Which Camera? **Please read OP first**

Monkey Sampan

readytosnap wrote: »

Looking to buy a camera to video (mainly) football games, is it better that I get a camera that can do video? or a dedicated video camera? Lets assume I will be near the halfway line so it would involve a lot of zooming etc. I have had both before and I found our fuji finepix was grand at pics and vid but I would be looking for something a bit better quality (video I mean), can someone point me in the right direction. I am concerned about the weather so is it possible to get a camera that would have a cover / sleeve to protect from the rain whilst filming? budget is 800ish, Thanks

The older Panasonic GH2 could be ideal, it's been superseded by the GH3 and GH4, all of which have been proven as excellent workhorse cameras, aimed at the video market,
without overheating issues that you may get from a regular Canon or Nikon DSLR if recording video for over an hour. (87 celsius is the hottest my Canon 5Dmk2 has gotten, whilst filming a 2.5 hour conference)

It will shoot 1080p at 60fps, which for sports would be more suitable than the cinematic standard of 24fps.

I'd a look on eBay and the selling price for them is under the €300 mark.
That would leave enough of a budget to get a decent video tripod from say Libec for about €75 used. A few new batteries and a decent range zoom lens.

Even older C mount zoom lenses that would have been used for 16mm TV cameras, would give a large zoom range, suitable for live sports.
With an adapter are perfectly suited to the micro 4/3s system. They would be all manual, but will get you into good habits, once you get used to them. The likes of Canon, Sony and Fujinon would be three of the more common names for older C mount TV lenses.

Plenty of examples on Youtube to give working examples of what they're like.

TPD

TPD wrote: »

I didn't see any better alternatives, so I took a chance on a 'used - acceptable' rx100m1 from Amazon for £165. No mention of damage to the lens, only signs of use on body and screen, which I can live with. Will send it back if the image quality is compromised.

I think the gamble has paid off! Arrived this morning. Some scratches around the screen and casing, but appears functionally perfect. Seems like it was kept in a handbag without a case for a while. Lens could do with a clean but doesn't look to be scratched. There's a case and lanyard included which I wasn't expecting! Will give it a proper test over the weekend, and look into getting a filter thread attachment for the front.

Sean Quagmire

Canon PowerShot G7 X II or Sony A6000.

I know they are not strictly in the same category but I have narrowed my search down to these two. Both are nice an portable, in reality I'd probably end up sticking with the kit lens on the sony, so the fixed lens on the canon is not a deal breaker.

Looking for a camera that has really good autofocus and produces vibrant photos without the need for too much editing. I'd like the camera to respond instantly when taking photos. Mostly landscapes, some portraits and close ups.

I guess both cameras tick those boxes, but which one would you go for?

Mr Snow

I look to buy a ditgal camera and Reecord. I what a light weight camera and record. Do I need get DVDs for my recoerd my budget is less than €700 any more info I should know
I'

dudara

Hi all,

I've haven't posted in Photography in quite some time, but I am now thinking of upgrading from my old, and very trustworthy, Nikon D40. I bought it about 8 years ago, so I've definitely gotten my value from it, and while it's still able to take decent pics, it is showing its age a little.

As well as the kit lens, I have bought a DX 55-200mm lens, and a DX "nifty fifty" 35mm lens. So I have some investment there, but am also willing to reconsider it.

I've been out of the photography trends for a while now, and my preliminary research is making me look towards models like the D7200 and D5300. But I would really appreciate some guidance from people more current in this space at the moment.

I'm an enthusiastic amateur - and not particularly interested in going the full pro route at this point.

All thoughts welcome.

Bacchus

dudara wrote: »

Hi all,

I've haven't posted in Photography in quite some time, but I am now thinking of upgrading from my old, and very trustworthy, Nikon D40. I bought it about 8 years ago, so I've definitely gotten my value from it, and while it's still able to take decent pics, it is showing its age a little.

As well as the kit lens, I have bought a DX 55-200mm lens, and a DX "nifty fifty" 35mm lens. So I have some investment there, but am also willing to reconsider it.

