[Closed] DSLR camera's

Have a look at this one: http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3200.htm

I've got a Canon 600D and it is great. There is now a 650D which isn't massively different to be honest.

Whatever you get, make sure you get it in time to have a good play with it and understand the basic physics of aperture, shutter speed and ISO, plus the various other camera features before you go off on holiday with it. It will take good photos in point and shoot mode, but if you want to get the most out of it, learning how to use it properly will give much better results.

One piece of advice is that you can get a decent photography book for £10-£15, whereas a magazine will cost ~£5 and be much less useful for a not dissimilar price.

Btw - that deal on GroupOn isn't that special

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Digital-Camera-18-55-3-5-5-6/dp/B004MPQXZ0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369827583&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+600d ]Amazon 600D[/url]

Don't worry about the 600 d being old. I have a 500 d which is a few years old now and it's still a much better camera than I am photographer. I have absolutely no urge to change it for anything newer as it would make no difference to the quality of the photos I take.

Improvements in dslr technology have slowed down a lot in the last 2-3 years and changes to new models are generally things which don't make any real world difference.

Agree with the above though, take some time to learn how to use it and shoot in raw format from the start.

Canon have been reusing the same ancient sensors for years now, so no worries about getting an old one.

If you want a modern sensor you need to look at nikon, pentax or sony.

Nikon D90 is a good camera. I have one.
It's an older model now so can be had for a bit less, close to £500.
Shoots basic movies too.
Also, get her this book..

[img] [/img]

If you can get one still, the 550d is a better stills camera than the 600d. I'd prefer a used 40d and decent lens for around the same cash

Buy a Canon, Nikon or Sony for whatever seems the best deal on here - http://camerapricebuster.co.uk

You can't really go wrong TBH.

I'd agree with kayak

I'd get a D90 and 18-105

still a great camera and a wider range zoom is a massive advantage. Way more use than a few more pixels

http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-d90-with-18-105mm-ed-vr-lens/p1028015?cm_mmc=googlebase-_-cameras-_-digital-slr-cameras-_-nikon-d90-digital-slr-camera-with-18-105mm-ed-vr-lens_1028015&utm_source=googlebase

You'll save a bomb buying used but perfect condition off ebay

When is the honeymoon? How familiar are you both with using an SLR? Will you have enough time to adjust to it, or will it just be in 'auto' mode? Will you want to lug it around with you?

Not wanting to put a dampener on what you are after, but are you looking for the right camera for your needs, or do you just think that a DSLR will take the best pics?

I hope this doesn't come across as rude/arrogant or whatever, but an SLR won't automatically 'take good pics' which seems to be what a lot of people assume, they are quite bulky and a decent compact or mirrorless compact may do the job perfectly well.

You mention it needing to be an all-rounder of sorts, which will predominantly come from the lens rather than the body itself. Will you be buying more than one lens or buying a camera with the kit lens?

You could get something like this:
http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-1-j2-black-digital-camera-with-10-30mm-and-30-110mm-lenses/p1532249
for under your budget which takes very good photo's and comes with a 'normal' lens and a telephoto lens too. The money left over would get you a decent case and plenty of memory.
Other brands do similar cameras, such as Olympus, Panasonic and Sony.

If you are honeymooning somewhere like the Maldives, will you be doing any snorkelling? You might want to factor in a 'tough' camera that will be waterproof enough for you to get some decent shots while swimming. A friend of mine has recently bought one of those Nikons that I linked to (but without the telephoto lens option) for about £240 and then spent £70 on a waterproof case for it.
Our honeymoon is towards the end of June and last month I bought a Nikon 'tough' camera for just this purpose. I'll also be taking a compact and an SLR, but I imagine that 'most' of my pics will be taken on the compact and the 'tough' camera, rather than the SLR.

This is what I've got
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-Alpha-Interchangeable-Camera-18-55/dp/B007IU3WPU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369832833&sr=8-1&keywords=sony+a57

+ a Minolta "Beercan" zoom off Ebay (£70) - all well within budget and a fantastic piece of kit.
(All with the helpful advice of STW, naturally)

One of the best reasons for getting this is for your lady is that it is so damn [i]light[/i]

PS. Can't post samples as they are mainly of kids playing rugby & football and I'm not allowed to post them publicly (I know I know!).
Email for link if you want to take a look.

