Need help buying a DSLR camera

[DeltrusDisc]

You can get a 60D for about $1,000, but yeah once you start adding all the accessories, I was just using it for reference as part of why I like Canon and such. :P

[Cows For Life]

Canon makes the best cameras, if I do say so myself, I'd invest in a DSLR from Canon, don't really think you could get something better, except from Canon themselves.

^ Not really a serious post. Canon was actually responsible for the stagnation of the DSLR market a few years back.

The aforementioned Panasonic is regarded as an excellent video camera but their image sensors have never been tops in class.

If you want the least trouble I suppose sticking to one of the big brands is the path of least resistance.

[Archangel Tyrael]

^ Not really a serious post. Canon was actually responsible for the stagnation of the DSLR market a few years back.

The aforementioned Panasonic is regarded as an excellent video camera but their image sensors have never been tops in class.

If you want the least trouble I suppose sticking to one of the big brands is the path of least resistance.

hmm yeah, I'm looking mostly for big brands, like Nikon and Canon or Sony. It's just a bit hard to understand why X is better than Y, when you don't have much knowledge about it.

btw - DeltrusDisc - The quality of that video is quite good, thanks for posting !

[Buttfear]

hmm yeah, I'm looking mostly for big brands, like Nikon and Canon or Sony. It's just a bit hard to understand why X is better than Y, when you don't have much knowledge about it.

You might want to pick something up used and try it out till you have more of an idea of what you're looking for.

I started off with a Canon DSLR and found a number of things I didn't like. It was too bulky to comfortably take on trips, image stabilization(IS) is in the lens which makes them larger and more expensive, and the video was crap. So I then got an Olympus XZ-1, and while it's pocketable and takes nice pictures, the video is once again crap. I then picked up a Sony Nex-5N which has awesome video but only a few lenses are available and IS is in the lens which makes them expensive and bulky. Another issue with XZ-1 and 5N is lack of viewfinder which makes use in sunlight hard and shortens battery life. So I pre-ordered the Olympus OM-D which I hope rectifies all the for mentioned issues.

[kidsafe]

The XZ-1 lost points with me for not having an integrated lens cap. I ended up with a different P&S just because of that oversight.

[Archangel Tyrael]

You might want to pick something up used and try it out till you have more of an idea of what you're looking for.

I started off with a Canon DSLR and found a number of things I didn't like. It was too bulky to comfortably take on trips, image stabilization(IS) is in the lens which makes them larger and more expensive, and the video was crap. So I then got an Olympus XZ-1, and while it's pocketable and takes nice pictures, the video is once again crap. I then picked up a Sony Nex-5N which has awesome video but only a few lenses are available and IS is in the lens which makes them expensive and bulky. Another issue with XZ-1 and 5N is lack of viewfinder which makes use in sunlight hard and shortens battery life. So I pre-ordered the Olympus OM-D which I hope rectifies all the for mentioned issues.

Thank you very much for all of that information. It is just becoming harder and harder to decide on one now ^^"

I just want to shoot 1080p videos that look good, wherever it may be, and take beautiful pictures... Since I'm going to use these videos/pictures for amateur production, I want them to look good. The reason I linked those first two cameras, from Nikon and Sony, is because of what I had read on some review website...

And like I said, they seemed to be around my budget, which is around 750 US Dollars, but again, I'm also willing to spend a little bit more if it is worth the price.
Also, Which tripod should I buy?

[a21fa7c67f26f6d49a20c2c51]

If you're buying a DSLR the body you buy today is almost irrelevant in the long term: it's the glass that'll sink you, so make sure you choose a system with lens options.

I have roughly $2500 spent on camera bodies compared to ~$10,000 on glass and I'm nowhere beyond "interested amateur". Look back at 10-year old digital National geographic photos, from when digital photography was just getting a foothold in professional circles and you'll see they look spectacular despite being 6-megapixel images shot on cameras an order of magnitude less powerful than todays entry-level cameras. It's the quality of the lens that plays a huge role in how good your pictures look, and the options in the system that make for flexibility.

The bodies last 4-5 years where as lenses will survive for decades (ie: in 2002 Canon announced the F2.8 24-70mm - it was their top of the range model until 3 months ago and the replacement is a relatively tiny upgrade). If you focus on whatever body is "OMG amazing" now at the expense of your glass options you run the risk of being stuck with a bunch of expensive sub-standard equipment that tie you to a manufacturer. That's not to say you should ignore the body entirely, but you'll want to remember that lenses are more important and more expensive.