I've been out of the photography trends for a while now, and my preliminary research is making me look towards models like the D7200 and D5300. But I would really appreciate some guidance from people more current in this space at the moment.

I'm an enthusiastic amateur - and not particularly interested in going the full pro route at this point.

All thoughts welcome.

Hey, I've a D7200 and moved from a D90 to it. The difference was stellar. Simply no comparison. The D7200 is a fantastic DX format body and I shoot mostly with the 35mm on it.

Mirrorless is where the "trend" is right now. I'm trading in my D7100 for an X-T2 soon which is getting rave reviews (X-Pro 2 would be another great mirrorless option). Can't wait to get my hands on it, supposed to have a phenomenal sensor on it and it'll be nice to have a light, quiet body instead of the DSLR. It's a more expensive option though than the D7200 (especially so as you need to get a new lens) so that'd be the big drawback of it.

LukeyKid

Hey looking to buy a canon camera under €600. for college purposes and just general picture and videos for myself.

I was looking at these

Canon 700D
http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/1024470/Trail/searchtext%3ECANON.htm

Canon 100D
http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/4131432/c_1/1%7Ccategory_root%7CPhotography%7C14419436/c_2/3%7C19780865%7CDigital+cameras%7C14419441/c_3/4%7Ccat_14419441%7CDigital+SLR+cameras%7C14419500/Trail/searchtext%3ECANON.htm

i was just wondering is there any other cameras worth looking at to i never used a nikon DLSR so i havn't really looked at them.

BreadnBuddha

dudara wrote: »

Hi all,

I've haven't posted in Photography in quite some time, but I am now thinking of upgrading from my old, and very trustworthy, Nikon D40. I bought it about 8 years ago, so I've definitely gotten my value from it, and while it's still able to take decent pics, it is showing its age a little.

As well as the kit lens, I have bought a DX 55-200mm lens, and a DX "nifty fifty" 35mm lens. So I have some investment there, but am also willing to reconsider it.

I've been out of the photography trends for a while now, and my preliminary research is making me look towards models like the D7200 and D5300. But I would really appreciate some guidance from people more current in this space at the moment.

I'm an enthusiastic amateur - and not particularly interested in going the full pro route at this point.

All thoughts welcome.

With the 35mm DX, 55-200 and the kit (18-55 I guess) from the D40, Nikon DSLR is probably the most sensible place to be thinking.

The D7200 is a super camera, but I'd look at a good clean used D7000 if I were you. You'll pick up a D7000 body for around the 400-450 euro mark. There are a couple on adverts, including one with 6 months warranty for that price down in Cork and several around the Dublin area. At that price you'll get a sub 20,000 shutter actuation body with box, paperwork etc.

Adverts search:

http://www.adverts.ie/for-sale/q_d7000/

My other half has had one for about 2 years now (bought new, VERY carefully considered expenditure on her part!) and I'm constantly impressed by how capable it is. Top value for money as a used DX body, at around half or less of their price when new. Your existing lenses will work perfectly with it of course.

Reviews:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7000/D7000A.HTM

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000

I should mention, we've had a D40 and a D200 in her camera bag before the D7000. She loved the D40 for ease of use and how it fit in her hands. The D200 with a battery grip was too clumsy, but gave her the additional control she wanted as her skills developed. The D7000 was a massive leap forward in terms of technology, but importantly for her, gives it in a nice form factor which is comfortable for her to use.

Finally, alongside my D800 and D500 bodies, it's incredibly quiet by comparison.

Bacchus

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

The D7200 is a super camera, but I'd look at a good clean used D7000 if I were you. You'll pick up a D7000 body for around the 400-450 euro mark. There are a couple on adverts, including one with 6 months warranty for that price down in Cork and several around the Dublin area. At that price you'll get a sub 20,000 shutter actuation body with box, paperwork etc.

