Buying new entry-level D-SLR (or high end P&S) $500-$1000 within the next month

[KingstonU]

2nd UPDATE:

I'm really looking at the Panasonic Lumix GH1 now. Though is it released yet? Will I be able to get it in the next month?

My gripes about it are that it has a Lion battery instead of AA's that I'd much prefer and spare batteries are $60. Don't know if it comes in that cool blue of the G1.

I'm also looking at just High-end Point and Shoot cameras too, since that may suit me better. Like the Canon Power Shot SX1 IS.



1st UPDATE:

Thanks for all the feedback.

I would consider carrying 2 lenses with me perhaps.

Would love to play with focus in my images.

Don't have time to deal with post-processing of the images.

Size is not too important, just not the size of a shoe box, smaller is better if I don't have to sacrifice too much capability.

Waterproof is not a big concern at all. I have taken it off the list.

I noticed the Panasonic Lumix G1 has a swivel screen, seems small, and got a great review in the link. Any opinions on it?

If I indeed do not need a D-SLR might any of you have a high end P&S recommendations that fits my desired features? Note the link describes the Panasonic G1 as not a true D-SLR (I think because it doesn't have a mirror-box).




OP:

Keeping it to the point, thanks in advance. Don't know anything about D-SLRs besides reading the AT FAQ. Pentax K-M (K2000D) looked interesting. And there was an article on DT or AT a short time ago that hyped up a new camera that sounded interesting, I think it was the Panasonic Lumix G1. A recommendation doesn't need to meet all of my criteria. Open to possibility that just a better Point & Shoot might work best for my needs.

PRIMARY PURPOSE: Scenic and landscape shots while traveling

Needs to be significantly better than my 6 year old Sony DSC-P72 Point & Shoot

Features I need (unless someone recommends otherwise):

AA batteries (for long trips away from charger / short notice I can just pop in new ones or buy new ones for cheap)
SD memory card (because it is the most universal. I hate proprietary, like my current Sony's mmx memory card)
Fast response time and Fast Power on --> ready to shoot time
GOOD in LOW LIGHT CONDITIONS
GOOD IMAGE STABILIZATION and MOVEMENT CAPTURE
Good battery life (same as my DSC-P72 or better preferable)
5x Optical Zoom (the more the better)
I don't want to change lenses or carry a bunch with me. I Don't know anything about lenses.
half-decent video capture
swivel screen (or whatever it's called) so I flip it towards me and take a picture of myself)

Other features that would be nice but not too important:

Doesn't need to fit in my pocket but not a shoe-box either.
Durable and shock resistant (though I can get a padded carrying case)
Weather proofing
normal transfer cable that most have (I hate proprietary)


Things I don't need:

Screen Size not important (but a bit bigger than DSC-P72's 1.5")
Don't need more than 5 MP
Only need JPEG photos format, don't need RAW or anything like that


Thanks a lot for any and all input

 

[bobdole369]

SD memory card (because it is the most universal. I hate proprietary, like my current Sony's mmx memory card)

Personal preference, but I find CF cards more reliable. THey are also much more prevalent in the DSLR world. SD and some proprietary ones remain with SD making inroads.

GOOD IMAGE STABILIZATION and MOVEMENT CAPTURE

IS isn't helpful in all situations, or even most situations. IS handles camera shake, not subject movement. Your lens, body, and your skill as a photographer will handle subject movement.

5x Optical Zoom (the more the better)

No such thing. On a dslr you get a range of focal lengths - i.e. 17-55mm, or 70-300mm - if you wanna call that "3.2x optical" or "4.1x optical" by all means - but you'll be labeled a point&shoot noob.

AA batteries (for long trips away from charger / short notice I can just pop in new ones or buy new ones for cheap)

No way. Li-Ion chargeables only. Possible to find grips that take AA's.

Fast response time and Fast Power on --> ready to shoot time

Any decent recently built dslr has a power on --> ready to shoot in less than 0.1 second.