One of the best reasons for getting this is for your lady is that it is so damn light

OMG sexist!

But stumpy01 and DezB make some good points - some people end up not taking out their DSLRs after the initial excitement as they are too bulky/too much hassle. Some kind of mirrorless or mega-compact like the Sony RX100 or Fuji X10 might be more suitable.

Or get something slightly limited but awesome like this.

[img] [/img]

http://www.parkcameras.com/17126/Fujifilm-FinePix-X100-one-ex-display-model.html?referrer=Froogle

[i]OMG sexist![/i]

Women are weak. 😀

(I got a stiff neck after borrowing my old man's D80 for a day!)

Grum has the most sensible advice so far. They all take good shots when used correctly.

I'm with stumpy & grum. DSLR rarely used since I bought an Oly XZ-2 earlier this year.
Just so much more convenient 95% of the time.

Yeah.

My girl friend has decided that she would like an SLR for her upcoming birthday
...
The criteria is:
Easy to use

These requirements are at odds. Or rather, a dSLR is easy to use if you stick it in 'auto' and squeeze the trigger, but if you're going to do that then there's the square root of bugger all point in buying a dSLR in the first place.

a dSLR affords you more direct control over your camera and therefore over your photographs. There is a learning curve to this. If she wants to learn photography then a dSLR may be a good choice; if she wants to just press 'click' and take half decent shots some of the time then an expensive, bulky lump will probably spend more time in a cupboard than round her neck.

I can't quite get my head around why a dslr is any different to any other decent camera. Entry level dslrs, compact systems and decent compact cameras all have the same modes, all have scene modes, and all cost about the same.

Dslrs have better auto focus for moving subjects but are bigger.

Stumpy +1. My mum just got exactly that camera and lens combo (nikon1) after a lifetime of shooting film, then digital slrs. I was sceptical but had a chance to have a play with it last month.

It's a brilliant little camera - you literally can put it in your jacket pocket and it is absolutely jammed with features which are actually useful rather than gimmicky. You can use it exactly like a Dslr or just treat it lime a compact point and shoot.

Perfect for holiday use (and afterwards too!).

As above, do you really want a DSLR? Or a good camera?

If DSLR is what you want then at any given price point pretty much all brands are roughly the same, there is little to choose in terms of performance.

Pop into a camera shop and see which one fits in your hands nicely and which menu and buttons you find the easiest or most intuitive to use and go for that one.

The difference is that it's harder and more expensive to add to your kit if you get hooked. And dslrs will always win in low light and for fast moving subjects.

5th Elefant, DSLR have much bigger sensors and therefore have better image quality.

However, the digital 4/3 have similar sensors and are a lot more compact. The adjustment are a bit more difficult to use but the image quality are comparable.

In my case, I use a semi-pro (Canon 40D) DSLR all the time because I just like to set everything manually quickly which a semi-pro allow you to do quite well with all the well placed buttons. The wider selection of lenses also allow more flexibility.

My wife uses a digital 4/3 (Panasonic GF3) as she likes a more compact camera and like the camera to do most of the work for her while not sacrificing the image quality too much.

Nothing much to add except I agree with the above, it's very difficult to "point and shoot" with an SLR, and everyone in the photo knows they're having their photo taken and poses/hides accordingly. They also take longer to set up (camera out of bag, swap lense, switch on, auto focus, set appeture/shutter, focus again, click). A good compact will do all that for you. I reckon I miss far more good photos through actualy missing them with the SLR than I do getting the 'wrong' results with a compact.

If you want a DSLR then considder pentax. Bodies are far better sealed against dust/water/temperatures, image stabilisation is in camera (which makes lenses cheeper), 2 control dials (which is the whole point of an SLR, if you dont want control over appeture/exposure get a compact!), lenses going back to the 70's fit if you can live without auto focus (which IME is a good thing, the other reson for an SLR over a compact is they have a very shallow depth of field, the camera will focus on say a face, whereas you might want the teeth and eyes to be in focus and the skin flatteringly blurred) focus rings on some AF lenses just feel like an afterthought.

sorry to nit pik nicholas but i think you mean micro four thirds.

olympus epm2 might be another smaller good alternative to a dslr

I can't quite get my head around why a dslr is any different to any other decent camera. Entry level dslrs, compact systems and decent compact cameras all have the same modes, all have scene modes, and all cost about the same.