Adverts search:

http://www.adverts.ie/for-sale/q_d7000/

You'll get a D7000 cheaper than €400. Sure there's a few up for sale at €400-450 but do you see anyone offering that price to buy? I'd get about €450 for the D7100 and it's in great condition and has a low enough shutter count. I could advertise for €550 but I won't get that. So, I'm considering a trade-in instead. Shop has offered €400... so it's costing about €50 for the convenience.

Dudara, if you're interested in a D7100 I can send you the details I'm in Cork though.

BreadnBuddha

Bacchus wrote: »

You'll get a D7000 cheaper than €400. Sure there's a few up for sale at €400-450 but do you see anyone offering that price to buy? I'd get about €450 for the D7100 and it's in great condition and has a low enough shutter count. I could advertise for €550 but I won't get that. So, I'm considering a trade-in instead. Shop has offered €400... so it's costing about €50 for the convenience.

Dudara, if you're interested in a D7100 I can send you the details I'm in Cork though.

What somebody pays for a camera versus the advertised price is entirely up to them. Personally, I'd be happier paying 450 (minus a little something) for a D7000 boxed and with all original accessories and paperwork including 6 months warranty than 450 for a D7100 with no warranty. Neither are new, so a bit of a safety net is worth a few quid.

In any case, a 7000 series Nikon body of some sort would be a good option. That's the point on which we can surely agree.

If a 7200 is in budget, that's the winner of course.

dudara

Thanks guys - some good food for thought there. I'm going on holidays in two weeks, and it would be nice to have a new camera in my hand for that.

Do either of you know where the D7100, D7200 are in terms of Nikon lifecycle, i.e. are they sunrise or sunset models, or somewhere in the middle?

BreadnBuddha

dudara wrote: »

Thanks guys - some good food for thought there. I'm going on holidays in two weeks, and it would be nice to have a new camera in my hand for that.

Do either of you know where the D7100, D7200 are in terms of Nikon lifecycle, i.e. are they sunrise or sunset models, or somewhere in the middle?

I'd say somewhere in the middle. Things are changing a little when it comes to that segment of the market, in particular the enthusiastic amateurs who like to spend money on gear, with many people moving to 4/3 mirrorless cameras and lenses. That's somewhat reduced demand for bodies like the 7xxx.

However, for those who have an affinity for shooting with a more traditional SLR type body, or those who already have a useful set of lenses to choose from (whether amateur or professional users), the 7000 series has been a really solid performer generally held in very high regard and it's not going to just disappear.

The D7000 was a huge leap when it was released. Remember also, that's not long ago! The image quality it offered was/is superb. The D7100 including some refinements such as the sensible addition of a headphone socket for monitoring audio when recording video and a jump from 16-24 megapixel using a new sensor. Just to be clear, either one is a fine camera today, so don't get hung up on chasing megapixels, especially on a DX body if you're considering either of those.

The D7200 which is the current incarnation introduced another set of very useful improvements like integrated Wi-Fi & NFC, better low light performance (which can be a massive benefit). In fact, the D7200 really is a top-end body when it comes to DX format Nikons, only bettered by the D500 (to my knowledge) which costs about twice as much. The 7200 is absolutely 'sunrise' in Nikons enthusiast product line as you have put it, but the 7000 and 7100 could hardly be described as 'sunset' either. They're all great cameras for taking superb quality photos. If you consider shooting video, I'd bump the 7000 into 'sunset' though, as not being able to monitor your audio is a total PITA, unless you're recording audio separately on another device in which case it's an acceptable performer, not a strong performer.

Where they go, nobody knows. There could be a lot of life left in them as a product line (Maybe going to a D8000 series in the coming years) and without a doubt, but the 7000 series will be well regarded for many years to come.

Edited for clarity, the D7000 is discontinued. The D7100 is still listed by Nikon, but it's effectively about to be discontinued. The 7200 is current and will be for at least another year.

Bacchus

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

What somebody pays for a camera versus the advertised price is entirely up to them.

Obviously, I'm not sure why you are pointing that out though when it's essentially what I'm saying (the for sale price doesn't indicate the actual going rate for a D7000). I simply said that you can get a D7000 for a better price than you originally suggested (you were going by the "for sale" price).