GOOD in LOW LIGHT CONDITIONS

A function of your lens more than anything. Sure you can shoot at high ISO but nuts to that. Consumer level bodies ($300-$800 range) - typically max at ISO 400-800, Prosumer level bodies ($1000-$1500) typically at about ISO 1600+ and the Professional level (full-frame $3500+) - can use any ISO at all. Just a quick litmus test - nothing binding - just a quick guide here.

Screen Size not important (but a bit bigger than DSC-P72's 1.5")

The screen is for chimping - you look through the viewfinder to compose and take your picture. The LCD screen is an afterthought, its to check for exposure and histo, etc. Yes - Liveview, etc - I'm speaking only generally.

Look at a Canon 350d (Rebel XT) - thats as small as they come. Your lens choice is a big factor in determining the size of your camera.

Durable and shock resistant (though I can get a padded carrying case)
Weather proofing
Water Proof would be cool
normal transfer cable that most have (I hate proprietary)

You get what you pay for. A waterproof case is available for most - you'll die when you see the price.

I've yet to see a dslr built to be dropped.

Most have a standard mini-USB cable connection. Lots of folks simply remove the CF card and put it in the reader on the PC.

I don't want to change lenses or carry a bunch with me. I Don't know anything about lenses.

You are going to learn, and carry a bunch with you - or you are not going to take pictures. Perhaps you picked the wrong niche? Nice advanced point and shoots in the dslr-like variety that give you some crazy features with a fixed telephoto lens.

Only need JPEG photos format, don't need RAW or anything like that

May I question why you are looking at a dslr?

RAW gives you flexibility in post-processing - of which every photo you take will need at least some level of PP. (my opinion - others will flame on I'm sure but I firmly believe that every picture RAW or JPEG coming out of a dslr needs to run through PS or a program like canon DPP to at least set levels, contrast, brightness check color tint and balance, and add pre-sharpening)

half-decent video capture

NONE exist. No dslr's save for the recent 5d Mk2 have any video features. Nikon has a model with some video too. It's really really expensive.

swivel screen (or whatever it's called) so I flip it towards me and take a picture of myself)

That doesn't exist. You look through the viewfinder - which looks through the lens in order to see whats going to be in the picture. Some tech exists to show that on the LCD, but you can't autofocus then. P&S are way ahead in this regard.

Don't need more than 5 MP

Yes you do. Seems that 8-12MP is the standard right now.

35mm film typically has a resolution of about 25MP, so we are about 1/4 the resolution of most old school film pictures in the dslr world. I think its amazing that most people will think that a digital file looks better than a film picture with arguably a lot more information.

One thing you'll notice straight away is the absolute dearth of lenses, models, bodies, etc available.

You'll have to pick before too long: Nikon or Canon or 4/3. That 4/3 is Pentax, Sony, Olympus, or whoever else is out there besides Nikon and Canon.

One thing you should do is pick up the book "understanding exposure" by "Brian Peterson". It's one of the best at getting you to understand HOW to take a picture. There is a LOT more than pointing and shooting.

 

[Fardringle]

I agree with bobdole. Based on your requested features, the best fit would be a good quality point and shoot camera since nothing on your list requires an SLR and many of them eliminate an SLR as a possibility.


edit: If waterproofing is really a priority, this is a list of currently available options. Note that you cannot have AA batteries and water/weatherproofing since the ability to open a battery compartment would compromise any other weathersealing that a camera might have unless you buy a waterproof rubber case that encloses the entire camera.

If waterproofing is just a "nice addition" and isn't really necessary, then your options (and the quality of the cameras) will increase dramatically. Do you want something compact that will fit in a shirt or pants pocket, or are zoom and video/image quality more of a priority?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: KingstonU
I don't want to change lenses or carry a bunch with me. I Don't know anything about lenses.

If you don't need this, you don't need a DSLR. The ability to change lenses depending on shooting situation is one of the most prominent advantages to getting a D-SLR in the first place.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: bobdole369

GOOD IMAGE STABILIZATION and MOVEMENT CAPTURE

IS isn't helpful in all situations, or even most situations. IS handles camera shake, not subject movement. Your lens, body, and your skill as a photographer will handle subject movement.