Size, and versatility.

To the OP - don't buy a DSLR unless you spefically plan to get 'into' photography. It's a waste of money otherwise. It's like buying a Commencal Meta to ride to work.

A compact system camera (Olympus Pen, Sony Nex, Panasonic Gwhatever etc) will take pictures just as well as an SLR and be much smaller and lighter.

However a good compact will also take just as good pictures in the hands of someone who isn't 'into' photography, and be smaller and lighter still.

There's one key point to mention about compacts though (as opposed to compact systems like the Pen etc). Due to the small sensor they always have a good close-up macro mode, and they often have good telephoto capability too. To get these capabilities with an SLR or compact system camera you'd probably have to buy two extra lenses which is not only expensive but a whole world of faff.

If you can imagine yourself putting two lenses and a camera in a camera bag and be swapping them around as you shoot, then go for it. Otherwise, don't dismiss compacts.

These requirements are at odds. Or rather, a dSLR is easy to use if you stick it in 'auto' and squeeze the trigger, but if you're going to do that then there's the square root of bugger all point in buying a dSLR in the first place.

There are arguments both ways on this.

The DSLR often wins on low light ability, autofocus, having a view finder, dyanmic range and the ability to throw the back ground out of focus. These all apply even in full auto.

If you don't want controls then you might as well skip the quality compacts as well and just by sowmthing small with plenty of zoom

I would assume if my wife said she wanted a DSLR thats what she wanted

5th Elefant, DSLR have much bigger sensors and therefore have better image quality.

The DSLR often wins on low light ability, autofocus, having a view finder, dyanmic range and the ability to throw the back ground out of focus

Hmm.. how many DSLRs have an AF assist lamp (genuine question)? The biggest issue in low light is focusing, and compacts with an AF assist lamp are ime far more likley to get a shot without flash than DSLRs without one. And yes the noise is worse but only if you go looking for it. If you are just printing them out on a home printer or putting them online, then no-one who isn't 'into' photography is going to notice in a million years.

Dynamic range - again unless you're 'into' it, the question is 'wtf is dynamic range?'

the ability to throw the back ground out of focus

This is the main one where DSLRs and compact systems win I reckon, cos you can't really fake this. However you have to know how to actually do it.

molgrips - Member
Hmm.. how many DSLRs have an AF assist lamp (genuine question)? The biggest issue in low light is focusing, and compacts with an AF assist lamp are ime far more likley to get a shot without flash than DSLRs without one.

My D80 has an AF assist lamp. And to be fair, my P300 struggles to focus in light levels using it's AF assist lamp where the D80 wouldn't even need it on.

The reason my SLR stays in the bag a lot of the time on holiday is that when I get it out (fnar fnar) my OH immediately does that freezing up and not looking natural thing, whereas with the little compact, she is as happy as larry (well, happier anyway)....

Of course, the SLR has masses of advantages.
My original 'do you really need one?' post was supposed to be just that. A question to provoke a bit of thought from the OP (who seems to have disappeared or given up) as to what he/his wife is really after.

Yes, the reason I am advising caution is that I know of loads of people who buy DSLRs because they are the cool gadget, and they find they are too much work to actually carry about and use.

They are for when taking pictures is an activity in itself.

I mostly use mine when we are out doing other things, but I am always looking around for interesting pictures, thinking about composition and effects, and sometimes I may spend ten minutes faffing about trying to get a particular shot or idea. If this is you, then SLR or compact system will be good for you.

^^^well written molgrips. You are right with that post.

I know a few people who had bought SLR's "because the take good pictures" and then been disappointed....

I have focus assist lights on my dslrs - I've switched them off - annoying and pointless. Much more important is apperture size - shooting at f2.8 and below ensures the large apperture lets in masses of light which helps the camera focus. Even if you're shooting at f11, the camera utilises the lens' largest apperture to attain focus.

Not Willy waving, but I can focus in close to no light with fast primes.

shooting at f2.8 and below ensures the large apperture lets in masses of light which helps the camera focus. Even if you're shooting at f11, the camera utilises the lens' largest apperture to attain focus.