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

In any case, a 7000 series Nikon body of some sort would be a good option. That's the point on which we can surely agree.

Totally. I'm not really sure why you seem to think we're not in agreement though.

dudara wrote: »

Thanks guys - some good food for thought there. I'm going on holidays in two weeks, and it would be nice to have a new camera in my hand for that.

Do either of you know where the D7100, D7200 are in terms of Nikon lifecycle, i.e. are they sunrise or sunset models, or somewhere in the middle?

I've both the D7100 and D7200. The spec sheet is close for both but I find that the D7200 is just better... obviously I've no experience with the D7000 but it is 2 generations old (released 6 years ago). You sound like someone who wants to get longevity out of their camera (you had the D40 for 8 years) so if I were you I'd go as far as the budget will allow. The D7200 is less than 2 years old and it's a great camera that has just a little bit more oomph than the D7100 (and the D7000 too I imagine).

As for the sunrise/sunsetting, I'd agree with what BreadnBuddha says above. Mirrorless is where things are moving but Nikon are slow to get on board. It's really Fuji that is making waves in that market. However, if you're staying with Nikon DSLR, go for the 7000 series with whatever your budget will allow.

If you want to go bleeding edge Nikon DX format, check out the D500... though it's arguable if it is a better camera than the D7200... both offer different sets of features IIRC.

Mike Litoris

dudara wrote: »

Thanks guys - some good food for thought there. I'm going on holidays in two weeks, and it would be nice to have a new camera in my hand for that.

How about a new lens? If I really needed a DX body I'd grab a D7200 in a flash, it will be a sweet upgrade from the D40, but you might get more use out of a new/second hand lens for the money and then wait for the next model from Nikon whenever it comes out.

dudara

thanks everyone so much. I've looked at second hand pricing on Adverts, and I think a clean 7100 is a good way to go. It will hold some value and can always be resold on, but it's still a big step up from the D40.

I'm old fashioned, in the sense that I love the idea of glass and high quality optics (my background is physics) so mirrorless holds limited appeal for me. Video is also completely unnecessary to me.

CabanSail

dudara wrote: »

I am now thinking of upgrading from my old, and very trustworthy, Nikon D40. I bought it about 8 years ago, so I've definitely gotten my value from it, and while it's still able to take decent pics, it is showing its age a little.

Apart from the D40 being a few years old what is wrong with it? Where have you found limitations with this body that a new body would improve things?

The things which you will get in a new body are a larger sensor (meh) some more focus points (semi-meh) faster frame rate and improved noise performance. You will also get a better chimp screen. So for most things the D40 will do a fine job for most general photography.

Myself I get a body and use it until it wears out or something major changes that will open my envelope. First body was the D70S which was upgraded to the D300 to move to a Pro style body. I then moved to the D800 for the FX sensor. The D800 is now showing some signs of a hard life but it will continue for a while yet.

If you have money to spend maybe consider a new lens instead. There is a lot more scope to explore with some nice glass. So far you have only the kit lens and the nifty fifty. Exploring a new lens can be much more inspirational than a new body.

dudara

I also have the 55-200mm lens.

But I think the main thing is the low light level noise in the D40. I will be hanging onto it though as a general camera, as it is a solid performer.

Bacchus

CabanSail wrote: »

The things which you will get in a new body are a larger sensor (meh) some more focus points (semi-meh) faster frame rate and improved noise performance. You will also get a better chimp screen. So for most things the D40 will do a fine job for most general photography.

Fairly flippant perspective. Dudara said already he has the camera 8 years so I think he can feel ok about an upgrade.

Also, larger sensor? The D40 and the D7100 have the same sensor size. Pixel count is higher on D7100 though. Depending on what you shoot that's either meh or a real selling point.

Dudara, pixel count isn't the only thing, its the sensor technology used that will have improved in the 6 years between releases. Also, the image processor will be much improved giving better quality images and a more responsive body. You also have things like improved focus speeds (though lens factors in here too), improved dynamic range, larger, clearer view screen on the back, higher fps, weather sealing, face detection, better in low light.... it goes on.

CabanSail's core point is good though, ask yourself what you're missing in the D40 that you want from a new body. IMO though, that's a question you ask if you were considering moving from a D7000 to a D7100 or D7200 and there are only small upgrades. Coming from the D40 after 8 years, just go for the D7100 as you are planning and enjoy another 8 years with your new purchase

whattoknow

Looking to buy a camera to take pictures at GAA games. Only looking to take a few action photos at each game. Looking for something a bit better quality than taking photos on iphone and taking up memory. Can someone point me in the right direction. Looking to spend in region of €300.

glic83

Looking to pick up a DSLR with a budget of about 500 euro. Options are Canon 100d, 1300d , Nikon d3300, d5300. Would really love the nikon d5500 but haven't seen an offers below the 500 euro mark. I see the nikon gets good feedback on here. Any black Friday offers that anyone knows of on any of the above mentioned?

glic83

JUst an update called into my local store in Limerick today and had a chat with the sales person in there. He was suggestting the Canon 100d over the 1300d and based on specs. Also he recommends Canon over Nikon starting out as the lenses are a bit cheaper ie the 50mm 1.8 is 154 euro for Canon v 250 euro for Nikon. From other research I've been doing Pentax gets really good review but I don't really see them get mentioned much on here any reason for that? Is it just lack of availability in a B&M shop and people can't get hands on with the camera?

CabanSail

When you buy a DSLR you are buying into a system. People tend to stay with the brand of camera that they start with as they will have lenses to fit and just need to update the body at some stage.

The sales people will tend to sell the items where they get more sales or a better margin.

Canon and Nikon are the two big names and have a larger selection of lenses and accessories. Both make excellent lenses at the top of the range. From my experience the Nikon kit and lower end lenses are often a bit better quality than the Canon offerings.

glic83

CabanSail wrote: »

When you buy a DSLR you are buying into a system. People tend to stay with the brand of camera that they start with as they will have lenses to fit and just need to update the body at some stage.

The sales people will tend to sell the items where they get more sales or a better margin.

Canon and Nikon are the two big names and have a larger selection of lenses and accessories. Both make excellent lenses at the top of the range. From my experience the Nikon kit and lower end lenses are often a bit better quality than the Canon offerings.

Agree about buying into a system , but if you are starting out like me and are trying to get a body and kit lenses ( possibly a prime if I can get an extra few quid together) is hard to look past Nikon. As mentioned earlier a lot of people recommend Pentax as you get some extra features over canon and Nikon

cnocbui

I found it very easy to look past Nikon and Canon. Their cameras and lenses are too big for my tastes.

Bacchus

cnocbui wrote: »

I found it very easy to look past Nikon and Canon. Their cameras and lenses are too big for my tastes.

Yup, Fuji are so hot right now

But look, the OP is getting a starter kit. This isn't someone who's been in the camera world for years and know what they are looking for. In this case, it is hard to look beyond Nikon and Canon. They're huge names in the DSLR world which is where there has been soooo much focus since their inception. Its natural to get sucked into those two options (and don't forget Nikon and Canon didn't get to where they are by making sh*t systems) and not consider other systems. I'd hazard a guess that most enthusiast photographers went through a Nikon or Canon phase early on, with many of those sticking with that system. Personally, I went Fuji - Nikon - Fuji. Why worry about being locked into a system when you don't even know what you want.

OP, I'm sorry I don't know anything about the models you are looking at but any entry Nikon or Canon will do. You'll know better after a year or so what you like or don't like and will be in a better position to decide... "You know what, the camera's too heavy, maybe mirrorless is for me", "I mostly shoot at the wide end of the zoom lens, maybe I'll get a wide prime next"... etc. For now, get one of those cameras and the kit lens (18-55 or 18-200) and learn how you like to shoot.

glic83

Bacchus wrote: »

Yup, Fuji are so hot right now

But look, the OP is getting a starter kit. This isn't someone who's been in the camera world for years and know what they are looking for. In this case, it is hard to look beyond Nikon and Canon. They're huge names in the DSLR world which is where there has been soooo much focus since their inception. Its natural to get sucked into those two options (and don't forget Nikon and Canon didn't get to where they are by making sh*t systems) and not consider other systems. I'd hazard a guess that most enthusiast photographers went through a Nikon or Canon phase early on, with many of those sticking with that system. Personally, I went Fuji - Nikon - Fuji. Why worry about being locked into a system when you don't even know what you want.

OP, I'm sorry I don't know anything about the models you are looking at but any entry Nikon or Canon will do. You'll know better after a year or so what you like or don't like and will be in a better position to decide... "You know what, the camera's too heavy, maybe mirrorless is for me", "I mostly shoot at the wide end of the zoom lens, maybe I'll get a wide prime next"... etc. For now, get one of those cameras and the kit lens (18-55 or 18-200) and learn how you like to shoot.

I would consider mirrorless (CSC), but thought I would have to break the budget to get there, the X-T2 would be lovely but not happening anytime soon for me lol. I would consider any option at the moment as I haven't invested into any brand, obviously with Canon/Nikon there is a huge selection of lenses Canon options being a bit cheaper than Nikon. Pentax look to give more bang for your buck over both Canon/Nikon in the same price range, but there doesn't seem to be many Pentax users on the forum at the moment. MFT the main deal I can see at the moment is Olympus OM-D E-M10 + 14-42mm Lens Kit for 500 euro.

I am trying to stay around my budget price so trying to get the best bang for my buck, but could probably go slightly over for a great deal.

Bacchus

glic83 wrote: »

I would consider mirrorless (CSC), but thought I would have to break the budget to get there, the X-T2 would be lovely but not happening anytime soon for me lol. I would consider any option at the moment as I haven't invested into any brand, obviously with Canon/Nikon there is a huge selection of lenses Canon options being a bit cheaper than Nikon. Pentax look to give more bang for your buck over both Canon/Nikon in the same price range, but there doesn't seem to be many Pentax users on the forum at the moment. MFT the main deal I can see at the moment is Olympus OM-D E-M10 + 14-42mm Lens Kit for 500 euro.

I am trying to stay around my budget price so trying to get the best bang for my buck, but could probably go slightly over for a great deal.

Oh yeah, good mirrorless systems are pricey... though if you could get a second hand X100S at a good price it'd be a nice option. This is why I think you are right to focus on Nikon and Canon. They have more affordable options that will give you the chance to learn a bit and see what like/dislike. Plus, they are systems with a lot of lens (new and second hand) so you'd easily be able to upgrade within that system should you choose to. On the flip side, should you decide you really want to go down the mirrorless route or just switch to another DSLR system, you'd be able to recoup most of that money because of the lens and flash which don't depreciate as much as the body.

glic83

Bacchus wrote: »

Oh yeah, good mirrorless systems are pricey... though if you could get a second hand X100S at a good price it'd be a nice option. This is why I think you are right to focus on Nikon and Canon. They have more affordable options that will give you the chance to learn a bit and see what like/dislike. Plus, they are systems with a lot of lens (new and second hand) so you'd easily be able to upgrade within that system should you choose to. On the flip side, should you decide you really want to go down the mirrorless route or just switch to another DSLR system, you'd be able to recoup most of that money because of the lens and flash which don't depreciate as much as the body.

TBH I'm very tempted by a Pentax KS-2 looks a great camera, weather sealed and has IBIS , seems to be much better than any entry level camera from eith Canon or Nikon. There isn't as many lenses available for Pentax but there should be enough for what I'd need. I'll keep researching away and seeing if anything comes up on offer for BF/CM.

CabanSail

You could also explore the used market as that can be a good way to get started.

harr

Was looking for a second camera to have as a back up to my canon 750d so picked up a canon m3 on eBay it came with viewfinder and lens adapter so I can use what lenses I currently have...I must say it's a fantastic little camera for under €400 and I am very happy with it and currently seem to be using it more than the 750d