A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 27th 13, 12:33 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Hare-Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a long
period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap
super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution
was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go DSLR.
I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to photograph
the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see
the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh).

Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon)
you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one
to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people
stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know
there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to those
two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to
mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of.

One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time
and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in
time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their
line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no
intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their
systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the
catalog.

Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As
neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it seems
to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is
there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is
attracted to one or the other?

I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used
Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't
really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions.

There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What?

Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?

I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from sales
brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the
reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs
and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no
axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.

David

  #2  
Old January 27th 13, 03:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 11:33:20 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
wrote:
: I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a long
: period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap
: super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution
: was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go DSLR.
: I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to photograph
: the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see
: the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh).
:
: Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon)
: you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one
: to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people
: stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know
: there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to those
: two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to
: mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of.
:
: One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time
: and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in
: time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their
: line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no
: intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their
: systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the
: catalog.
:
: Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As
: neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it seems
: to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is
: there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is
: attracted to one or the other?
:
: I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used
: Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't
: really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions.
:
: There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What?
:
: Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?
:
: I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from sales
: brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the
: reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs
: and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no
: axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.

I'll give you my experience, for what it's worth. And I suspect that there are
others in the group whose experience is not radically different.

My wife and I were Nikon users in the film days. I had an F-2 and she a
Nikkormat. We had a couple of 50mm lenses, a 28mm WA, and a 135mm tele. But
because film photography was so expensive and time consuming, we had largely
fallen away from photography when the digital era arrived.

In 2003 we decided that we needed digital cameras to take pictures of our
grandchildren. Our daughter spoke highly of her Canon S50 P&S, so we went
along. Martha chose an S50 and I a G-5. But like all non-SLR digitals of that
era, those cameras had a high lag time between what you saw in the viewfinder
and what you got on the card. That mattered a lot as the kids got more active,
and by late 2006 we had become so frustrated that we decided we had to go
DSLR. That was a decision point, as we had no investment in removable lenses.
We decided to stick with Canon because 1) they do a good job of providing
superficially similar controls over most of their product line, which I hoped
would reduce our learning curve, and 2) the XTi (400D) had just come out, and
it appeared to possibly be a better value than Nikon's entry-level equivalent.
(We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness as
for any other reason.)

Then as we started to accumulate lenses and multiple camera bodies, we did get
hemmed in. As you point out, switching systems when you have a lot of
equipment is a major step. But we soon realized that both Canon and Nikon are
in the game to stay and that whenever one of them pulls ahead in any
significant way, the other soon catches up. That's not to say there aren't
differences, or that one or the other isn't actually a better choice for a
given individual at a given time. That's as true today as it's ever been, with
some conspicuous differences in approach (to high-resolution sensors, for
example) between the two companies. But those differences are of more
significance to a professional specialist than they are to the average user.

The bottom line is that your own subjective judgement is probably as good a
guide to making the "right" choice as any other. Try to get your hands on a
couple of models of each manufacturer that you're considering, and make sure
that the overall feel and the layout of the controls won't be an irritant. And
read the user manuals, both for a comparison of the cameras' features and to
see how well those features are explained. After all, if you do buy a given
camera, you want the manual to be useful for its intended purpose.

It appears to me that you're taking the right approach. You seem to be going
in with an open mind, and you're asking people who should know what they're
talking about. (A few of us don't, but you'll figure out who they are soon
enough.) And as you come up with more specific questions, we'll try to answer
them as best we can.

Bob
  #3  
Old January 27th 13, 04:03 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a
: long
: period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap
: super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution
: was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go
: DSLR.
: I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to
: photograph
: the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see
: the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh).
:
: Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon)
: you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one
: to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people
: stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know
: there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to
: those
: two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to
: mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of.
:
: One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time
: and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in
: time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their
: line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no
: intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their
: systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the
: catalog.
:
: Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As
: neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it
: seems
: to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is
: there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is
: attracted to one or the other?
:
: I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used
: Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't
: really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions.
:
: There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What?
:
: Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?
:
: I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from
: sales
: brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the
: reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs
: and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no
: axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.

I'll give you my experience, for what it's worth. And I suspect that there are
others in the group whose experience is not radically different.

