To make up for my lack of posting to begin, I have started off by merging several very related topics into a single post and it has resulted in what will probably be my longest single post (in fact, I have been debating whether or not to split it into 2 or 3). Also a note before I get into it and as I have not yet written the "About this blog" section. This blog is primarily focused on DSLRs for amateur photographers. While I may touch on digital point-and-shoot cameras specifically, please note that many of the general topics I'll have here can be applied or adapted to whatever camera you happen to be using, even if you still shoot film (although some aspects of film photography do not cross over). So here we go...
I started shooting regularly back in college. I was a senior and only had a couple hundred bucks to my name. I wanted to take photography but could not afford a camera. The school had some loaners (Pentax K1000s if I remember correctly), but they were not in great shape and they still charged for the loan. So, my dad let me borrow the Nikon FG he had purchased in order for my mom to take photos. She didn't use it often and he still used his Nikkormat, so he let me borrow it with a couple of lenses. With the FG, and some Kodak T-Max and Ilford HP-5 black and white film, I started a class that would lead me to a new hobby. After college I found I had difficulty keeping up with it due to the time it took to develop and process the film. With full time job and a life in my 20s, it was one of the things that went on hold. So while I started on film, and really loved working with it, I soon found myself looking to go digital.
I did a lot of research before selecting a digital camera body, and while there are now newer bodies at the same level, a lot of the key points will carry forward. But before I get into the details, let me include a disclaimer. I am a Nikon guy. But with that, and I reiterate this in my “About the author” section, I am not so avidly a Nikon guy that I think that the other camera brands (Canon, Sony, Olympus, etc) are not just as good if not better in some aspects, and vice versa. Honestly, the reason I went with Nikon is because that is what I was used to using and to what I had access. As such, when I did research into what camera I wanted to buy as my first DSLR, it made sense to keep with Nikon for their quality, but also, I was familiar with their cameras and lenses and really liked them. Disclaimer is over...
Selecting a brand (camera system):
A camera system is a set of bodies, lenses and add-ons that were designed to work together and there are many different ones out there to pick from. Please note that point and shoot cameras do not necessarily belong to a system unless you are looking to get one to use as a pocket camera in addition to your DSLR (If just shopping for a P/S camera, focus less on the system and more on the quality and features of the brand). My decision to stick with Nikon had its own motivations as I described above, and other people have theirs when picking a brand, but just know that as you are looking for a DSLR, you will be satisfied with your camera if you pick any of the major brands.
One point to take into consideration here are the lenses. As of this writing, and for decades before, Canon and Nikon have better lenses in quality of construction and image than many of the other major camera body manufacturers. Again this does not mean only buy a Canon or a Nikon. There are lots of 3rd party lens makers (Sigma, Tokina, Zeiss, etc) who produce fantastic glass for many of the different lens mounts out there, but overall the Nikon lineup and the Canon lineup will be better than any single lineup from another manufacturer. Also, the high end lens from Nikon and Canon will far surpass the high end lenses from any manufacturer and only produce lenses for their own camera mount. So if you plan on taking your hobby from amateur to pro at some point (or you have money for high end glass) then it may be better to pick Canon or Nikon to start out with so you are familiar with the system and don’t have to go through the hassle and expense of switching.
Now you may be saying, “You just told me any major camera brand will do” and you would be correct. In fact, I’m still saying that, especially in recent years. If you asked me 10 years ago for a DSLR or longer ago for film SLRs, I would say Canon, or Nikon, don’t look at any other, because their lenses were so superior and in general were higher quality. Pentax, Leica, Minolta, Olympus were all making cameras and they were all really good, but as a system Canon and Nikon were vastly superior. Today things are closer and I still think Canon and Nikon have the best systems, but they are also the most expensive, and there are things that other camera makers have managed to do better. So if you find a Sony that you really like and it has the right price and features, by all means, get it. You will be very happy. But, if you are not sure what to look at, I am saying to use Canon and Nikon as a reference when comparing features and quality. If you find the camera to be as good as or better than these two, and the price/specs makes sense, then have found yourself a great camera, no matter the brand.