I use Canon kit for "real photos", I have an Olympus Pen with the 17mm f/2.8 pancake for a walk-around camera. If I were in your position I'd probably look towards nikon because they have a few really amazing lenses at a low price (like their cheapo the 35mm f/1.8 and nifty-50) and plenty of good options at the professional end of the spectrum too.

[Buttfear]

Which tripod should I buy?

Why do you need a tripod? I have a Manfrotto Bogen 3001 tripod with a couple of heads and I never use them.

[Archangel Tyrael]

If you're buying a DSLR the body you buy today is almost irrelevant in the long term: it's the glass that'll sink you, so make sure you choose a system with lens options.

I have roughly $2500 spent on camera bodies compared to ~$10,000 on glass and I'm nowhere beyond "interested amateur". Look back at 10-year old digital National geographic photos, from when digital photography was just getting a foothold in professional circles and you'll see they look spectacular despite being 6-megapixel images shot on cameras an order of magnitude less powerful than todays entry-level cameras. It's the quality of the lens that plays a huge role in how good your pictures look, and the options in the system that make for flexibility.

The bodies last 4-5 years where as lenses will survive for decades (ie: in 2002 Canon announced the F2.8 24-70mm - it was their top of the range model until 3 months ago and the replacement is a relatively tiny upgrade). If you focus on whatever body is "OMG amazing" now at the expense of your glass options you run the risk of being stuck with a bunch of expensive sub-standard equipment that tie you to a manufacturer. That's not to say you should ignore the body entirely, but you'll want to remember that lenses are more important and more expensive.

I use Canon kit for "real photos", I have an Olympus Pen with the 17mm f/2.8 pancake for a walk-around camera. If I were in your position I'd probably look towards nikon because they have a few really amazing lenses at a low price (like their cheapo the 35mm f/1.8 and nifty-50) and plenty of good options at the professional end of the spectrum too.

Well, I can see your point, but how do I know what lenses are good? :/

Why do you need a tripod? I have a Manfrotto Bogen 3001 tripod with a couple of heads and I never use them.

I'm going to record myself speaking Finnish/Swedish/German, for a project of language exchange. Sometimes I'm going to do it outdoors.

[Buttfear]

I'm going to record myself speaking Finnish/Swedish/German, for a project of language exchange. Sometimes I'm going to do it outdoors.

I'm going to push you strongly towards the Panasonic GH2 now since it sounds like you're going to do some serious video. The GH2 also has a flip around screen so you can monitor yourself without having to buy an external monitor.



As for tripods I really don't know much about them.

[Cusco]

Nikon is good, but when I think "high quality camera" I think "Canon."

Then it is time for you to correct that highly subjective opinion of yours. It has been widely known for quite a few years now that out of the two, the best brand to choose is: Either.

It is said that Canon is viewed as generally better at recording video. I do not have extensive proof to show otherwise, but I do know that a lot of the difference is simply due to different presets for color, saturation, sharpness and such, all of which is very easy to change before recording. Nikon simply has a toned-down, soft setting as standard, whereas Canon has more color and saturation as standard. It takes 20 seconds to change, no matter the brand.

What is also said is that Nikon has the edge when it comes to autofocus systems - also important for recording video, although I would highly suggest manual focus when recording, partly due to the speed but mostly due to the noise. This goes for all recording DSLR:s, no matter the brand.

Canon has better lenses for portrait, such as the 50/1,2L and 85/1,2L, having super-high quality and reaching apertures Nikon-lenses just cannot (Nikon do not make any lense with a maximum aperture larger than f/1,4).

Nikon, as far as I know, is better when it comes to telephotography. Nikon do not have the longest lenses, but the best ones. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

EISA (European Imaging and Sound Association) statistics:

2011-2012:
European Lens - Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM
European Professional Lens - Canon EF 70-300mm F4-5.6L IS USM
European Camera - Canon EOS 600D
European Advanced Camera - Nikon D7000
European Professional Camera - Pentax 645D

2010-2011:
European Lens - Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM
European Professional Lens - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 300mm F2.8G ED VR II
European Camera - Canon EOS 550D
European Advanced Camera - Canon EOS 7D
European Professional Camera - Nikon D3S

2009-2010:
European Lens - Sigma F2.8/24-70 IF EX DG HSM
European Professional Lens - There was no such award this year.
European Camera - Olympus PEN E-P1
European Advanced Camera - Canon EOS 5D Mark II
European Professional Camera - Nikon D3x

2008-2009:
European Lens - Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G SSM
European Professional Lens - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm and AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8 G ED
European Camera - Sony α350
European Advanced Camera - Olympus E-3
European Professional Camera - Nikon D3

There is absolutely no reason to think one brand is better than the other.


OP: It all depends on how high taxes are in Germany. I will now make three suggestions that I know are well over your preferred budget of $750, but these simply are the three suggestions I'll give you, as I'm a pixel-peeper. This is quality, if you're interested in both video and stills.

* Nikon D5100 + Nikon AF-S 50/1,8 G (bought separately)
* Nikon D3200 + Nikon AF-S 50/1,8 G (bought separately)
* Canon EOS 550D + Canon EF 50/1,8 II (bought separately)

Note: The lenses suggested cannot zoom, but they are extremely sharp, extremely cheap and will let you take this kind of pictures (and video).

Nikon D5100:
+ Less noise than the D3200, which means better quality.
+ Flip-out screen for recording.
- Cannot record in 60 fps in 720p quality (only 30 fps).
- Only records in MPEG-4.
- Records sound in mono.

Nikon D3200:
+ Can record in H.264.
+ Faster processor (the difference is most probably cancelled out due to the higher mp = larger files to process).
+ Can record in 60 fps in 720p quality.
- Has a lot more megapixels, which simply is overkill and will result in more noise (not to mention higher quality-demands on the lenses).
- Does not have a flip-out screen.
- Records sound in mono.

Canon EOS 550D:
+ Can record in H.264.
+ Can record in 60 fps in 720p quality.
+ Records sound in stereo.
- Does not have a flip-out screen (as opposed to the 600D, but that's ~$100 more expensive (Swedish prices)).

[Cows For Life]

Sticking with the "main brands" (C&N) only makes it easier to buy lenses and accessories on the new and used markets for both buying AND selling but I think bringing up f/1.2 lenses as a point in support of a brand is dubious given the cost and niche use of such items.

An amateur looking at a $750 camera is unlikely to be buying one of those and truthfully there is very little that 1.2 lenses will do that the relatively cheaper and ubiquitous 1.4 brethren won't do.

[Cusco]

Sticking with the "main brands" (C&N) only makes it easier to buy lenses and accessories on the new and used markets for both buying AND selling but I think bringing up f/1.2 lenses as a point in support of a brand is dubious given the cost and niche use of such items.

An amateur looking at a $750 camera is unlikely to be buying one of those and truthfully there is very little that 1.2 lenses will do that the relatively cheaper and ubiquitous 1.4 brethren won't do.

My point in that reply (before I edited in suggestions for the OP) is that there is no "better" brand amongst the two, but I wanted to avoid the risk of getting replies pointing out that there still are differences. To do that, I had to bring up multi-thousand dollar lenses, because that's where the only "significant" differences are between the actual brands, rather than between individual cameras. I do, however, agree that I should've clarified that it does not make any difference whatsoever which brand (out of the two) a person chooses at basic levels.

[Respen]

If you're buying a DSLR the body you buy today is almost irrelevant in the long term: it's the glass that'll sink you, so make sure you choose a system with lens options.

This is the gospel of DSLR. For your price range, you're probably best off investing in a kit, then picking up some better glass, then upgrading the body later. The high end Canons have some amazing video capabilities, but those are for sure out of your price range now.

Camera brands are also a lot like religion to some people, no matter what brand you're talking about there are people that would die before admitting that their particular brand isn't the best on the market.

That said, brand loyalty can be rewarding, as generally lenses will be compatible with any body from that manufacturer. Any camera+lens kit in your price range will probably have a few drawbacks, so, in my opinion, you should look for the camera you eventually want to get, and then look at each step towards it as an investment.

EDIT: Also, if you don't plan on ever investing several thousand dollars on lenses, a hybrid probably isn't a bad idea. Although I can't help you with which one to pick.

[Bznga]

As some posters already said it,if your not gonna invest in lenses i suggest getting a slr-like compact camera.

[Archangel Tyrael]

Tack så mycket !

Woah, that is a rather informative post Cusco, That picture looks so gorgeous !

That is definitely what I'm looking to ! Do the videos have such great quality as well? Do those cameras also shoot 1080 p?
I might consider spending a little bit more on those cameras you told me about. Do you have any idea of a good website to buy them?

[Cusco]

Woah, that is a rather informative post Cusco, That picture looks so gorgeous !

That is definitely what I'm looking to ! Do the videos have such great quality as well? Do those cameras also shoot 1080 p?
I might consider spending a little bit more on those cameras you told me about. Do you have any idea of a good website to buy them?

The videos do have pretty much the same quality.





Both videos are recorded using the lenses I suggested.
Both videos are somewhat enhanced in Adobe After Effects.
I couldn't find much D3200-footage for which a 50/1,8G-lens was used.

All of the suggested cameras shoot 1080p in 30 fps.

I do not know much (barely anything) about German photo stores, but I will suggest that you choose a store that is fully dedicated to photographing. It might sometimes be just a tad bit more expensive, a couple of percentages, but it's worth it;
* All personell knows much more about the area of photographing, they will be able to help you further.
* They have a much larger variety of gear, should you want to upgrade or add gear in the future and
* Their sales, offers and all such are aimed at photographers, you won't find any insurance-offer made for "everyone who has anything technical, be it a dishwasher or a TV".
Most photographers wants a dedicated, trustworthy photo store that they can be loyal to.

Calumet Photographic seems to be a very good store that sells pretty much everything you could ever need as a photographer (not many stores stock €36,000 Hasselblads, for example). I would still look for some reviews and such before buying expensive gear even from Calumet, though, so I suggest you do that. Here are the calumetphoto.de-pages for all cameras and lenses I suggested:

Cameras:
Nikon D3200
Nikon D5100
Canon EOS 550D

Lenses:
Nikon AF-S 50/1,8G
Canon EF 50/1,8 II

I would go into any store that sells said cameras and try them out, to get to know how they feel in my hands, how easy they are to setup, which menu-system I prefer, and so on. Mediamarkt is a good store in which to try out camera gear, although I would not actually buy the gear from there.

Which camera you choose, if any of the ones I've suggested, is ultimately up to you.

[muxx]

for around 750 bucks budget, you are not going to beat a Canon Rebel T3i.

you might be able to get one of those package deals with a lense for that price (highly doubtful), DSLR is nothing without atleast a couple of lenses...like a wide lense and maybe a regular all around lense in the range of 16-37mm.

I highly disagree cannon can be beaten.

Someone's already reccomended the Gh2 on this page and I will tell you first hand the Panasonic Lumix GH2 video Looks AMAZING!

The two downsides(that i have found) of the GH2 is that it has to be hacked to get it to look amazing. Hacking it is not very hard, it voids the warranty but you can easily put the Panasonic firmware back on before you have to send it back to the company should it need repaired.

The second would be that it records in a file that most Post production or Non-linear editing programs can read, but you can plug it in and record from it in most programs OR you can buy a program that transfers it to a file that can be read by the programs fro 30 bucks. http://www.pavtube.com/guide/avchd-to-avi.html

It feels a bit flimsy, but in reality the camera can record a better image than a RED. Of course not @ 5k like a red can but, there is a comparison video out there that compares RED vs GH2 and the GH2 image quality looks and handles motion like a 40,000 dollar camera!

I haven't gotten to make any movies with my GH2 yet but I am looking forward to it.

The still camera quality is just as good

Myself and many other independent film makers/ film students will highly reccomend getting a GH2 if you're looking to get a DSLR and if its still on sale its only 750 bucks on amazon with free shipping.

Canon are good camera's but the video can sometimes be meh

Also to everyone on this thread. Your saying downside of rebel is that it wont auto focus @ 60p...If your using autofocus on video, you're doing it wrong.

If theres one thing that should be pounded into you're head is not to use autofocus recording video I can't remember ever using it during a video shoot or having a reason for it. If theres one thing that our teachers in film school taught us was not to use it as they would immediately fail us if we did.

some helpful links for the buyer to look @:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95lVDmpt03I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6bzQfZ8OCQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGKz5bQjXTA

Also, you said ur budget for a camera is 750 bucks well here yah go...
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-...6062619&sr=8-1
Panasonic Lumix GH2 with a 14-42mm Lens