I have to disagree with the "even most situations". It all depends on your shooting preferences. I find IS to be extremely useful, and fequently.

AA batteries (for long trips away from charger / short notice I can just pop in new ones or buy new ones for cheap)

No way. Li-Ion chargeables only. Possible to find grips that take AA's.

Why? Both types have their pros/cons. Li-Ion do last much longer, and in some cases offer better performance vs. standard AA's, though.

GOOD in LOW LIGHT CONDITIONS

A function of your lens more than anything. Sure you can shoot at high ISO but nuts to that. Consumer level bodies ($300-$800 range) - typically max at ISO 400-800, Prosumer level bodies ($1000-$1500) typically at about ISO 1600+ and the Professional level (full-frame $3500+) - can use any ISO at all. Just a quick litmus test - nothing binding - just a quick guide here.

If you expose properly, ISO 1600 looks just fine, unless you pixel-peep. The key here being "expose properly".

I don't want to change lenses or carry a bunch with me. I Don't know anything about lenses.

You are going to learn, and carry a bunch with you - or you are not going to take pictures. Perhaps you picked the wrong niche? Nice advanced point and shoots in the dslr-like variety that give you some crazy features with a fixed telephoto lens.

Some people do very well with one lens - or two. Even a mediocre 18-200 takes better shots than a typical P&S. Of course, they are pretty slow to focus.

Only need JPEG photos format, don't need RAW or anything like that

May I question why you are looking at a dslr?

RAW gives you flexibility in post-processing - of which every photo you take will need at least some level of PP. (my opinion - others will flame on I'm sure but I firmly believe that every picture RAW or JPEG coming out of a dslr needs to run through PS or a program like canon DPP to at least set levels, contrast, brightness check color tint and balance, and add pre-sharpening)

Most new-ish DLSRs provide quite a bit of color/contrast/sharpness tweaking built in, that many folks are quite happy with. That said, I still agree with you, post-processing can really help a shot.

half-decent video capture

NONE exist. No dslr's save for the recent 5d Mk2 have any video features. Nikon has a model with some video too. It's really really expensive.

Nikon D90 has video capture, and is within the OP's range. It's pricey, but not "really really expensive". I think the latest round of micro 4/3 offer video, also.

Don't need more than 5 MP

You'll have to pick before too long: Nikon or Canon or 4/3. That 4/3 is Pentax, Sony, Olympus, or whoever else is out there besides Nikon and Canon.

Pentax and Sony are not 4/3.

One thing you should do is pick up the book "understanding exposure" by "Brian Peterson". It's one of the best at getting you to understand HOW to take a picture. There is a LOT more than pointing and shooting.

Have it, like it a bunch.

OP, if you do get a DSLR, I think your greatest challenge will be depth of field (DOF). P&S cameras have a large DOF even at f/2.8. With a DSLR, the DOF is very small unless you set it manually, or choose a "scene mode". One example of how this can exhibit itself: you go to take a picture of 2 friends, Tom and Jerry. Tom is standing about a foot in front of Jerry. If you take the pic with your P&S, both of them will be in focus. If you take a photo with your DSLR, and don't check to make sure your aperture is correct, you may wind up with a shot where Tom is in focus, but Jerry is a little out of focus.

 

[bobdole369]

Pentax and Sony are not 4/3.

Thank you. I have trouble with that!

Why? Both types have their pros/cons

I had no idea you could get a dslr that ran on AA's. Shows how much I know

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: bobdole369

Pentax and Sony are not 4/3.

Thank you. I have trouble with that!

Why? Both types have their pros/cons

I had no idea you could get a dslr that ran on AA's. Shows how much I know

Methinks you are running in higher "DSLR circles" than me! :laugh:

 

[xchangx]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: bobdole369

Pentax and Sony are not 4/3.

Thank you. I have trouble with that!

Why? Both types have their pros/cons

I had no idea you could get a dslr that ran on AA's. Shows how much I know

Methinks you are running in higher "DSLR circles" than me! :laugh:

I have a D300 and the battery grip takes AA's.

 

[KingstonU]

Thanks for all the feedback.

Perhaps I should mention that the primary purpose will be for scenic and landscape shots while traveling.

I would consider carrying 2 lenses with me perhaps.

Would love to play with focus in my images.

Don't have time to deal with post-processing of the images.

Size is not too important, just not the size of a shoe box, smaller is better if I don't have to sacrifice too much capability.

Waterproof is not a big concern at all. I have taken it off the list.

I noticed the Panasonic Lumix G1 has a swivel screen, seems small, and got a great review in the link. Any opinions on it?

If I indeed do not need a D-SLR might any of you have a high end P&S recommendations that fits my desired features? Note the link describes the Panasonic G1 as not a true D-SLR (I think because it doesn't have a mirror-box).

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

If your primary interest is in taking "scenic and landscape" shots, maybe a Panasonic LX3. Not much zoom, but a very wide - and very good - lens. The Canon G10 is very good, too, with more reach (although not as wide), but the LX3 will do much better in low light. Also, the LX3 does 720p video.

The Panny G1 does not offer video. The GH1 does.

Wide angle lenses for a DSLR can be $300+.

Which is more important to you - "zoom" or video?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: KingstonU
If I indeed do not need a D-SLR might any of you have a high end P&S recommendations that fits my desired features? Note the link describes the Panasonic G1 as not a true D-SLR (I think because it doesn't have a mirror-box).

The Panasonic G1's EVF is one of the best out there: super high resolution and 60 FPS feed. It closely approximates the image from an optical viewfinder/mirror box combination that you would find in a real DSLR.

More importantly, though, the G1's sensor is the same size as 4/3, meaning it will give the same image quality.

If you want to shoot landscapes, though, Canon and Nikon give you more choice in terms of ultra-wide angle lenses. For example, Canon has the excellent 10-22mm EF-S, and Nikon has the 12-24mm DX Nikkor. There are also more third party options available for Canon and Nikon.

Also, you can't get as wide on 4/3 system due to the smaller sensor. The widest lens you can buy for 4/3 system is the Olympus 9-18mm, which has an EFFECTIVE focal length of 18-36mm after the sensor multiplication factor is taken into account.

On Canon, the 10-22mm EF-S gives you an effective focal length of 16-35.2mm and the third party Sigma 10-20mm on Nikon gives you an effective focal length of 15-30mm. It may seem like just a few mm, but every mm is noticeable when things are this wide.

This is something you should consider for landscapes.



Also, the Panasonic LX3, an advanced high end point and shoot, is quite good for landscapes. It has a 24-60mm (effective) lens that performs wonderfully for wide, scenic landscapes.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: bobdole369
A function of your lens more than anything. Sure you can shoot at high ISO but nuts to that. Consumer level bodies ($300-$800 range) - typically max at ISO 400-800, Prosumer level bodies ($1000-$1500) typically at about ISO 1600+ and the Professional level (full-frame $3500+) - can use any ISO at all. Just a quick litmus test - nothing binding - just a quick guide here.

35mm film typically has a resolution of about 25MP, so we are about 1/4 the resolution of most old school film pictures in the dslr world. I think its amazing that most people will think that a digital file looks better than a film picture with arguably a lot more information.

You'll have to pick before too long: Nikon or Canon or 4/3. That 4/3 is Pentax, Sony, Olympus, or whoever else is out there besides Nikon and Canon.

All DSLRs that I know of have at least ISO ranges up to 1600. You will not find a mainstream body that maxes out at ISO 800, much less 400.

Digital passed 35mm in resolution YEARS ago:
http://www.luminous-landscape..../d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
That article is using the Canon D30, which is a full 6 models old (D60/10D/20D/30D/40D/current 50D) and was launched in 2000.

The only 4/3 manufactures are Panasonic and Olympus. Pentax and Sony are both in the 1.5x crop market.

I have a Pentax K200D with the DA* 16-50mm f2.8 lens. This combo is fully weatherproofed to the levels of Olympus, Canon and Nikon professional bodies costing $3-4k+. No other manufacture can compete in the K200D/K20D price range when it comes to weatherproofing. The K200D also takes 4x AA batteries.

 

[bobdole369]

All DSLRs that I know of have at least ISO ranges up to 1600. You will not find a mainstream body that maxes out at ISO 800, much less 400.

I really meant "usable" ISO there.

I now understand the idea behind 4/3 thanks.

The Digital/35mm debate still rages. Lots of people on both camps. This area is one of much debate. I've heard numbers regarding the amount of usable information in a 35mm negative to be anywhere from 15MP up past 45MP. I wouldn't say it's there yet. I still find lots of film pictures where a digital camera doesn't come close in sharpness or ability to enlarge. I don't think that it's a fair debate as they both have advantages and disadvantages.
I've heard people say that the full frame sensors are now just approaching 35mm, others say point and shoots are already there. I feel digital cameras have a LONNNNNG way to go before they even come close - yes even full framers - Something about a 16x20 from a 35mm where the 5dmk2 just can't compete. I think its in "style" or "feel" more than anything. This isn't really the appropriate place for this debate though.

 

[ElFenix]

the new GH1 does video. it's not an SLR though.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: bobdole369
IS isn't helpful in all situations, or even most situations. IS handles camera shake, not subject movement. Your lens, body, and your skill as a photographer will handle subject movement.

swivel screen (or whatever it's called) so I flip it towards me and take a picture of myself)

That doesn't exist. You look through the viewfinder - which looks through the lens in order to see whats going to be in the picture. Some tech exists to show that on the LCD, but you can't autofocus then. P&S are way ahead in this regard.

Don't need more than 5 MP

Yes you do. Seems that 8-12MP is the standard right now.

35mm film typically has a resolution of about 25MP, so we are about 1/4 the resolution of most old school film pictures in the dslr world. I think its amazing that most people will think that a digital file looks better than a film picture with arguably a lot more information.

Most of the post was good but I do hafta quibble about a few things because I'm worried people might get the wrong idea. Ehhhh, IS is really, really, helpful in most situations. IS is *insanely useful for almost everyone*. Don't tell someone new to slrs to get something without IS...it's going to help sooooo much with what most people do. ^_^

And yes, there are indeed swivel screen slrs, what are you talking about lol. Just because they aren't canon or nikon doesn't mean they don't exist! Olympus and panasonic. Though you can say the "g1" isn't an slr, but meh, it's in the same category and is a great camera.

And though 35mm film may have, well, really low iso 35mm film that is, may have a resolution of 25mp or so, that is kind of misleading. Lets put it this way. A Canon 5d MK2 with a 35mm sensor will produce a wayyyy better quality huge enlargement than even the best 35mm film will. Or, lets look at this another way people will probably be more keen to understand.

Made any 16x20 or 13x19 or whatever enlargements from your aps-c slr? (I have a rebel xsi for example). Yeah? They look pretty good, huh? What's that? They look great? Yep.

Ever see a 16x20 made from aps film? No? Yeah, that's because they look HORRIBLE.

Film is still cool though, fun, creative, plus medium format and large format capture amazing detail. ^_^

 

[bobdole369]

Ever see a 16x20 made from aps film?

Might that be because APS is only available in a couple formulations and those are all ISO 400 and consumer oriented?

ISO25 film was the king back in the day. The link talks about methods to make absolutely giant enlargements from 35mm.

http://photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00CdtB

I have that opinion about IS not because I think it is bad or doesn't work or am against it. I love having IS, but I'm sorta old school about photography. I think folks should learn from the ground up, that way they might understand what it does for them. I think perhaps *some* new users might use it as a crutch of sorts. It's also because this one day at the zoo a complete boob of a woman saw me getting shots of a giant anteater and she noticed I was shooting the 350d. Her 450d came out and she asked me some questions which I had no problem answering. One in particular "why are my pictures always so blurry? I got the stabilator thing they shouldn't be blurry" - After that 10 minutes of explaining that IS doesn't carefully focus for you, doesn't choose a shutter speed appropriate for the subject, does nothing for subject movement, doesn't ensure your subject is actually IN the DOF, and a bit about aperture and DOF... well thats when I realized the marketing folks have totally taken over - that or the guy she bought the camera from at Ritz is filling peoples heads with the idea that IS makes you a perfect photographer. It's a tool.