Oh, I mentioned lens mounts in the discussion above. If you are not familiar, do not worry as I will provide more info on these in a soon upcoming post. In short, it is the way that each manufacturer has chosen to mate the lens and the body, and they each do it a little differently.
Now back to picking a camera. I had narrowed it down to brand that I wanted to purchase, and then it was just a matter of which level of camera and model to select.
Selecting a camera body:
At the time of purchase, the Nikon DSLR lineup included the D40x (soon replaced by the D3000), the D90, D300, D700 and D3. The D3 and D700 are both have full-size, 35mm equivalent image sensors (FX in Nikon terms), but at prices involving thousands of dollars, they were immediately out. The D40x had a nice 10.2 MP sensor, but there were some ease of use features I didn't like, for example the fact that it only had one command dial, and couldn't make use of standard Nikon AF lens (only AF-S are supported). So I had it narrowed down to the D90 and the D300. Both have similar feature sets, with the D300 having a little bit more, but it really came down to a budget decision. With the D300 costing approximately $700 more than the D90, I picked selected the D90 (still available as of this writing, but now also succeeded by the D7000).
Features:
When getting into the details and specifications of DSLR camera bodies, the list of features seems endless, and grow with every release. Gone are the days of the simple film box which had minimal automatic features. No AF, a simple light meter, just a split prism focus aid, and a manual film advance lever. That's about it. No 51 autofocus points, no 2 different autofocus motors, no image stabilization, no photo processing tools, no LCD screen, no buttons, no dials. In fact, aside from the lens, the most "technology" was in the film itself. Today, the endless list of features can be hard to sort through. When picking out my first DSLR, the features that I looked at were balancing photo quality, ease of use, and price. As I mentioned above, I did not have endless monetary resources, but with the cameras you can get today, you do not need to spend $5000+ on a D3 to get great photos. In fact you can take great photos with a used D40 for $150, or the camera in your cell phone. That's when ease of use features really matter. In fact, one of the things pros look for in there camera is how easily it is to adjust the settings of the camera as much as the quality of the image sensor. So what features and specs are important? In future posts I'll go into these in more detail, but for now I'll touch on some of the features I considered when picking my DSLR body.
1. Image Sensor - Like the quality of the film, the image sensor is the main feature of the camera body that can have the biggest effect on the technical quality of your photographs (I am intentionally am not including lenses in this statement). When I say technical quality I am not including the other aspects of the photo that can make it great such as composition, subject matter, and lighting. So if the image sensor is the most important, then you should go out and find the image sensor with the most megapixels, right? Nope, not exactly. My D90 has 12.3 MP. The D3x currently has 24.5MP. Does that mean that the D3x can take photos twice as good as my D90? No. Does it mean if I want to make a huge poster from a photograph, the D3x will give me a better end result? Probably, but only once you get really big. At some point, the benefit of more megapixels begins to plateau (and in some cases it starts to be counterproductive). So what's best? It depends on what you are looking to do. For me, and for many amateur photographers, you can do fine with anything from 6 or 12 or 16 MP, but I would tend toward at least 10MP, or what is available in the middle of the road at the time you read this post. More important than the number of megapixels a camera has, is the ability to avoid noise when increasing the sensitivity of the image sensor. At the time of its release, the D90 was one of the best low noise bodies around, but it has since been passed but some of the newer offerings. Low noise will help when you get into difficult lighting situations. Sensor size? It's personal preference. Crop sensors (Nikon DX , APS-C, APS-H, 4/3rds) have their advantages as does full-frame (Nikon FX, 35mm equivalent). If you are coming from film like I did, there is a bit of getting used to the crop factor of a DX. And as of this writing, cameras with FX sensors are the higher end models and cost more. For this reason I stuck with a Nikon DX (1.5x crop factor) sensor. Like I mentioned above, I'll go into these in more detail in the future, but the message is, if you are like me, stick with a moderate amount of megapixels and, good low noise operation, and a crop sensor (unless you need a full-frame). For P/S cameras, you are pretty much stuck with whatever size sensor comes in the size camera you want. If you want a smaller camera, it will likely have a smaller sensor, and all of them have smaller sensors than a DSLR, so just pick a good brand and don’t worry too much about the size of the sensor.