My wife and I were Nikon users in the film days. I had an F-2 and she a
Nikkormat. We had a couple of 50mm lenses, a 28mm WA, and a 135mm tele. But
because film photography was so expensive and time consuming, we had largely
fallen away from photography when the digital era arrived.

In 2003 we decided that we needed digital cameras to take pictures of our
grandchildren. Our daughter spoke highly of her Canon S50 P&S, so we went
along. Martha chose an S50 and I a G-5. But like all non-SLR digitals of that
era, those cameras had a high lag time between what you saw in the viewfinder
and what you got on the card.


no, definitely not all, and it was very easy to reduce lag to
imperceptible amounts on cameras that did have lag.

the real problem with a lot of those cameras is that the overall speed
was slow, such as time from power-on to taking a photo, how long it
took to achieve focus, how long it took to write out an image to the
card, etc. those can't be changed.

That mattered a lot as the kids got more active,
and by late 2006 we had become so frustrated that we decided we had to go
DSLR. That was a decision point, as we had no investment in removable lenses.


what happened to the couple of 50mm lenses, the 28mm and 135mm you said
you had ?

We decided to stick with Canon because 1) they do a good job of providing
superficially similar controls over most of their product line, which I hoped
would reduce our learning curve,


nikon does the same.

and 2) the XTi (400D) had just come out, and
it appeared to possibly be a better value than Nikon's entry-level equivalent.


could be, depending on what you needed to do with it. two features that
particular canon slr didn't have but nikon entry level cameras did was
auto-iso and spot metering.

(We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness as
for any other reason.)


back then there weren't any other manufacturers worth considering. now
there are quite a few.

Then as we started to accumulate lenses and multiple camera bodies, we did get
hemmed in. As you point out, switching systems when you have a lot of
equipment is a major step. But we soon realized that both Canon and Nikon are
in the game to stay and that whenever one of them pulls ahead in any
significant way, the other soon catches up. That's not to say there aren't
differences, or that one or the other isn't actually a better choice for a
given individual at a given time. That's as true today as it's ever been, with
some conspicuous differences in approach (to high-resolution sensors, for
example) between the two companies. But those differences are of more
significance to a professional specialist than they are to the average user.


everyone is in the game to stay. unfortunately, not all win at that
game. nikon and canon won't be going away anytime soon, but the others
are not so clear.

The bottom line is that your own subjective judgement is probably as good a
guide to making the "right" choice as any other. Try to get your hands on a
couple of models of each manufacturer that you're considering, and make sure
that the overall feel and the layout of the controls won't be an irritant. And
read the user manuals, both for a comparison of the cameras' features and to
see how well those features are explained. After all, if you do buy a given
camera, you want the manual to be useful for its intended purpose.


since the original poster has pentax lenses, his first stop should be
to look at pentax slrs. they're quite good and the old lenses will
work.

he also should consider mirrorless. slrs are big and bulky.
  #4  
Old January 27th 13, 04:26 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Fred McKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 214
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a long
period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap
super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution
was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go DSLR.
I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to photograph
the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see
the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh).


David-

Not much has changed since you had the old Pentax. There are still
people who think their pet brand is the best! I am of the opinion that
any of the big-name brands are pretty good. As far as having lots of
gear available, both new and used, I think you are looking at Canon and
Nikon. Pentax and Sony/Minolta may be just as good, but there does not
seem to be as much available.

I also had Pentax K mount equipment, including some Sears/Ricoh bodies.
I eventually got a Pentax *ist-DS DSLR, which I liked. I had to settle
for a couple of Tokina zoom lenses to supplement the kit lens that came
with it. There are some newer models, but Pentax has not yet produced a
full-frame body as far as I know.

My current DSLR is a Canon 5D Mark II. It is impressive how well it
works in very low light conditions. Unless you were to find one at a
very good price, it may not be what you are looking for. One of the
entry level bodies with its kit lens may be your best bet to get started.

Bear in mind that entry level bodies will probably have a small sensor,
and come with a lens to match it. In other words, you would not be able
to use that lens if you were to upgrade to a body with a full-frame
sensor. I suggest you start with the kit lens, but make sure any
additional lenses will work with the larger sensor.