I know of 2 instances where IS is helpful.
1. At the far end of a telephoto lens.
2. In low light where higher ISO would be objectionable and without it the shot could not be handheld.
Are there more I didn't mention?

there are indeed swivel screen slrs

Great! Didn't know that.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: bobdole369
I have that opinion about IS not because I think it is bad or doesn't work or am against it. I love having IS, but I'm sorta old school about photography. I think folks should learn from the ground up, that way they might understand what it does for them. I think perhaps *some* new users might use it as a crutch of sorts. It's also because this one day at the zoo a complete boob of a woman saw me getting shots of a giant anteater and she noticed I was shooting the 350d. Her 450d came out and she asked me some questions which I had no problem answering. One in particular "why are my pictures always so blurry? I got the stabilator thing they shouldn't be blurry" - After that 10 minutes of explaining that IS doesn't carefully focus for you, doesn't choose a shutter speed appropriate for the subject, does nothing for subject movement, doesn't ensure your subject is actually IN the DOF, and a bit about aperture and DOF... well thats when I realized the marketing folks have totally taken over - that or the guy she bought the camera from at Ritz is filling peoples heads with the idea that IS makes you a perfect photographer. It's a tool.

I know of 2 instances where IS is helpful.
1. At the far end of a telephoto lens.
2. In low light where higher ISO would be objectionable and without it the shot could not be handheld.
Are there more I didn't mention?

Hehe yeah, that is very true about APS, though I'm just saying. There was, a luminous landscape, I believe was the site, an article comparing an older full frame SLR (when it was new) with medium format film, and they were shocked how good the digital was. Just saying.

And for sure, I'm with you on the IS not being a catch-all. How can people not realize it doesn't stop blur due to subject movement? Those people are beyond hope, though..

You are exactly right on it being a tool. But I look at it like this:

A tripod is a tool. IS==a tripod, basically. Obviously not as good, but for all practical purposes IS==a limited tripod. IS gives me the ability to not need to use or carry a tripod in many situations where it would have previously been a requirement. Honestly, from the 55-250mm IS i've seen sharp shots at 250mm at 1/15 of a second, and sharp shots from the 18-55mm IS at 18mm at 1 second. Which absolutely blows my mind. I'm a pretty shaky guy, obviously those were *lucky* and I was holding my breath, etc, but still. You can't look at IS as a catch-all, but you CAN look at it as a tripod replacement in many circumstances. Many times for the average casual shooter, out and about, you can just pick up your camera with the telephoto lens on and *shoot*. No worrying about a tripod. No worrying about setup. It works astonishingly well.

Or in low light: get away with things previously impossible without a tripod. Now, if you are expecting IS to help you shoot sports in low light better, or birds, or whatever, then no---it won't make any difference.

Also, I think in a studio setting it's not very useful. But this guy said traveling. Hells yeah IS is the bomb for that. An 18-55 and 55-250mm xsi kit or 40d kit would be perfect there. Small, compact, great image quality.

 

[KingstonU]

I'm really looking at the Panasonic Lumix GH1 now. Though is it released yet? Will I be able to get it in the next month?

My gripes about it are that it has a Lion battery instead of AA's that I'd much prefer and spare batteries are $60. Don't know if it comes in that cool blue of the G1.

I'm also looking at just High-end Point and Shoot cameras too, since that may suit me better. Like the Canon Power Shot SX1 IS.

 

[shortylickens]

Meritline.com/flash-memory---c-7643.aspx

I have bought many, MANY things from them over the past 8 years. Just last week I recieved a bunch of DVD-R DL for a reasonable price. Some folks may complain about Meritline but I have never had an issue with them.
Its also a great place to get flash memory of all types. My Nikon D40 uses SDHC and I managed to pick up a 16GB stick for about 28 dollars.

You could spend more money and get a "faster" one if you wanted, but it wouldnt matter much. I can do continuous RAW shooting until the card fills up, theres never been a speed issue.