Yet another 'which DSLR' question

[jamin100]

On the Nikon 1 question

The 'V' range (v1 & 2) have a better screen, Electronic viewfinder, no flash, bigger
The 'J' range (1,2 &3) have a lower pixel density screen, No viewfinder, Pop-up flash, smaller

Thats about it to be honest in terms of the J range and the V Range

The V2 is priced way too expensive at the moment. The V1 was £900 about 18 months ago when it first came out but they have dropped a lot since then and are around £230 new or £150 2nd hand.

The lenses for CSC's are different in terms of they are not interchangable UNLESS you use an adapter.
Example, a Nikon fit DSLR lens can be put on a Nikon 1 camera with the FT1 adapter. So you could use a Nikon V1 and a 70-200mm f2.8 lens and factoring in the crop factor that becomes something like a 210-700mm lens (something like that anyway)

However, you cannot put the Nikon 1 glass onto a normal DSLR - not that you would probably want to anyway

 

[threebikesmcginty]

A good supply of second hand lenses on ebay (few of us can afford good new ones) will improve your picture quality in spades.

I always send the butler out for them, are they expensive then?

 

[Crackle]

I always send the butler out for them, are they expensive then?

I've seen your pics. He's pocketing the dosh and giving you a pinhole camera.

 

[Cyclist33]

Coffeejo

1. Yes. As I understand it, the Micro Four Thirds lenses from Panasonic and Olympus are interchangeable across CSC cameras of those type and brand. The other CSCs have proprietary lens systems, although in many cases yes you can get an adaptor to use SLR lenses for that make. Costly, though.
2. There aren't as many CSC lenses currently as you can get for SLRs, but they're good and there as as many as you will need, I think! The Panasonic range is the largest currently I think.

Micro Four-Thirds is the sensor size of the camera, it's a proprietary size used by Panasonic and Olympus, and possibly a couple of others. I *think* 4/3 of an inch is the diagonal width of the sensor. Someone may correct me on that! Sony NEX and Samsung NX have APS-C sensors which is the same size as you get in the entry level SLRs. The Nikon J and V cameras are smaller than the Micro Four-Thirds sensor size. I think they come out about half the size of APS-C. Still much bigger than most compact pointy shooty ones.

Stu

 

[threebikesmcginty]

I've seen your pics. He's pocketing the dosh and giving you a pinhole camera.

Got a good pic of you and a couple of your scally mates

.

 

[Cyclist33]

So just to be clear on sensor size, the point n shoots have one of two sensor sizes, usually the cheap n cheerful ones have the smallest and the higher-end ones the larger sensor. Then it's the Nikon One series. Then Micro 4/3. Then APS-C. Then you're off into high-end SLR with full-frame 35mm sensors.

 

[coffeejo]

I think ... this is all very complicated

On a serious note, I prefer the idea of having two cameras, one for taking out with the bike and the main one for using when bulk isn't an issue. Different lenses and compatibility all sounds horribly complicated and I'm very much aware that my choices now have to be for the long-term.

Thinking out loud, I'm not sure about investing in a CRC or 4/3 set up only to discover in a few years that I want to advance but need to start over (obviously a massive leap like @SatNavSaysStraightOn is a slightly different situation. Can't see me getting to that stage, somehow!).

I have briefly played around with some entry-level DSLRs in what I think is Taunton's last remaining camera shop and preferred the feel of the Canon (I think it was a 1100D) to the Nikon. More investigation definitely required.

Please keep the opinions coming - I've learnt far more since I started this thread than in months and months of trying to decipher what the wobbly web has to say on the subject!

 

[Deleted member 23692]

Personally I'd look at the 2nd hand market, as it's flooded with quality, hardly used equipment because people buy DSLRs thinking it will take excellent photos, and their sadly disappointed, because you still have to have 'the eye' and put some work in to get the most from any camera. You'll get some good kit at low cost, and if you need to sell for any reason you can get back pretty much what you paid for it.. so nothing's lost

If the cash was mine I'd be looking at Nikon D80 or D90 coupled to an 18-105vr lens. You might even be able to stretch the excellent D7000. Don't bother with the 18-55 as it's the lowest of the low kit lens, and had a comparatively weak plastic lens mount. The remaining cash will buy a couple of SD cards, camera case and/or strap. With that lot you'd be good to go.