Fred
  #5  
Old January 27th 13, 04:48 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:03:43 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a
: : long
: : period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap
: : super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution
: : was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go
: : DSLR.
: : I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to
: : photograph
: : the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see
: : the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh).
: :
: : Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon)
: : you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one
: : to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people
: : stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know
: : there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to
: : those
: : two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to
: : mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of.
: :
: : One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time
: : and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in
: : time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their
: : line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no
: : intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their
: : systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the
: : catalog.
: :
: : Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As
: : neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it
: : seems
: : to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is
: : there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is
: : attracted to one or the other?
: :
: : I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used
: : Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't
: : really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions.
: :
: : There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What?
: :
: : Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?
: :
: : I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from
: : sales
: : brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the
: : reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs
: : and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no
: : axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.
:
: I'll give you my experience, for what it's worth. And I suspect that there are
: others in the group whose experience is not radically different.
:
: My wife and I were Nikon users in the film days. I had an F-2 and she a
: Nikkormat. We had a couple of 50mm lenses, a 28mm WA, and a 135mm tele. But
: because film photography was so expensive and time consuming, we had largely
: fallen away from photography when the digital era arrived.
:
: In 2003 we decided that we needed digital cameras to take pictures of our
: grandchildren. Our daughter spoke highly of her Canon S50 P&S, so we went
: along. Martha chose an S50 and I a G-5. But like all non-SLR digitals of that
: era, those cameras had a high lag time between what you saw in the viewfinder
: and what you got on the card.
:
: no, definitely not all, and it was very easy to reduce lag to
: imperceptible amounts on cameras that did have lag.
:
: the real problem with a lot of those cameras is that the overall speed
: was slow, such as time from power-on to taking a photo, how long it
: took to achieve focus, how long it took to write out an image to the
: card, etc. those can't be changed.
:
: That mattered a lot as the kids got more active,
: and by late 2006 we had become so frustrated that we decided we had to go
: DSLR. That was a decision point, as we had no investment in removable lenses.
:
: what happened to the couple of 50mm lenses, the 28mm and 135mm you said
: you had ?

We still have them. But all predate AE and AF, so would not have met our needs
and had no effect on our decision.

: We decided to stick with Canon because 1) they do a good job of providing
: superficially similar controls over most of their product line, which I hoped
: would reduce our learning curve,
:
: nikon does the same.
:
: and 2) the XTi (400D) had just come out, and
: it appeared to possibly be a better value than Nikon's entry-level equivalent.
:
: could be, depending on what you needed to do with it. two features that
: particular canon slr didn't have but nikon entry level cameras did was
: auto-iso and spot metering.
:
: (We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness as
: for any other reason.)
:
: back then there weren't any other manufacturers worth considering. now
: there are quite a few.

You don't think Olympus qualified?

: Then as we started to accumulate lenses and multiple camera bodies, we did get
: hemmed in. As you point out, switching systems when you have a lot of
: equipment is a major step. But we soon realized that both Canon and Nikon are
: in the game to stay and that whenever one of them pulls ahead in any
: significant way, the other soon catches up. That's not to say there aren't
: differences, or that one or the other isn't actually a better choice for a
: given individual at a given time. That's as true today as it's ever been, with
: some conspicuous differences in approach (to high-resolution sensors, for
: example) between the two companies. But those differences are of more
: significance to a professional specialist than they are to the average user.
:
: everyone is in the game to stay. unfortunately, not all win at that
: game. nikon and canon won't be going away anytime soon, but the others
: are not so clear.

I'd still choose Nikon or Canon, assuming I had no useful legacy lenses.

: The bottom line is that your own subjective judgement is probably as good a
: guide to making the "right" choice as any other. Try to get your hands on a
: couple of models of each manufacturer that you're considering, and make sure
: that the overall feel and the layout of the controls won't be an irritant. And
: read the user manuals, both for a comparison of the cameras' features and to
: see how well those features are explained. After all, if you do buy a given
: camera, you want the manual to be useful for its intended purpose.
:
: since the original poster has pentax lenses, his first stop should be
: to look at pentax slrs. they're quite good and the old lenses will
: work.

A valid suggestion, on the face of it. But it's not entirely clear that the OP
still has his Pentax lenses.

: he also should consider mirrorless. slrs are big and bulky.

I guess you and I agree that mirrorless will win eventually. But I don't think
it's sufficiently competitive yet.

Bob
  #6  
Old January 27th 13, 05:25 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

In article , Robert Coe
wrote:

: (We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness
: as for any other reason.)
:
: back then there weren't any other manufacturers worth considering. now
: there are quite a few.

You don't think Olympus qualified?


for the 4/3rds slrs, definitely not.

the bodies were only slightly smaller than the smallest nikon/canon
slrs, but the sensor was 2x crop versus 1.5x or 1.6x. which means you
had at least a 1 stop penalty in image quality for a camera that was
about the same size in your hand. what's the point in that? plus, the
lenses were insanely overpriced compared to nikon/canon.

worse, 4/3rd slrs were a dead end. you could never get a bigger sensor
or a pro level camera whereas nikon/canon users who bought a crop
sensor camera could eventually trade up to full frame if they wanted.
nikon dx lenses will work on a full frame body, but in crop mode, so no
different than what they had before. however, canon ef-s lenses will
not mount at all on a canon full frame camera. any full frame lenses
they had will of course work.

it's different now. micro-4/3rds is what 4/3rds should have been all
along. it's still a 4/3rds sensor but at least the cameras and lenses
are much smaller. based on its popularity, customers agree.
  #7  
Old January 27th 13, 05:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nick c[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

On 1/26/2013 4:33 PM, David Hare-Scott wrote:
I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a
long period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a
cheap super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital
revolution was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and
looking to go DSLR. I don't have a lot of money but enough to get
started. I like to photograph the natural world: eagles, landscapes,
insects and flowers. I can see the budget will have to cover several
lenses eventually (sigh).

Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or
Canon) you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump
from one to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains
why people stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first
place. I know there are other systems but for the point of discussion
let's stick to those two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of
possibilities come to mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't
thought of.

One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in
time and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other
point in time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a
body in their line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that
there is no intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over
time their systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models
in the catalog.

Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems.
As neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists
it seems to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for
purpose. Is there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of
photographer is attracted to one or the other?

I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always
used Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer
didn't really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions.

There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What?

Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?

I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from
sales brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested
in the reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have
different needs and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a
flame war, I have no axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.

David


There is a third ... it's emotional.

Since the early of film years in the 50's, I have used Nikon cameras and
accessories. Reason being I have always liked Nikon equipment and when
encountering a problem, Nikon service was always there. Then came the
digital cameras and I bought the first Nikon that hit the market and I
was greatly dissatisfied with the camera. Then the local camera store
loaned me a Canon camera and some lenses and I was back in photo-heaven.
I ended up buying into Canon equipment and although my pictures didn't
show it, I progressively tended to be uncomfortable with my Canon
equipment. There was nothing technically wrong with the equipment, I
just wasn't comfortable with the Canon photo system. After about four
years of using Canon, I awoke one morning and suddenly decided to sell
off all my Canon equipment and get back with Nikon. So off I went to the
local Camera store and again bought a lot of Nikon gear. As of now, all
my equipment, with the exception of a PS Canon camera is back with Nikon
and I feel good again.

I wish I could give you reasons why I'm glued to Nikon and why I was
dissatisfied with Canon but I can't. I just wasn't comfortable using the
Canon equipment-system. Somewhere back in the recesses of my mind there
is a lingering feeling that Canon does more experimental marketing and
is quick to market products whereas Nikon seems to lag behind in
marketing yet market their equipment after they have conservatively
tested the equipment they intend to market.

As for my advice to you, I'd say stay with either a Canon system or a
Nikon system (as you have already decided) but rent the cameras and use
them before you make a final decision. Both systems take technically
good photo's and yet both systems somewhat differ in their working
methods. Start thinking about how much discretionary money you have to
spend in pursuance of a photo hobby and make your judgment-call
accordingly. There are very good P&S cameras and very good DSLR's. Don't
forget to include costs for support equipment such as software,
computer, pod's, flashes, filters, printers, etc,. etc,. etc,. Remember
too, obsolescence is just around the corner so look at equipment you
will most likely stay with and use regardless of future marketing. For
example: An ace lens today, will still be an ace lens tomorrow and
familiarity with equipment breeds confidence.

If you arrive upon a final decision, post same and request opinions as
concerns the camera model/system you have tentatively decided to zero in on.





  #8  
Old January 27th 13, 08:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
David Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,146
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

On 27/01/2013 00:33, David Hare-Scott wrote:
[]
There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What?

Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?

I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from
sales brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested
in the reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have
different needs and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a
flame war, I have no axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.

David


At the point where I was ready to buy a DSLR, I went into the camera
store (the now-defunct Jessops, Edinburgh) and held both the Canon and
Nikon equivalent cameras to see which I preferred. The Nikon won, so
I've been Nikon ever since. I had no legacy lenses having sold off my
film SLR stuff while I could still get some money for it. I have not
been disappointed, and agree with some of the comments about Canon vs.
Nikon in this thread. I think both companies are in it for the long
term, although both will face competition from the newer mirrorless
cameras.

My main lenses are an 18-200 mm image-stabilised walk-round zoom and a
Tamron 10-24 mm wide-angle, although I also have a 35 mm f/1.8 for
low-light, and a 16-85 mm smaller walk-round zoom. The 70-300mm
telephoto tends only to be used when I need it and can be bothered to
carry it. Choice of lenses can influence your choice of manufacturer -
can you get the lenses you want? Bear in mind that there is a wider
range of lenses available today compared to in the film era.

My latest purchase has been a more modern "bridge" camera, as I do
sometimes find the DSLR outfit a little heavy even with one lens. I
went for the Sony HX200V, with built-in GPS for geo-tagging, and a
27-810 mm (equivalent) zoom lens. Would be nice for your eagle
photography, if it's not too slow to respond....

It's all compromise one way or another!
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
  #9  
Old January 27th 13, 11:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
me[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 578
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:12:13 +0000, David Taylor
wrote:

O
At the point where I was ready to buy a DSLR, I went into the camera
store (the now-defunct Jessops, Edinburgh) and held both the Canon and
Nikon equivalent cameras to see which I preferred. The Nikon won, so
I've been Nikon ever since. I had no legacy lenses having sold off my
film SLR stuff while I could still get some money for it. I have not
been disappointed, and agree with some of the comments about Canon vs.
Nikon in this thread. I think both companies are in it for the long
term, although both will face competition from the newer mirrorless
cameras.


I wholeheartedly agree with the above. I would just also explicitly
mention besides the look and feel of the outside camera controls, it
might behoove one to delve into the menu system as well and see if its
layout makes sense to you.
  #10  
Old January 27th 13, 01:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

me wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 08:12:13 +0000, David Taylor
wrote:

O
At the point where I was ready to buy a DSLR, I went into the camera
store (the now-defunct Jessops, Edinburgh) and held both the Canon and
Nikon equivalent cameras to see which I preferred. The Nikon won, so
I've been Nikon ever since. I had no legacy lenses having sold off my
film SLR stuff while I could still get some money for it. I have not
been disappointed, and agree with some of the comments about Canon vs.
Nikon in this thread. I think both companies are in it for the long
term, although both will face competition from the newer mirrorless
cameras.


I wholeheartedly agree with the above. I would just also explicitly
mention besides the look and feel of the outside camera controls, it
might behoove one to delve into the menu system as well and see if its
layout makes sense to you.


If you actually use the camera, in six months or less
the "look and feel" of virtually any DSLR will become
comfortable. The same is true of the controls, both
hardware and menu driven.

I suspect that most of those who buy cameras based on
the feel of the camera, the color of the lenses, the
sound of the shutter, minor price variations, which one
some other photog uses, what the Walmart salesman says,
or for that matter what they read in forums such as this
on the Internet... get what they deserve. That is,
they'll really admire the camera sitting on the coffee
table and enjoy the conversations about it.

Other folks that chose their camera based on which one
does the best job for their style of photography will
have conversations about their photographs rather than
about their camera.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad practical jokes C J Campbell[_2_] Digital SLR Cameras 5 April 12th 10 07:20 PM
Is looking at 100% crop practical? Rod Williams Digital SLR Cameras 11 September 6th 06 07:35 PM
Deconvolution software, any practical value? Rich Digital Photography 11 March 7th 06 03:55 PM
Practical Holography [email protected] Digital Photography 9 November 14th 05 11:42 PM
Question about choosing contax system Patrick Leung Medium Format Photography Equipment 53 September 7th 04 03:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.