WEX Deals: Sony Summer Cashback - Claim Up To 300

Need a new camera

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : op questioned answered


8 Jan 2014 8:56AM
My nikon D90 broke (just befor Christmas) amazon have refunded me so now I am in need of a new DSLR and would love some advice/recommendations/names of cameras to look at.
I'm not very word savvy when it comes to cameras so if I could ask that if you need to use fancy camera related words or sentences can you explain what you mean? I like recommended cameras rather than just being told to look at what the camera can do - mainly because I do not have a clue.

I am off to Florida in June so would like a camera that would give me amazing photos out there especially at night time and for fast action shots and firework displays.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit 10 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
8 Jan 2014 9:54AM

Quote:I like recommended cameras rather than just being told to look at what the camera can do


What the camera can do is closely related to what you want to do with it.

For night time shots, most modern cameras have superb high ISO capabilities. If you are invested in Nikon Lenses, for an APS-C DSLR I would suggest the 7100. But beyond that I would propose the Olympus EM-1: superb high ISO capability and the dual-AF technology means you can capture moving action as well.
dark_lord Plus
16 2.5k 663 England
8 Jan 2014 11:10AM

Quote:would like a camera that would give me amazing photos


That is really down to you, not the camera.

All DSLRs are fine these days, Mike's suggestion is a good one sticking with Nikon as you'll be familiar with camera layout and controls too.

It would be worth adding an upper limit you want to pay as that will help with anyone's suggestions.
EG 10 24 United Kingdom
8 Jan 2014 12:57PM
If you are looking for good night time shots also allow for a fast lens maybe f2.8 coupled with the nikon will give the desired result

Eddie
8 Jan 2014 7:13PM
I guess my budget is 600 - 800 (ballpark figures - if it was 850 that works) lower lower the better but if paying out a bit extra would get me a better camera and consequently better results I am willing to do so. However the more the camera itself is less hope I have of getting a spare lens for it before my trip.

I like the idea of sticking with nikon cos it's familiar
Nigeve1 7 1.4k 101 United Kingdom
8 Jan 2014 8:22PM
With respect to Nikon which is what you have had and presume you have a lens / lenses, also what I know best, having a D7000. I think your options for a new camera would be either a D7000 or D7100, you should get the former for about 550 and the latter for 850. So what is the difference and is the D7100 worth 300more?

You say that you want good low light performance, so you need the high ISO performance to be good. The difference here between these two is minimal. The 7100 has a much newer generation sensor and you would therefore expect it to be a lot better in this respect, the reason it is not is that 24MPixels have been crammed into the same sensor area compared to 16.1MPixels on the D7000. The individual pixels are smaller on the 7100 and that makes for worse relative high ISO performance, the performance is about the same is because three years of development have allowed the 24MP sensor to perform about the same as the older 16.1MP sensor. If Nikon hat left the sensor at about 16MP, the high ISO performance would be much better. Why does high ISO performance matter? The higher the ISO you select to allow adequate shutter speeds and apatures in low light situation, the more noise the image will show. Noise shows as white or coloured grain in the image, particularly shadow areas, the bigger the grain, the poorer the image quality. Cameras which perform well at high ISO will show less grain for an equivalent ISO setting. To get really good high ISO performance you need to move up to a full frame (FX in Nikon) sensor size like the D610, D800 or D4 but they are beyond your budget. the reason is that the pixel density is much lower on these large sensor cameras.

Do you need 24MP or id 16.1MP on the 7000 adequate? Depends what you want to do with the images. If you want to print bigger than A3 size, then the 24MP sensor of the 7100 has the advantage, if you don't want to print this big, practically no advantage.

Focus points; the 7100 has 51 autofocus sensors of which 15 are the more sensitive cross type, the 7000 has 39 and 9 cross type. Practically this means that the D7100 will have some advantage particularly for tracking moving action subjects, the D7000 is still pretty good at this though.

There aren't any other differences between these models which will make a significant practical advantage in my opinion.

For what you say that you want to do, I would probably buy a D7000 and use the money saved to invest in a good wide apature lens for your low light work.

Hope that helps.
gaelldew 13 377 United Kingdom
8 Jan 2014 8:49PM
Plus Nikon have a cash back offer it the moment at 70 for the D7000, making the price around 570 but worth shopping around. I'm hoping mine will be here tomorrow, been without for a week.
8 Jan 2014 10:33PM
Oh wow thanks so much from what you saini am thinking the d7000 is a good option and as you say put some money to a lens

Any suggestions which lens would be good? I've never purchased extras lenses before so have even less idea about lenses than I do of cameras lol
8 Jan 2014 11:18PM
anything with "f2.8" in the description....! sadly usually expensive - but a good starting point is a 50mm 1.8 - sharp optics,good for low light, been around since god was a boy - 1.4 also available but a lot more costly for questionable gain..

if you want a bit more "mid-range" flexibility think about the 16-85mm zoom.. wide angle versatilty? Sigma 10-20mm is good.

then it really starts to get pricey...! 70-200mm (f2.8) is my favourite - takes photos by itself..!

time to shut up...Smile
Steppenwolf 8 1.2k
9 Jan 2014 9:37AM

Quote:
You say that you want good low light performance, so you need the high ISO performance to be good. The difference here between these two is minimal. The 7100 has a much newer generation sensor and you would therefore expect it to be a lot better in this respect, the reason it is not is that 24MPixels have been crammed into the same sensor area compared to 16.1MPixels on the D7000. The individual pixels are smaller on the 7100 and that makes for worse relative high ISO performance



That's not entirely true nowadays. It used to be true because cramming in more pixels meant that there was more "dead space" on the sensor and also because each individual pixel generates a certain level of standing noise, so the more you have the more noise you get. Modern technology has reduced both these problems very significantly - to the extent that it doesn't make much difference (except at very high ISOs anyway).

However, the way that most review sites compare the noise from different cameras is to look at the image in native size. Because the 24Mp picture is larger than the 16Mp picture you see more noise - for obvious reasons. If you resize the pictures to the same size the noise will be very similar. I remember DPR pointed this out when they tested the 24Mp Sony sensor (A77) against the similar 16Mp Sony sensor (A55). The A77 seemed noisier until you resized the images, at which point they found the noise to be "effectively the same". I would have thought that the D7100 would be better than the D7000 under the same circumstances but I haven't seen any tests on this. The D7000 is a bit of a bargain nowadays though.
discreetphoton Plus
15 3.5k 20 United Kingdom
9 Jan 2014 9:43AM
I'd counter a lot of the comments here by saying that you don't need a fast lens. There's no advantage to them if you want to shoot fireworks, as you'll have to stop it down anyway to prevent the colours burning out to white. Florida's generally brighter than the UK anyway (except during storms), so fast action shouldn't be a problem either.

If you're not fussed about jargon, then it's likely that your needs are based around personal interest rather than the "money is no object" mentality and the interest in the terms that is needed for more serious stuff.

In that case the results from any new line camera will impress you over the D90, due to the speed of technological advancement in the 5 years since its release.

Absolutely any camera on the market will be fine. D7000 would give you closest feature set to the D90, while not having to push the boat out for the 7100. You want a travel tripod for your night shots and it's a must for your fireworks.
9 Jan 2014 10:19AM

Quote:I'd counter a lot of the comments here by saying that you don't need a fast lens. There's no advantage to them if you want to shoot fireworks, as you'll have to stop it down anyway to prevent the colours burning out to white. Florida's generally brighter than the UK anyway (except during storms), so fast action shouldn't be a problem either.

...



I would think that you might be right about fireworks, but buying a camera to photograph fireworks exclusively is unreasonable to say the least. Anyway, this sort of dynamic light show looks better on videoWink
In many other situations fast lens offer definite advantage.

First, and fairly obvious, it is most flexible when it goes about depth of focus control, the smaller camera sensor the more. Portrait lenses traditionally tend to be fast ones.

Second, all modern cameras take exposure reading and perform focusing with fully opened aperture. Fast lens here allows for more precise exposure metering and focusing in low light situations, all types of autofocus will work faster too. This would help even with fireworks - should one choose camera automatics over manual control (I would not).

And, finally, f1.8 lens stopped to f8 will be sharper than f4 stopped to the same value - because it was designed to be reasonably sharp (please do not confuse sharpness at focal point with depth of focus!) fully open- therefore stopping it only makes things better.

Not to mention that fast lens are usually made to higher standards than their slower counterparts - which makes latter cheaper to make and therefore so tempting to buy.

Does anyone need to buy fast lens? That's different point altogether - but I would encourage them at least to try and see themselves.

Cheers!
ChrisV Plus
13 2.3k 26 United Kingdom
9 Jan 2014 1:30PM
All good points, Michael. I'd join the chorus in terms of recommending the D7000 - as I did recently to my stepsons' partner. She was on a limited budget and for the money, it's just about as good a camera as you're going to get. If you do want to invest in faster glass you can pick up the Nikon 50 f1.8 for less than 100 - I can't think of any other optic that offers such a great performance so cheaply. If you want something decent more general purpose the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 can also be acquired fairly cheaply on the second hand market.

If you can pick up the kit with the Nikon 18-105vr, whilst it's not a fast lens it does represent a very versatile package that's really good value.

For myself I've abandoned APSc for m4/3, but I do have the luxury of a larger budget and other cameras to work with. At present DSLRs still probably offer the best price/quality balance.
Nigeve1 7 1.4k 101 United Kingdom
9 Jan 2014 1:43PM

Quote:Oh wow thanks so much from what you saini am thinking the d7000 is a good option and as you say put some money to a lens

Any suggestions which lens would be good? I've never purchased extras lenses before so have even less idea about lenses than I do of cameras lol



Really depends what you want to do, a good sharp all rounder is the Nikkor 16-85mm for DX but doesn't have a fast apature, 400-500 but less secondhand.
Steppenwolf 8 1.2k
9 Jan 2014 2:05PM

Quote:I'd counter a lot of the comments here by saying that you don't need a fast lens.


Yes, I agree.

I think this is another of those things that are left over from the film era when you needed a bright viewfinder to be able to focus and a big aperture to get the shutter speed needed with low sensitivity film (relative to modern digital sensors). Nowadays AF sensors are so good that they can work with low light and small apertures and modern EVFs can be set up to display whatever brightness you need. OVFs don't tend to work too well in the dark, of course, but I don't think a larger aperture will help much.

The problem with large aperture lenses is that a) they're expensive b) If they're long lenses they're large and heavy c) if they're short lenses they're susceptible to differential focus problems which screws up the AF which is taken at maximum aperture. As for buying an f1.8 lens because "it'll be sharper at f8 than an f4 stopped to the same value", this depends entirely on the tolerances to which the lens is manufactured. A good f4 will be better than a bad f1.8, and vice versa.