1st points wrong, 2nd corrects it, the aperture ring stays open and only closes down when the mirror flips up. The exception is if you can force the camera to leave it closed like the stop down metering used when using new cameras with older lenses. The autofocus wouldn't work at small apertures ad the depth of field would leave most things in focus.

Not wrong, perhaps badly worded. I should have said, "using lenses with appertures of 2.8 or less...".

I know of loads of people who buy DSLRs because they are the cool gadget,

Plenty of people buy dSLRs because they "take better photographs", whereas the truth is that they empower you to take better photographs. It's "it's not about the bike" all over again. You can have several grand's worth of bouncybike but if you can't ride in a straight line without falling off then the bike isn't going to fix that.

annoying and pointless

Well no - they do work. However much light your lens lets in, it'll always let in more if there's a light shining on the subject.

I can focus in close to no light with fast primes.

You can, or your camera can?

My dslr certainly can. My nex and (previously M43) can't.

My camera can. Due, as on the last page's post, to the large apperture using the available light to find focus.

The focus assist light is fine if you're shooting at close quarters, but no good to me - I'm fleeing about in dark wedding receptions trying not to draw attention to myself. The last thing I want is to light my subjects with a beam of light so they turn towards me 🙂

If it's properly dark, the IR gubbins in my flash does the same thing invisibly.

So are sensors sensitive to near-IR then?

shooting at f2.8 and below ensures the large apperture lets in masses of light which helps the camera focus. Even if you're shooting at f11, the camera utilises the lens' largest apperture to attain focus.

One of the reasons that fast lenses focus better is that they let in a wider angle cone of light. This lets the phase detect autofocus work much better.

It also explains why many camera cannot focus an f8 lens however good the light. The cone of light is simply too narrow

molgrips - Member
So are sensors sensitive to near-IR then?

No - well yes, my D70 has had its IR filter removed from the sensor so it ONLY sees IR light - lots of fun.

The flash emits an IR grid of light and then(as I understand it), like a bat, it calculates the distance from the subject and focuses accordingly. You can often see the red grid on the subject when in darkness.

EDIT: and when I can afford it, I'll be buying one of Nikon's flash commander units which sits on the hotshoe. Won't use it with flashguns though - it does the same IR 'range-finding' trick as regular flashguns, just without the actual flash.

So are sensors sensitive to near-IR then?

My nex grinds to a halt at low artificial light. My dslr can cope with a lot less.

But... manual focus is very, very easy on a nex.

Just googled about AF assist, people seem to think their assist lights are IR but they generally are just red.

Interesting about cones of light. I bought an f1.4 prime for the purposes of low light photography, but weirdly it's rubbish at focusing in low light, worse than my f4 zoom despite an extra 3 stops of light to work with. I read somewhere that the Olympus system is not designed to work with lenses faster than f2.0 but I can't seem to find any solid references to it or any reason why that might be the case.

My (camera) assist light is just a beam of light, which is why I switch it off. Flashguns are the things which utilise an IR beam - it comes from the opaque red windows on your flashgun.

The flashguns also use the info in conjunction with other info to help decide how much flash power is required.

Morning all,

Thanks for your help so far, very much appreciated. To answer some of the questions so far:
The honeymoon is in 3 months so the plan is she/I will have some time to learn how to use the camera and at least attempt the get the best out of it. I will also be investing in a book(s) to learn a more.

Re. the ease of use comment, she uses a compact already and does a good job with that but wants to try something more "interesting". She is quite prepared for more than a "point and click" however, she doesn't want something that is overly complicated just for the sake of it.

There is no doubt there is a degree of "shiny thing syndrome" about this purchase but as a mountain bike forum I'm sure you'll agree this is no bad thing.

Anyway, a couple more questions after last nights research.
I'm still of the (wholly uneducated) opinion that the Canon 600d is the best one for the price. We've seen a few deals which offer a 50mm f/1.8 II lens with it, is this worth having? It seems to retail at about £80 but most deals with them add about £30 to the price.

Secondly, We got thrown a curve ball by a friend who has a Canon 1100d which can be had for cira £300, he thinks it is the dogs dangly's. My instinct is to spend more on the better camera but is the 600d worth an extra £100?

Finally, some of the online retailers sell the camera with an 18-55mm IS lens whilst others come with a 18-55mm DC III lens. Initial research suggests the IS lens has image stability which the DC doesn't. Is the IS worth having for an extra £20 ish?

Apologies for the long post and thanks again for your help.

Not sure about the 600D cos I've not used one, but yes the 50mm 1.8 is well worth getting (for being able to control depth of field plus shooting without flash in low light), and yes the IS is worth having, IMO.

Re the 'shiny new toy syndrome' bit. Don't think anyone is saying it's necessarily wrong - someone made a good point earlier though - can she imagine herself taking out different lenses and swapping between them?

I'd also bear in mind budgeting for a copy of Lightroom for editing - one of the main advantages of digital photography with a decent camera is being able to shoot RAW which allows for amazing flexibility in editing.

We've seen a few deals which offer a 50mm f/1.8 II lens with it, is this worth having? It seems to retail at about £80 but most deals with them add about £30 to the price.

It's an incredible piece of kit for the money, and if you can get it for an extra £30 I'd tear their arms off. You'll be hard pressed to find a Canon owner who doesn't own it (and there's a Nikon equivalent that's equally ubiquitous).

18-55mm DC III

My understanding, and I could be wrong here, is that the DC-III is what in technical terms is known as "crap".

is the 600d worth an extra £100?

Biggest differences are the flip-out screen and 18Mp vs 12Mp, off the top of my head.

She is quite prepared for more than a "point and click" however, she doesn't want something that is overly complicated just for the sake of it.

Sounds like a compact system would be ideal. You don't really lose out in terms of features or image quality, but some of them at least are more geared towards simplicity. In the Olympus range the ones with an L in are simpler. E-PL3 is a good bet or e-PL5 if you can stretch.

Go to a shop and compare a compact system side by side with an SLR. I would also suggest taking her with you - it's a lot of money to spend without any input from the intended user.

I'd pay the extra for the 600D...

As Cougar mentions, I think the 18-55mm DC III lens is supposed to be a bit rubbish. I'd go for the IS version.

Also, if you can get the 50mm 1.8 for a little extra, I would go for it. It might not be massively versatile as a 'general' lens (I will get flamed for saying that) as you will find it a bit too long for close-up portrait stuff and a bit too short for zooming in on distant objects type stuff. BUT, I've got the Nikon equivalent and it is a useful lens to have; I just wouldn't have it on all the time as my 'general' lens.

The best thing to do is to get along to a shop and try them out. I was down to Canon/Nikon when trying to decide what to get. I wanted to like the Canon more as it was cheaper and my Bro-In-law already had a Canon SLR so I figured we could swap lenses etc. But, I just didn't get on with the Canon at all, the menu systems made no sense to me (compared to the Nikon) and the camera body felt cheap in comparison to the Nikon (admittedly, it was cheaper).

Yes, if you're going to get the canon get the 50mm. The lack of stabilisation limits it's versatility but for the price it's well worth having.

I just didn't get on with the Canon at all, the menu systems made no sense to me (compared to the Nikon)

I got to exactly the same point, and found the opposite to be true for me. I don't think one system is inherently 'better' than the other, but the layout is quite a personal thing. For me the Canon was immediately intuitive, whereas I picked up a Nikon and went "what the hell?" To be fair though I was coming from an IXUS which has a broadly similar (though obviously much simplified) layout.

Very true. I found Olympus menus completely appalling, even after two years of use, yet I don't remember seeing anyone else complain.

Ok I'm semi pro shot with most of the Canon line here is my take on it.

Buy Canon 550D Tell her to set it to the portrait mode when shooting images of you or you of her or third party of you both. Landscape mode for everything else and you will not go far wrong on your first outing.

And if she gets into it invest in glass (lenses) not camera bodies.

Really these days you can put a DSLR in the hands of an 8 year old and get some decent (in layman's terms) images. If she gets into it then learn about shutter speed, aperture and ISO etc.. But if your not bothered use the above settings and it will get you most of the way there, people love to over complicate stuff.

But is there really any point in the size and weight of a DSLR if you're just going to leave it in auto and take snaps? I suspect not.

Wont that nifty Fifty you are recommending (Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens) actually be an 80mm equivalent on a crop sensor?

But is there really any point in the size and weight of a DSLR if you're just going to leave it in auto and take snaps? I suspect not.

As badllama says, scene modes will give you good results. Stick it in sports mode and it'll do action too.

So you're down to will the results be better than doing the same thing with a compact system? Yes, for action, no for everything else.

Is the extra weight worth it? Yes, if you expect to shoot action. Lenses are a lot cheaper for a dslr than a compact system. The 50mm f1.8 being a prime example.

Wont that nifty Fifty you are recommending (Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens) actually be an 80mm equivalent on a crop sensor?

You know this thread is very distressing. There I was all set to buy a new camera before I go on holiday next week, probably a DSLR, and now I find out that it will likely be a waste of money as I am in no way a camera buff.

Given that my existing camera is around 9 years old I'm still going to buy a new one but are the compacts just as good as those other compacts that use the same lens system as SLRs? Having said that I do want a camera with a view finder.

Given that my existing camera is around 9 years old I'm still going to buy a new one but are the compacts just as good as those other compacts that use the same lens system as SLRs? Having said that I do want a camera with a view finder.

Compact systems are much more limited. The only large sensor compact system with a built in view finder that springs to mind is the Nex-6.

I wouldn't rule out a dslr assuming you don't mind the thought of lugging one around.

organic355 - Member
Wont that nifty Fifty you are recommending (Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 II Lens) actually be an 80mm equivalent on a crop sensor?

Yeah. Hence my comments about it not being very versatile (IMO, of course) for 'general' photography, such as being on holiday (honeymoon). Much better off with something like an 18-105, I reckon, even though outright image quality might be not quite as good and you won't have such a large aperture for low light stuff.

gonefishin - Member
You know this thread is very distressing. There I was all set to buy a new camera before I go on holiday next week, probably a DSLR, and now I find out that it will likely be a waste of money as I am in no way a camera buff.

Given that my existing camera is around 9 years old I'm still going to buy a new one but are the compacts just as good as those other compacts that use the same lens system as SLRs? Having said that I do want a camera with a view finder.

Why would it be a waste of money as you are not a camera buff? Just be aware that there MAY be other options and YOU MAY be better off with some of the alternatives. Or you may not.
Generally, the pecking order in terms of image quality still goes Compact < Mirrorless Compact (other names are available) < DSLR

It's all about compromise and deciding what your requirements are. If you definitely want a viewfinder, then that means most compacts and mirrorless compacts are out straight away.
Do you forsake some image quality for something that will slip in your pocket? Do you forsake something that will fit in your pocket for something that will take better quality images and has a battery that will last for weeks....etc. etc. etc.

I was thinking of something like this instead of a DSLR

[url= http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/panasonic/lumix-dmc-g3-compact-system-camera-with-14-42mm-lens-81279/show.html ]Panasonic Lumix[/url]

Generally, the pecking order in terms of image quality still goes Compact < Mirrorless Compact (other names are available) < DSLR

Compact < Mirrorless Compact = DSLR

In fact Nikon and Fuji both have compact cameras that use the same sensors as dslrs and sony have a full frame compact, so it can even be...

Compact = Mirrorless Compact = DSLR

It's all about compromise and deciding what your requirements are. If you definitely want a viewfinder, then that means most compacts and mirrorless compacts are out straight away.

But given the budget I'd agree that dslrs may well be the preferred option

The only large sensor compact system with a built in view finder that springs to mind is the Nex-6.

The G3 posted above does. I'm a big fan of the Micro Four Thirds system.

The G3 posted above does. I'm a big fan of the Micro Four Thirds system.

A compact will not be as good as a compact system camera (CSC) but the quality these days is very good especially when comparing with a 9 year old camera.

Many CSC also come with electronic view finders either built in or as an add on option.

A compact will not be as good as a compact system camera (CSC) but the quality these days is very good especially when comparing with a 9 year old camera.

Nikon Coolpix-A is a match for any compact system.

Fuji x100 is a match for any compact system.

Sony RX1 is better than any compact system.

There are no rules anymore 😉

5thElefant - Member

Except sony, fuji and olympus all make compact system cameras with view finders.

I thought I had been general enough in my comment by using the word 'most', especially as I was referring to compacts and mirrorless compacts.
Perhaps I should have added some kind of "I haven't looked at every single camera available on the market today" type disclaimer?