The D80 is a few years old now, but still an excellent camera with a good mix of auto features and easily accessible user settings, which gives a super camera to grow into as skills develop [pun intended . The D90 superceeded the D80, and even though that been replaced by the D7000 and D7100 respectively it's still a very good camera capable of producing excellent results. The D7000 (which I currently own) is a step up again. The 18-105vr is probably the best kit lens that Nikon produced.

MPB is very well respected and a super company to deal with - it's my (and plenty others) first port of call when looking for 'that other bit'!

Canon are also worth considering, but I know nothing about them so will leave others to recommend something. Both have a massive range of lenses and accessories available, both own brand and 3rd party so you'll be well catered for whichever direction photography takes you. I'd avoid Sony.

 

[coffeejo]

Always been nervous of the second hand market as it's all too easy to get caught out when you don't really know what you're doing. Thanks for the link and recommendation, though.

*goes to look*

 

[Cyclist33]

As someone has already said, the CSC is really just as good as SLR, image quality wise, at the same price point. And some of the lenses cost in the region of £800 so they're not just a cheap alternative!

The big difference is portability, and because there is no mirror they can be a bit faster to operate, and quieter. I think the other compromises are you don't get as many buttons and instant-access controls as on an SLR, simply coz there ain't the room for them! Also the auto-focus method is apparently better on SLRs. And you tend not to get an optical viewfinder but I would take portability over that 10 times out of ten.

 

[Crackle]

Got a good pic of you and a couple of your scally mates

.

You didn't take it though, it's in focus. Now stop disrupting coffeejo's thread, she's concentrating.

 

[coffeejo]

As someone has already said, the CSC is really just as good as SLR, image quality wise, at the same price point. And some of the lenses cost in the region of £800 so they're not just a cheap alternative!

The big difference is portability, and because there is no mirror they can be a bit faster to operate, and quieter. I think the other compromises are you don't get as many buttons and instant-access controls as on an SLR, simply coz there ain't the room for them! Also the auto-focus method is apparently better on SLRs. And you tend not to get an optical viewfinder but I would take portability over that 10 times out of ten.

If I'm honest, which I probably should be, I think I'm partly put off because CSCs etc are whole new world (for me, anyway) and in terms of mental health (*sigh*) it's a lot easier to go for the traditional and therefore familiar than even contemplate the alternatives. Which isn't to say that's the correct way of doing things, just the easiest and/or most tempting.

*blushes, hangs head and shuffles off*

 

[Spinney]

If I'm honest, which I probably should be, I think I'm partly put off because CSCs etc are whole new world (for me, anyway) and in terms of mental health (*sigh*) it's a lot easier to go for the traditional and therefore familiar than even contemplate the alternatives. Which isn't to say that's the correct way of doing things, just the easiest and/or most tempting.

*blushes, hangs head and shuffles off*

Don't be ashamed...

I read about 4/3s etc, and thought something like 'well I know what an SLR is, I used to have a film one, I'll just go for one of those'
then
'people on PhotoChat recommend Nikon or Canon so I'll just go for one of those'

which helped to narrow the choice and shorten the head-scratching considerably!

(Not that I'm guaranteed to have made the right decision, but you've got to cut down your choices somehow!)

 

[coffeejo]

Just been reading this good, if slightly out-of-date, introduction to CSCs. Murky waters starting to clear. Need to do some more digging re: autofocus and tracking on newer models.

 

[pplpilot]

Just been reading this good, if slightly out-of-date, introduction to CSCs. Murky waters starting to clear. Need to do some more digging re: autofocus and tracking on newer models.

I have nikon d700 along with some pretty expensive lenses, the d700 has a serriously good autofocus system as you would expect from a pro body, but trust me my olympus pen3 4/3rds is quicker, perhaps not upto the d700 when it comes to tracking very fast moving objects but stationary it is noticeably quicker. I think Olympus boast it has the worlds fastest af. Don't discount them they are giving slr a run for the money.