2. Controls - I mentioned above that I picked the D90 over the D40x because of controls. I also own an earlier D40 model which I picked up more recently and I use it as my backup body, and I can tell you from using it compared to the D90, that I'm glad I went for the D90. That's not to say the D40 is not a very useable body. It just means that the D90 is easier to use. One of the biggest advantages I find is the addition of a second command dial. If you are unfamiliar, the command dials on a Nikon allow the ability to quickly adjust shutter speed, aperture, ISO and also scroll through other features without having to press a bunch of buttons or use a menu system. The D40, and D40x, only have a single command dial, which makes switching aperture and shutter speed just a little bit more cumbersome. The D90 also has some buttons on the back and front that make it easier to quickly make adjustments to the exposure/white balance/focus/flash, or quickly preview the shot, or assign custom functions. Overall it's just easier to use. The higher level camera you get, more and more features are more easily accessible (i.e. not having to go through the menu system to adjust), so like everything else, it’s a balance with price. For P/S cameras, the amount of features readily accessible to the photographer will greatly vary with the size of the body, but to note that this camera segment is designed around size and under the assumption that the photographer is going to rely heavily on the camera’s automatic features. As such, many of the adjustments tend to be buried in the menu system. But this is ok, if that is what you are looking for. My biggest recommendation is to make sure that you can adjust the exposure setting manually if you want to even if just through preset shooting modes.
3. Compatibility - OK, I'll have to admit, this is actually an area where I did not get exactly what I wanted, but for the price, the tradeoff was worth it. Now, I'll tell you what I mean. The D40x can only use electronically controlled, AF-S lenses (lens contains CPU and autofocus motor), and completely manual focus lenses. It cannot use AF style lenses, because it does not have an autofocus motor in the camera body which is how the older AF lenses were controlled. For manual, non-CPU lenses, it cannot meter the light because it does not know what the focal length or to what aperture the lens is set. The one benefit of the D40x and D40 are that it can accept lens introduced prior to automatic indexing (1979) without damaging the camera. I'll get into this in a later post. The D90 can use AF-S, AF and manual lenses. This is great because there are some fantastic inexpensive AF lenses like the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D (About $125 new). Similar to the D40x, it does not meter manual, non-CPU lenses. This is where I compromised. The D300 does have compatibility for non-CPU lenses by allowing lenses to be programmed in to the body and the features selected. And as you go up, you gain more and more compatibility (like the ability to use electronic diaphragm lenses on the D3). But for me, at this point in my shooting career, the increased compatibility was not worth the extra price.
4. Kit lens - OK, so this is not really feature and definitely not anything to do with the body itself, but I think it is something to take into account. When I bought the D90, I went for a kit which included the Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G VR lens. This is an inexpensive and pretty solid lens which covers a good zoom range. Yes, it is not as good as optically as some of Nikon's more expensive lenses, but unless you are a scrutinizing pro, you will not be able to tell. And for the kit price, you essentially get it for $100 and it works well. The D40 kit I have also came with a lens, the Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G. This is also a really inexpensive lens, and while it has some downsides in use (tiny focus ring), it takes good photos and is actually one of the better lenses for IR photography, another interest of mine. So in short, look at reviews of the kit, and if the lens that comes with your camera is a good quality one, it may be a good idea to pick up the kit. If the lens is not all that great or if you already have lenses you want to use, then just get the body.
Now, there are many other features to look at when making a decision to buy your first DSLR, such as battery life, movie capabilities, weather-sealing, etc, but these were some of the main considerations I took into account when selecting mine. I hope these thoughts were helpful, but overall, whichever camera you decide to get, the most important thing is that you can take quality photos and enjoy doing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment