After my nth request on facebook for advice on "what camera should I buy?", I wrote a short bit of advice on the subject this afternoon. I've got it posted at: http://www.facebook.com/notes/larry-colen/what-camera-should-i-buy/480971259242
If you're on facebook, and have thoughts, advice, or corrections on the subject, I'd appreciate your commenting there. For those people who are not facebook enabled, but still curious, or who like pontificating on general principles, this is what I wrote: Like anyone with a serious interest in photography, I often get asked for advice about what camera to buy. First of all, I know almost nothing about "point and shoot" cameras. The market changes every few months, and when I need a small camera I put my DA40 pancake lens on my K-x and have a "pocketable" camera with amazing performance. Most of my interest these days is in DSLRs, and cameras with equivalent performance. Cutting to the chase, the short answer is that if you need to ask someone what camera to get, then it pretty much doesn't matter. Just about any DSLR on the market is a better camera than you are a photographer. If you are serious about photography, what you should do is buy a used DSLR for a few hundred bucks, take photos with it for a few months. You'll be best off using it in manual mode, learning about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and how to use the histogram and blinkies to check your exposure. After a while, you'll find out where the camera doesn't work for you, and have an idea of what you really need in performance so you'll know where you can best spend your money. There's also the chance that you'll find out that your $300 used camera works just fine for you and rather than spending $1500 on the prosumer body, you can spend that money on two or three nice lenses. Or, better yet, pizza and beer. For the long answer, the specifications that the camera companies like to spout have almost no relevance to the average person. Unless you are shooting professional sports, you don't need 7 frames per second. Unless you regularly print photos bigger than 12x16 you don't need more than 3MP (that 3, not 13, not 30). The only really relevant easily measured specification is sensor size, and that's only between sensors that were developed at about the same time. The performance difference between "full frame" and APS sensors is two to three years in low light sensitivity, and a factor of about three in system cost. The difference between APS and 4/3 is similar in low light sensitivity, but 4/3 costs about the same as APS. The way a camera feels in your hands is vitally important, and incredibly personal. The ergonomics of the controls and menus are also important, but people can get used to almost anything. Each brand, or lens mount system, has its own strengths and weaknesses. Likewise SLR and EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lenses) systems each have advantages and disadvantages. Like many still photographers, I had no particular interest in the ability to take video with my DSLR, but I've been blown away by the quality of video that you can get with a big sensor and good lenses. Canon makes decent gear. I don't know a lot about the specifics, especially since I've never liked the ergonomics on any of the Canon SLRs that I've used. Then again, I've never used them long enough to get used to them and appreciate their ergonomic decisions. Canon has the big advantage of being the default brand, which means that it's easy to find gear to buy or borrow. The do not, however, work with manual focus Canon lenses. I started photography in 1973, during the time when if a pro was shooting 35mm, they were using Nikon gear. You'll generally find that if someone has been into photography for more than 20 years, most likely their DSLR is Nikon. Nikon is reputed to have the best flash system, and if you get one of their better bodies, you'll be able to use their AIS mount lenses with the same capabilities that they had on the film bodies. In addition, pre-AIS lenses can generally be adapted to work on AIS bodies, so with Nikon you've got close to 50 years worth of awesome legacy glass to choose from. Unfortunately, the low end Nikon bodies aren't so backward compatible. Sony has the cheapest full frame body on the market, and it has amazing sensor performance. It's compatible with autofocus Minolta glass. Sony has in body image stabilization. I shoot Pentax because at the time I bought my first DSLR you got the best performance for your money at the low end of the market with Pentax gear. About a year ago, i bought a Pentax K-x and have been amazed and thrilled at its performance, especially for a body that you can buy for less than $500. DxO ranks its sensor performance among the best in APS sensors, out performing $1500 cameras such as the Canon 7D. I regularly use ISO 6400 on it to photograph dancers and musicians in very challenging lighting. In the past month Pentax has released two new cameras. The K-r is basically a K-x with some very handy features, such as focus point indicators. As soon as I can pretend that I can afford one, I will buy a Pentax K5. They're currently selling for about $1500. ISO 25,600 on it looks about as noisy as ISO 6400 on the K-x, or ISO 1600 on most other DSLRs. It has greatly improved autofocus and auto metering (which have long been the weak points of Pentax DSLRs), 14 bit raw data, and dynamic range that rivals that of "full frame" DSLRs. The weather sealing on the K5 is another big advantage over the K-x and K-r. There's a video on you tube about someone who was photographing surfers with a K7 (basically the same body) when he and his camera got drenched by a wave. He kept shooting the rest of the day, and at the end of the video it shows him washing the salt water off his camera by holding it under a running faucet. In a completely different league, but fun fodder for daydreaming... Pentax does not make a body with a 24x36mm "full frame" sensor. They skipped that market entirely and released the 645D, a medium format body with a 33x44mm sensor, about twice the size of the sensor in the "full frame" Nikon and Canon bodies. At $10,000 it is a little more expensive than a Nikon D3S, but about a third of the cost of the competing Hasselblad or Phase One bodies. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
