, certainly shoots in Raw & Jpeg, but it was new in 2008 (when I bought mine - since given to eldest son) and has been superseded by at least 2 new models since then. I know 1 white goods store in Shepparton still had one on the shelves last year at its original rrp, but the store has disappeared now.

As for kit lens I would imagine most of us started with them and upgraded when we had a better idea of what we were interested in and could afford.

I had a minolta 18-200 zoom I bought new, still in its box, from an ebay seller about 3 years ago & was happy enough with it when it suited my purposes. It was as sharp as the kit lenses but not as sharp as 16-50 2.8 that tends to end up on the front of one of my cameras a fair swag of the time. I gave that to eldest son as well, as he was going to Cuba on holiday, and replaced it with a sony 18-250 that is much the same quality.

I will admit some bias against Sony (bad experiences with previously owned equipment) but I know someone with an A350 as well, and they really like it.

I have to do some serious thinking about lenses. Initially a lens that does everything appealed, probably because I am coming from a bridge camera that does exactly that. I used to have a pentax 80-200mm lens that had a macro function as well. Is that a good idea - and do they still make zoom lenses with macro? (lens research can be my next step)

[ricktas]

. I used to have a pentax 80-200mm lens that had a macro function as well. Is that a good idea - and do they still make zoom lenses with macro? (lens research can be my next step)

zoom lenses with macro ability are again a compromise. A good quality macro lens will be a fixed length, have f2.8 as its maximum aperture (or larger). Remember that you also do not just have to look at Nikon lenses, Sigma and Tamron make great macro lenses. I use a Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro. Macro lenses also make great portraiture lenses. You can also save money by looking at third party lenses.

I suppose it depends on what you want. Yes you can buy cheaper lenses now, but if you take up photography in ernest you will find that someday soon you will be wanting to upgrade lenses. A good lens can last a lifetime! A camera body is regarded as a disposable item.

[WhoDo]

Site sponsor eGlobal (http://www.clixgalore.com/PSale.aspx?BID=137137&AfID=181059&AdID=13785&LP=www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au%2f) has the following deals, if you elect to follow Arthur's advice:

D7100 (Body only) - AU$1079

D7000 (Body only) - AU$669
D7000 + 18-200mm VR - AU$919
D7000 + 18-55mm + 70-300mm - AU$889

I can vouch for the capability of the D7000 and don't see enough in the D7100 to make it worth an upgrade. The difference in cost would buy you that Tokina AT-X Pro 100 macro lens (Review here (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/269-tokina-af-100mm-f28-at-x-pro-d-macro-review--test-report)). You'd still need a 50mm f/1.8D which is under $100 and gives passable results in landscapes and excellent results for portraiture.

If your budget allows, the D7000 is today what the D90 once was for enthusiast Nikon photographers. I haven't regretted purchasing mine for a single second. :p

[Dazz1]

Site sponsor eGlobal (http://www.clixgalore.com/PSale.aspx?BID=137137&AfID=181059&AdID=13785&LP=www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au%2f) has the following deals, if you elect to follow Arthur's advice:

D7100 (Body only) - AU$1079

D7000 (Body only) - AU$669
D7000 + 18-200mm VR - AU$919
D7000 + 18-55mm + 70-300mm - AU$889

I can vouch for the capability of the D7000 and don't see enough in the D7100 to make it worth an upgrade. The difference in cost would buy you that Tokina AT-X Pro 100 macro lens (Review here (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/269-tokina-af-100mm-f28-at-x-pro-d-macro-review--test-report)). You'd still need a 50mm f/1.8D which is under $100 and gives passable results in landscapes and excellent results for portraiture.

If your budget allows, the D7000 is today what the D90 once was for enthusiast Nikon photographers. I haven't regretted purchasing mine for a single second. :p

It is indeed attractive, but my budget started at half that amount. I started out thinking of a high-end bridge camera, particularly the Fuji HS35/50, or Lumix FZ200. I still find the features atractive, as there is no confusion, and nothing more to buy.

But, due to advice here, I am considering options to get into an entry level DSLR instead for about the same price. There are a few D3100 (twin lens kit and other) deals below $400 around the place for example, and depending on the price, that could leave me room for an extra lens, macro or whatever doesn't come with the deal. Not set on Nikon either, as some 550d/600d/1100d Canon opportunities are about too.

[ameerat42]

Extension tubes and CU lenses (filters) can be good and bad, as can teleconverters. BUT that's when they start to interfere with the optimised optics of your main lenses.

For serious macro work, there's nothing consistently better than a macro prime lens capable of at least (and most stop here) 1:1 reproduction.

If you added a well-matched teleconverter to this you could get 2:1 without getting closer to your subject. (I do not have such a lens, but I do have a
Σ50-500 zoom and a Σ 2x converter. They work very well together.)

For that same macro lens, if you add (even an achromat) cu lens to it, or an extension tube, you will be able to get closer to your subject and achieve greater than 1:1 reproduction. IN FACT, you will HAVE to get closer just to focus. This setup will affect your DOF, and it taken to (often easily reached) extremes, you will muck up what the lens can do. A (good) 2x converter will preserve both your prime lens DOF and its distance to subject. Oh, yes, it WILL COST you light. 4X as much for a 2x, or two stops.

That macro prime will also be useful at its normal focal length, say typically 70mm or 105mm for the Σ brand.

Well, now go out and buy a truck for all the info "overload" this thread has produced.
Am.

[WhoDo]

Not set on Nikon either, as some 550d/600d/1100d Canon opportunities are about too.

Ok, well be sure to start the way you mean to finish. If you're serious about your photography then a DSLR is the best option. If you aren't sure, stick with what you've got, save your money and don't move to a bridge camera! Bridge cameras have little or no resale value if you give it away. DSLR's and good glass can be sold later.

Either way, be sure that your first DSLR has enough features to allow you to grow into your hobby. That pretty much ensures you stay with either Nikon or Canon. Pentax are good value, if you have a legacy set of lenses, but the choices for lenses (even quality third party lenses) are very limited.

I really like what Sigma are doing these days with their lenses at the price, so it might be worth investigating a good body with a Sigma multi-purpose zoom such as the AU$169 70-300mm macro (really a close focus 1:2 max reproduction). Still, only you can decide. I think your budget is a bit meagre for a DSLR, even allowing for buying superseded models. The important thing is not to waste that meagre budget by settling for something you'll regret later. Better to push your budget a little now and know that you have given yourself room to later expand your capability from that base. JMHO of course.

[Dazz1]

Well, now go out and buy a truck for all the info "overload" this thread has produced.
Am.

Tell me about it :)


I might be able to get hold of a D3100 with twin lens kit for about $350. I read that the IQ is quite good with this camera, so I am going to have a few wines tonight and think hard about it, because that leaves me with spare budget to look at macro lens etc..

[ricktas]

I would say keep saving and expand your budget.

[Dazz1]

I would say keep saving and expand your budget.

2 wines later - yes, I probably should. Impulse buying is never a good thing.

[ameerat42]

Thanks, Rick and I very much agree, but a mere thanks note would not have said that. This Wetpixels needs something good and bitey to start with.
Am.

[Dazz1]

Thanks, Rick and I very much agree, but a mere thanks note would not have said that. This Wetpixels needs something good and bitey to start with.
Am.

Yea, ok, message received :food04:

[arthurking83]

AK: I believe Nikon has moved to a truly lossless compression as of the D3 generation ie. zero loss of data. At least that's true of camera categories such as the D700 that I own. I must admit I haven't checked the lower end models to see if lossless compression is available.
Maybe you're thinking of the very minute difference between 14 and 12 bit ADC?
But either way as has been mentioned, its all technicalities and pragmatically speaking there's really nothing worth worrying about.

Yep the difference between 12 and 14 bit is also in the highlights too, but I've read(not experienced) that some pros tend to find a bit of difference between 12 and 14 bit, even tho it's claimed that the human eye can't perceive this difference either.
But according to Thom, compressed NEF is compression again at the highlight end .. I suppose in a similar vein to the difference between 12 and 14 bit.

I know nothing of lossless compression, as I've never used it. I think this is where the analogy made earlier in the thread about zip file compression makes sense.
Lossless compression(I suspect) is like zip file compression where the data is literally 'zipped up' a bit then un zipped at some point.
Compressed NEF tho is probably akin to an analogy with MP3 .. where you can compress more and more(eg. 192kbps or 312kbps) .. so the question is like can you differentiate between a 192kbps mp3 and a 312kbps mp3 file.

I know that some later gen Nikon cameras don't offer lossless compressed raw, and others offer lossless compressed as as well as compressed(which implies lossy compressed).

But the main point on this topic has been said many times .. it's unlikely that almost all photographers will ever see the real differences between all these raw formats anyhow, and I wouldn't base my decision on a camera purchase on this specification.


Re: Whodo's reply. The main difference between a D7000 and a D7100 would be if you got heavily into macro photography(same deal with a D800 vs say a D700 or D600).
This is where those extra pixels count. For almost all other photography types, the extra pixels are superfluous if you don't print large(or crop heavily).
I'm not a believer in cropping and rarely do it .. but wildlife photographer usually have no other choice sometimes.

But I have got heavily into macro of late(but very little time to indulge, and from what I've seen(and many times, read too) is that extension tubes are not always the best way to get highly detailed macro images.
Lenses are usually optimised for a specific range of magnification(and what a macro tube allows you to do is to magnify the power of the lens where it otherwise can't.

As an example, I have Nikon's 105/1.8 and whilst it can produce very good, detailed and sharp images natively and with a very short extension ring, adding more extension doesn't give you better images.
it gives you higher magnification, and the image may appear more detailed, but at the pixel peeping, level the detail is not as good with the very short extension ring.
What this means is that with this 105/1.8 I can crop to 100% pixel level with good detail with the 14mm extension tube, but if I try (say) 100mm of extension, the images look good if the entire image is displayed, but at the pixel level the images are much softer .. cropping is then not an option.
The conclusion is that while the 105/1.8 is a great lens, it's a dreadful macro lens!
But!! .... there are some lenses that turn out to work really well as macro lenses even if this isn't what they were supposed to do. eg. the 50/1.8 AF-D (and it's relatives).

What annoys me about this lens is that it's so numerous that they should sell on ebay for about $50ish or less .. but for some inexplicable reason, they seem to sell for almost the cost a a new one! :confused: .. same with the old E model.
Pricing has been insane for such a cheapo lens.

I have a couple more cheapies coming that I'm hoping will end up working ok as macro non macro lenses .. and there is a fair amount of info available as to what's good, and what's not.


Going with your implied financial constraints, if you can pickup a D3200(for now) with it's 24Mp, this can be a good start to getting some images(which is really the important part in photography) with the ability to then delve into macro photography with usable gear .. and with minimal further investment(and I mean $20-50 lenses).
But you will need a general purpose all round niceguy lens that gets you good images at a cheap price(that's why I suggested the 18-105VR).

Just a final word on the D3200(as there may be some out there with less interest in such a low end camera).
A highly respected and professional photographer uses this camera very heavily for macro images. The camera tho is heavily modded for a specific purpose tho, and (I guess) his reasoning for using the D3200 as opposed to a D5200 or D7100 was purely on the cost factor. I'm assuming that he cared not for any of the extra features of the higher spec cameras and purely wanted the 24Mp sensor's ability to capture detail.
To say that he is proficient at capturing high quality images, with this lowly of cameras, is an understatement of massive proportions! And sometimes with pretty basic lenses too boot!



As for impulse buying!!! LOL!..... that's where the fun is for me.
I suppose I could be accused of a massive burst of impulse buying over the past couple of weeks. One stupid stuff up, tho that cost me $14 to rectify .. but again, it's all part of the fun too.

[Mathy]

Hey WP, have a look on this forum for images shot with the Nikon D7000, plus check out some other forums (e.g.., Nikonians). This is a great camera, that will give you plenty of room to learn, and secondhand will fit into your budget. A major step up from your current camera. Not the latest technology, but, I reiterate, go and look at the images this camera can produce. I feel it would be a good camera to move into, put some money into good glass along the way, learn how to use it, then trade the body up, keep your glass, and hey presto. I'm offering this opinion given that I bought a D3200 - lots of megapixels is not necessarily a great thing unless one is very experienced, I'm often wondering if I'd have been better off buying the D7000, but I thought I'd better buy the latest technology, cheers Deb

[Analog6]

I an NOT a 'tech head' and have always been on a very tight budget photographically. I believe if a used camera will do all you want then why lay put more for useless (to you) bells and whistles. I started out with (All Canon) a second hand 300D in 2004, and a set of kit lenses (new in box) from ebay - from memory 35-90 and 90-300. I bought better lenses after a year or so, and a used 20D body in 2008. It was a big step up and I was delighted with it. I then went through 30D to 1DsMkIi. People say to me why not upgrade that now, but i am perfectly happy with it and it does everything I ask of it. I also have a recently purchased 40D for using with my big lens (Sigma 150-500) for surf shots. I must admit I do love the sensor clean 'whistle' on that body.
I also have medium format digital equipment, again all purchased used.
It's good that you are thinking carefully about what you want and sizing up what you need. Brand spanking new is nice but it suffers an immediate drop in value the minute you walk out the store.
have you though about hiring a camera/lens combo for the weekend and seeing if you like it?

[Dazz1]

Going with your implied financial constraints, if you can pickup a D3200(for now) with it's 24Mp, this can be a good start to getting some images(which is really the important part in photography) with the ability to then delve into macro photography with usable gear .. and with minimal further investment(and I mean $20-50 lenses).
But you will need a general purpose all round niceguy lens that gets you good images at a cheap price(that's why I suggested the 18-105VR).

Just a final word on the D3200(as there may be some out there with less interest in such a low end camera).
A highly respected and professional photographer uses this camera very heavily for macro images. The camera tho is heavily modded for a specific purpose tho, and (I guess) his reasoning for using the D3200 as opposed to a D5200 or D7100 was purely on the cost factor. I'm assuming that he cared not for any of the extra features of the higher spec cameras and purely wanted the 24Mp sensor's ability to capture detail.
To say that he is proficient at capturing high quality images, with this lowly of cameras, is an understatement of massive proportions! And sometimes with pretty basic lenses too boot!


As for impulse buying!!! LOL!..... that's where the fun is for me.
I suppose I could be accused of a massive burst of impulse buying over the past couple of weeks. One stupid stuff up, tho that cost me $14 to rectify .. but again, it's all part of the fun too.

Thanks for the advice once again.
I have been fine tuning my search/wish list for some time now, and all the above are on it. I just know, in the end, I will go a little over budget - always seem to, but that's OK. Gotta be strict with myself though. :) I was a little surprised that no-one seemed to think the D3100 deal was worthwhile as I was getting the impression that any of the low-end DSLRs would work well for me. Anyway, if the D3100 is off the list, so is the 1100D - that takes out the very cheapest I was looking at.

- - - Updated - - -


I an NOT a 'tech head' and have always been on a very tight budget photographically. I believe if a used camera will do all you want then why lay put more for useless (to you) bells and whistles. I started out with (All Canon) a second hand 300D in 2004, and a set of kit lenses (new in box) from ebay - from memory 35-90 and 90-300. I bought better lenses after a year or so, and a used 20D body in 2008. It was a big step up and I was delighted with it. I then went through 30D to 1DsMkIi. People say to me why not upgrade that now, but i am perfectly happy with it and it does everything I ask of it. I also have a recently purchased 40D for using with my big lens (Sigma 150-500) for surf shots. I must admit I do love the sensor clean 'whistle' on that body.
I also have medium format digital equipment, again all purchased used.
It's good that you are thinking carefully about what you want and sizing up what you need. Brand spanking new is nice but it suffers an immediate drop in value the minute you walk out the store.
have you though about hiring a camera/lens combo for the weekend and seeing if you like it?