You said yourself in the post above mine, that

Compact systems are much more limited.

with regard to viewfinders.....

Most compact systems offer cameras with view finders, and pretty much all offer add-on view finders, but within budget you're absolutely right, the dslr offers the most choice.

Yes, if you expect to shoot action

Well he's going on his honeymoon so maybe, I dunno. I would possibly recommend a tripod and remote shutter release in that case. Also consider off-camera flash and some reflectors.

Well he's going on his honeymoon so maybe, I dunno. I would possibly recommend a tripod and remote shutter release in that case. Also consider off-camera flash and some reflectors.

5thElefant - Member

Sony rx100 is better than Nikon's compact system.

Nikon Coolpix-A is a match for any compact system.

Fuji x100 is a match for any compact system.

Sony RX1 is better than any compact system.

All a bit leftfield, perhaps, although the rx100 is a good shout..

The Coolpix-A is £1000 for a fixed lens compact. You'd expect it to be as good/better than compact camera systems; most of which can be had for substantially less money. And the fixed lens somewhat reduces it's versatility.

Same for the X100, although not as expensive as the Coolpix A.

And the Sony RX1 is £2500 so again you'd hope it would be better than most compact system cameras. Although again - it is less versatile for many situations having a fixed lens and you could get a range of cameras that would cover most general requirements for the same cost as the RX1.

Yeah, none of them are recommendations, although the rx100 would do.

It's simply that form factor has no relationship to image quality anymore.

It is hard to beat the value for money of a dslr though.

The entry level DSLRs I've handled seemed pretty crappily made to me though. Worse build quality than similarly priced compacts.

Remember £300 is a bargain basement DSLR but a top notch compact. You could get an Oly TG-1 for that.

Top notch for a small sensor compact. You can't get a large sensor compact for that. Given the OP is after a dslr it's not really comparable.

I got my wife the Sony RX-100 before our last holiday and I can't rate it high enough. The amount of cropping you can do with the 20Mp output is incredible, it's great in low light and for macro shots and also for general creative use of depth of field. It's a huge step up from her Lumix LX3, espcially with the built in Dynamic Range and HDR options..

There's still stuff my DSLR can do better but as soon as the RX200 comes out I'm getting one cheap as a second camera...

badllama - Member

Really these days you can put a DSLR in the hands of an 8 year old and get some decent (in layman's terms) images.

[url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8213/8300179643_720a39357a.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8213/8300179643_720a39357a.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/beanum/8300179643/ ]merge[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/beanum/ ]Beanum[/url], on Flickr

Another vote for the Sony RX100 from me - it's annoying that it doesn't have a viewfinder, but it has now replaced my Panasonic G2 as "small camera, great image quality" travel camera. (The G2 is for sale, if you're interested - with 14-45mm lens for 150 quid, posted 🙂 )

When people are saying "viewfinder", do you mean [i]optical[/i] viewfinder or just "a little hole I can look into"?

Most CSC-type cameras I've looked at which had viewfinders were actually EVFs; a little LCD display mounted behind a traditional-looking peephole. Might as well use the main LCD for shooting unless you've got direct sunlight making it hard to see.

Things might have changed since I last looked, of course.

Given the OP is after a dslr it's not really comparable.

Well the question is whether or not he should actually be after a DSLR.

Might as well use the main LCD for shooting

All CSCs will be electronic viewfinder - they are compact because there's no mirror and prism. Those two things are how an optical viewfinder works. And yes you might as well use the LCD but that's true for optical VFs as well, broadly. The only thing that generally doesn't work using the LCD is phase detect AF which you don't get on most CSCs anyway.

The advantages of viewfinders apply to both optical and electronic VFs. Electronic ones also have several further advantages.

Well the question is whether or not he should actually be after a DSLR.

All CSCs will be electronic viewfinder - they are compact because there's no mirror and prism.

The advantages of viewfinders apply to both optical and electronic VFs. Electronic ones also have several further advantages.

That's not really fair, Olympus-Face; there's advantages and disadvantages to both.

Hmm.. OVFs are losing their advantages.. but it's moot really because you don't get the choice on any given camera. The real question is OVF is enough of a reason to choose a DSLR. I'm not sure it is.

PDAF, large sensors, legacy lenses or having butchers' hands are the reasons for choosing a DSLR, I reckonm.