I had noted the lack of canon recommendations, so thanks for replying about them. I have 550D/600D/650D on my list at the moment. Possible also 50D/60D from the mid-range level.

[Dazz1]

Just to let you know, after balancing all the criteria and budget and suggestions, my short list is now...

Canon 600D
Nikon D5100

Reasons for Canon 600D include the feel of it in my hand, and the ability to run Magic Lantern firmware. Reasons for Nikon are that more people seem to favour Nikon, but really, there's so little to choose between them, for me, that it really depends on what deal (price/lenses) I find.

Also acceptable would be 550D or D3200, except they don't have swivel/tilt view screens, which I decided I like. At the right price though, I could live without it.

So now, saving pocket money, and waiting. :(

[Mark L]

Have found the "swivel/tilt view screens" more useful than I thought it would be.
Feel in your hand is so important IMHO.
"Reasons for Nikon are that more people seem to favour Nikon". More people who replied favoured them. Maybe the others were out taking photos.:lol:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?120760-The-2013-Ausphotography-Camera-Brand-Poll:): :)

[Dazz1]

Have found the "swivel/tilt view screens" more useful than I thought it would be.
Feel in your hand is so important IMHO.
"Reasons for Nikon are that more people seem to favour Nikon". More people who replied favoured them. Maybe the others were out taking photos.:lol:
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?120760-The-2013-Ausphotography-Camera-Brand-Poll:): :)

Interesting. Yes, thanks for that.

[Pixley]

Just wanted to add that the Sigma 17-70 is an alternative to a kit lens that you could consider - has macro capability (although not true 1:1) and 2.8 at its widest and can be picked up second hand quite cheaply. Comes in both a Canon and Nikon mount depending on who you go with.

[Hayaku]

Something to consider. Twin lens kits give you a lot of focal lengths to choose from, 18-250 for canon and 18-300 for nikon I think. I have met some people though who regret that kit because they feel that it is a pain to change lenses constantly. Also consider if you need the really long focal lengths. The 18-105mm of nikon or the 18-135 of canon may be all you really need for most of your pics. A single lens with decent capabilities also has an advantage in that you only need to bring one lens if you use it while traveling to another country. Regarding Nikon models, you may want to get a d7000 at least. I don't know for sure but there are some lenses that will only work for specific models and the d7000 should work with everything For example, a 50mm f1.8g is around $240 while f1.8d $150 is around . The G works for all models I think while the D will not work in some way for other cams. Any Nikon users who can help with this? I shoot canon...

[arthurking83]

......
"Reasons for Nikon are that more people seem to favour Nikon". More people who replied favoured them. Maybe the others were out taking photos.:lol:
......

LOL!

Feel definitely is probably the single most important aspect of any hand held device to take into consideration.

But don't let statistics fool you! ... more folks owning stuff doesn't necessarily mean it's better!
(Magic Lantern sounds good tho! .. and FWIW there is a small group of hackers working on similar sort of stuff for Nikon cameras)

And what Hayaku says can be important in some ways.

a disadvantage in owning an AF-S focusing only Nikon camera is that you do get slightly restricted with manual only focusing if you don't have AF-S type lenses .. but these are the norm now, not the exception. And in many respects the better lenses to have anyhow. In days gone by when the popular lenses like 50mm's and 35mm's ... etc, in Nikon land, were all non AF-S types.
Given the choice of an AF-D lens vs an AF-S type lens .. I'd take the AF-S lens any day!

Also on the topic of advantages, one advantage of having a non motorised Nikon body over the more elite versions with built in focus motors, is a more complete lens compatibility history.

Way back in about '77 or so, Nikon changed their lens designs a bit, and basically made the older lenses incompatible with newer bodies. But they had a conversion service for those that wanted their older incompatible lenses converted to work with newer cameras(which they had to be to work).
This lens type is known as the non Ai lens. All lenses after this are called Ai or AiS. (the Ai type all work with modern cameras).
The converted non Ai lenses may be called Ai'ed. You see them for sale on various places, all relatively cheap, and many of them ripper lenses .. but full manual stuff.

Because of the design of the non motorised Nikon cameras, they can accept non Ai lenses, where other higher level Nikon cameras (mostly) can't.
So you can mount a non Ai lens onto a D5200 level (or lower) camera without damage to the camera. These non Ai lenses can be found for as little as $10 or $20 on ebay.

[Dazz1]

Thanks Arthur. Yes access to cheap lenses is certainly a plus.

[Kym]

Thanks Arthur. Yes access to cheap lenses is certainly a plus.

:plogo: has this in spades :D

[mechawombat]

As someone who started with the Sony a350. I say get a Nikon 5100 or 3200.

The 18-105VR nikkor is my least used lens on my D7000. With the plasticky "kit" 55-300mm NikkorVR the most used. However I retained alot of my glass for my Sony. Not Sony lenses ( they were rubbish ) but lots of old A mount Minolta which will be used on my A65 (when eglobal deliver it next week) which are sharper than all my new nikon glass and cost me less than 1 of my nikon lenses combined.

but as Kym put it Pentax has so much cheap glass! and the bodies are pretty good too!

[arthurking83]

I suppose my next comments will be dependent on the type of person you are, but there are ... 'handling' problems with the likes of many Canon, Nikon(and maybe other??) bodies at the lower end of the scale.

But this may not apply to you, so it's more of a bit of an FYI, rather than something to worry about.
If you know your stuff well, and know exactly how to set the exposure parameters for the camera lens combo at the time of exposure, then this also will not worry you in any way.

But having an camera body with twin control dials could become an important point to consider. That is, one control dial for shutter, and the other for aperture settings.
(on Nikon's they're called Command and Sub Command wheels/dial/control).

Almost all DSLRs will have at least the one, bu the importance of having both shouldn't be underestimated.
I've tried to use a D40x, D5100 and D3200(and probably some other consumer grade models too .. just can't remember them all) .. but having had cameras with both command wheels and having gone to models with only the main command dial(thumb) .. has made me realise just how important that sub command dial can be!
On my personal cameras the rear(Command) is always the shutter) and the front(Sub Command) is always the Aperure controls.
The main point on the importance that these controls play is for metering control and or easy manual control.
These consumer models I've had a chance to play with have been friends or relatives or total strangers just needing a third hand, but the problem is always the same .. a lack of control!
I had my brother's D5100 for about a week or so, and it basically drove me nuts!
I kept forgetting that it didn't have the Sub Command dial, and I'd find myself fumbling to find the right control to vary something or other.

They are capable cameras, there's no doubting that, and comparing the D5100 to the D300 in terms of total image quality is a no brainer ... D5100 wins easily in image quality terms. But to own(for me) is a total reversal of experience. I'd prefer the 'inferior' IQ of the D300 for the sake of having the control layout of the higher end camera.

I realise that finances weigh in heavily here, but the D7000 may end up the better long term option. But this totally depends on your preference for controlling your devices yourself.

The more I think about it, the more something like the Pentax K5 sounds like a better option overall. You could possibly find a S/H one quite cheap.
Plenty of old M42 mount lenses available ..... although in saying this, you can get an M42 to Nikon F mount adapter and use these lenses on your Nikon/Canon/etc too.(that's what I do).

[Dazz1]

The 18-105VR nikkor is my least used lens on my D7000. With the plasticky "kit" 55-300mm NikkorVR the most used.

Yes, I read somewhere that the kit lens weren't all that bad. This is good news for someone on a budget :). It means I can start getting decent photos right away, while I consider the first separate lens purchase.

- - - Updated - - -


I suppose my next comments will be dependent on the type of person you are, but there are ... 'handling' problems with the likes of many Canon, Nikon(and maybe other??) bodies at the lower end of the scale.

But this may not apply to you, so it's more of a bit of an FYI, rather than something to worry about.
If you know your stuff well, and know exactly how to set the exposure parameters for the camera lens combo at the time of exposure, then this also will not worry you in any way.

But having an camera body with twin control dials could become an important point to consider. That is, one control dial for shutter, and the other for aperture settings.
(on Nikon's they're called Command and Sub Command wheels/dial/control).

Almost all DSLRs will have at least the one, bu the importance of having both shouldn't be underestimated.
I've tried to use a D40x, D5100 and D3200(and probably some other consumer grade models too .. just can't remember them all) .. but having had cameras with both command wheels and having gone to models with only the main command dial(thumb) .. has made me realise just how important that sub command dial can be!



I remember back when I had a old fully manual 35mm film Practica camera, then I remember when I upgraded to a Pentax film camera (a Program A I think it was called). I enjoyed using aperture or shutter priority mostly, and only occasionally needing full manual. With the added flexibility of setting the ISO, and automatic aperture bracketing, in digital cameras, I am think this will be less of an issue for me.

I am watching the market, and I think I mentioned before, a LOT depends on what deal pops up. I am sure I will happy with most of the cameras being discussed.

The market is strange though. I see people asking greater than new prices for secondhand cameras. I am not comparing to grey market either. Prices must have fallen drastically and a lot of people are over estimating what a camera is worth when selling it after a few years. Looking at completed eBay listings is educational. There are many of these overpriced auctions that don't succeed, but there are also some bargains.

That said, I place a lot of value in buying from a real store, with real support and warranty.

[arthurking83]

......

The market is strange though. I see people asking greater than new prices for secondhand cameras. I am not comparing to grey market either. Prices must have fallen drastically and a lot of people are over estimating what a camera is worth when selling it after a few years. Looking at completed eBay listings is educational. There are many of these overpriced auctions that don't succeed, but there are also some bargains.

That said, I place a lot of value in buying from a real store, with real support and warranty.

LOL! seen this and been there. Some folks asking for ludicrous prices re some gear thinking that their stuff doesn't stink or something! :p

Have had eyes on a particularly old Nikon lens for a long time now, both on ebay and via a couple of stores.
At the reputable stores these lenses sell (in excellent condition) for about $50-60, and many sellers on ebay are wanting in the $100 range!
It's just idiotic .. and this is a (generally) non compatible lens for most Nikon cameras(without modding that is).

Patience is my middle name, and I've held off from buying stuff(on ebay) for well over 12 months ..... watching for the right item to come up at the right price.

[Sdison]

I'll jump in late, but get the D5100. It's got the same sensor as the D7000 and I was oh-so-close to impulse buying that over the D7000 not too long ago. I doubt Canon can match the sensor's quality in the same price range, although I'm happy to have someone prove me wrong.

It sounds like the D7000 might just be beyond you in terms of cost, which is unfortunate because it's a great camera (certainly far beyond me at the moment!).

One option from left field is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-f/4 (http://www.eglobaldigitalcameras.com.au/sigma-art-17-70mm-f-2.8-4-dc-macro-os-hsm-lenses.html), which eGlobal has for about 400 clicks. It has a macro capability as well as a fairly fast, albeit variable, aperture and a good zoom range, which should keep you happy until you start to find exactly what you want to specialise in. You can check out some sample shots from the lens here (http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?lens=13317&perpage=12&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&res=3).

[Dazz1]

Just a tiny bit late, as I just arrived home with a new camera :) . Yes the 7000 range is too expensive for me. Most reviews give the 5100 the edge on IQ, but I struggle to see much difference.

After much deliberating, I bought a Canon 600D. It was a bit cheaper than the 5100, and had a few things that I saw as being useful. Mostly though, it just fits much better in my hand. I felt much less likely to drop it. I bought it new, with Australian warranty, for not much more than grey market - so I am very happy about that. Now the fun starts. After a few test shots - all successful - I am now charging the battery, and reading the manual. (yes, shock, I do things like that)

A big thank you to the many people who have helped me, especially those who insisted I stretch the budget and get something better than I was initially looking for. Hope those who recommended Nikon aren't offended. The choice between Canon and Nikon was so close, I might have bought either.

[Sdison]

Hope those who recommended Nikon aren't offended.

:eek: How could you? Well it's your loss. You've missed out on joining the club. We've got shirts and badges!

Congrats on your new purchase - now the fun starts!

[Dazz1]

:eek: How could you? Well it's your loss. You've missed out on joining the club. We've got shirts and badges!

Congrats on your new purchase - now the fun starts!

:) Thanks.

[WhoDo]

Despite not buying the "better" brand (:p ) I know you won't be disappointed that you stretched your budget. The 600D should last you quite well and you can now go about accumulating quality glass to suit, as the mood and dollars permit. A nifty 50 ought to be right up there, IMHO, but I'll let you get over the initial shock of blowing your budget! :D

Congratulations, WP, and no hard feelings ... after all, it's your loss not ours~ :lol:

[ameerat42]

The point is, congratulations on your decision and acquisition.
(Shout me a beer next time you see me:D:beer_mug:)
Am.

[Dazz1]

Despite not buying the "better" brand (:p ) I know you won't be disappointed that you stretched your budget. The 600D should last you quite well and you can now go about accumulating quality glass to suit, as the mood and dollars permit. A nifty 50 ought to be right up there, IMHO, but I'll let you get over the initial shock of blowing your budget! :D

Congratulations, WP, and no hard feelings ... after all, it's your loss not ours~ :lol:


Thanks WhoDo. Yes, I went over my $500 by a bit, but, I am really impressed with the way everything works, and already appreciating the IQ of the images it produces. I just got the single lens kit, so yes, I can now think about what new lenses I might acquire.

One early thing I learned, is that I didn't realise how much I missed manual focus. I put it straight into aperture priority with manual focus and felt comfortable immediately. I also shot some RAW and had a play with the software they supplied. Happily it works under linux using Wine. Quite good software for free.

Now where are all the Canon people to defend my choice :)

- - - Updated - - -


The point is, congratulations on your decision and acquisition.
(Shout me a beer next time you see me:D:beer_mug:)
Am.

Thanks Am. Will do!

[ameerat42]

...Now where are all the Canon people to defend my choice :) ...


I'm a Σ-tite, but go for it. Mark L should soon see this and concur to some congratulations.
AM.

[Mark L]

Congratulations on being a Σ-tite AM.:D

- - - Updated - - -

Good on you wp. It doesn't matter that you made a good choice. You made a choice and that's good.
DPP does some good stuff with RAW before you go off to Gimp for the stuff it can't do.
Is your DPP version 3.13.0.1 (the latest)? If not, it's worth updating it. Link is in post #70 here ...... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?20342-Canon-software-updates&p=1148959#post1148959
Costs nothing but a little time.

[Dazz1]

Congratulations on being a Σ-tite AM.:D

- - - Updated - - -

Good on you wp. It doesn't matter that you made a good choice. You made a choice and that's good.
DPP does some good stuff with RAW before you go off to Gimp for the stuff it can't do.
Is your DPP version 3.13.0.1 (the latest)? If not, it's worth updating it. Link is in post #70 here ...... http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?20342-Canon-software-updates&p=1148959#post1148959
Costs nothing but a little time.

Thanks Mark.

My DPP was 3.10.2.0, so I am downloading the update now.

[ricktas]

"You bought a Canon"
"Yes, Rick, I bought a Canon"
- Rick does an admiring look..then breaks out into a fit of giggles

(jokes) :lol2:

Enjoy the new gear and show us how you can use it, soon

[Dazz1]

"You bought a Canon"
"Yes, Rick, I bought a Canon"
- Rick does an admiring look..then breaks out into a fit of giggles

(jokes) :lol2:

Enjoy the new gear and show us how you can use it, soon

Will do. Can't wait to really try it out. Took me all last night just to get through the manual :)

[ameerat42]

Manual? Did you say "manual"? Good! I always shoot in Manual mode also:D

[ricktas]

Will do. Can't wait to really try it out. Took me all last night just to get through the manual :)

It's that clutch that is confusing..you should have bought an automatic :D

[Dazz1]

Everyone thinks they are a comedian... :lol2:

[fillum]

I bought a Canon 600D.


My photos always look best after a few Islay single malts - preferably Lagavulin


Says it all really....


:D

[Dazz1]

Says it all really....


:D

Fixed that line... :lol2: