A little camera help

[Sulinde]

Hello.
I'm new to DPS, and also relatively new to advanced photography. My aging 4 megapixel Olympus Stylus was great when it came out and is still perfectly functional, but I want to take really nice photos in all sorts of situations. Namely, my interests that require a better camera than I have and that could easily become a hobby are macro photography of flowers and tiny critters and night-sky shots. Beyond that I will use the camera for everything: portraits, distance shots of our backyard wildlife, a few indoor shots but not many, sunsets, weird rocks, random glimpses of architecture, interesting people in a crowd, and so on. When I have my camera handy I shoot photos both for the sake of good photos and (in greater quantity though with similar enjoyment) in the whimsical spirit of capturing life and minutiae.

I am seriously considering a DSLR. My budget maxes out at $700 before accessories and as safely below that as it can be is preferable. At first I was looking at the Canon G9, the Cannon A650/A720/A590, the Sony A200 and the Canon S5. After a few in store tests and interviews as well as a lot of research I have developed the following list:

Olympus 420
Olympus 520
Sony A200
Panasonic Fz18

With the exception of the S5 (supplanted firmly by the Fz18 in all categories that matter to me), the others are still worth considering ... but I don't think I need the compact size and thus don't need to sacrifice the zoom and other features of the Fz18 or a DSLR.

The Fz18 is more portable, and thus I am much more likely to take it with me, but once I have a camera in my pocket or over my shoulder, size will neither make me uncomfortable or change how often I whip out the camera. I'm a high-schools student and cellist: I'm used to carrying lots of things.

Among these cameras, or along similar veins, are there any recommendations?

The short (and somehow more thorough) version: Night-sky and Macro are important, close-ups of animals sitting up to 50 ft. away would be nice, manual controls are a must, size is mostly a tie-breaking factor, price is not important as long as I can sit below $650 or $700 after the bare essentials, the more rugged the better, mostly for outdoor use, fiddling with technology and learning to use high-quality gear for good results (within my price range) is something I consider fun ... and let's see ... well, I think the gist is had.

Thanks,

Sulinde

[Junior_co]

I'm sorry that no one is getting to your question any quicker than they are...

I also wish that I had an idea of how to help you... But I am very new, and my selection choice was fairly simple...

For me I chose the Canon Rebel Xti (body only) and purchased a 50mm F1.8 to go with it. My selection was this because of two friends who own Canon DSLRs (so I could use their lenses untill I could afford more) and the price of the camera...

Future lens purchases will allow me to do what I want to be able to do, while current equipment is enough for me to learn what I want to be able to do...

I hope somebody else comes along to help you with your Q: since I am not able to address the cameras you have your eye on...

Good luck and don't let the slow response deture you from this forum that is normally so very, very quick and helpful...

Junior

[inkista]

Ok, here's my take on it. Forget Olympus. Look at Canon or Nikon. You mention subjects that require telephoto (and with tiny critters added, possibly telephoto with autofocus). See what Olympus has on offer telephoto-wise, then compare those lenses with what Nikon and Canon can offer. You'll be surprised. Because when it went to digital, Olympus ditched their old OM mount and started all over again with 4/3, you either have to use old OM lenses manually with an adapter, or you buy new 4/3 lenses.

And of the 3rd-party manufacturers, only Sigma offers anything (well, and Panasonic). Neither Tamron or Tokina make lenses for 4/3. In addition, the 4/3 sensor size is smaller than the APS-C sensors in Nikons or Canons, which typically means worse high-iso noise performance, so if your heart really is set on Olympus, do some pixel-peeping and be absolutely sure the quality is good enough that you won't be eating your heart out when a friend shows you what they're getting from a Canon/Nikon body.

Olympus is really only going to be useful if you HAVE to have a smaller camera and in-body stabilization. You mention size is merely a tie-breaker for you, and not a go-to feature; and no mention at all of stabilization.

When you buy a dSLR, you have to look at the lenses that go on the body as well as at the body itself. Your purchases have only begun when you get the camera body--that's your system base. Now, maybe Olympus, Sony, and Panasonic can offer you all the lenses you need. But their selections are distinctly smaller than what the Big Two have to offer.

And with Nikon and Canon, if you're willing to buy used or go back a generation or two, you can easily get a body for under $500.

Just my two cents' worth: look to the glass. A digital camera is like a piece of computer equipment--you'll be looking to upgrade within five years. Glass can last decades.

Here are the lens pages for each camera brand. I'd suggest looking up prices on Amazon, Adorama (http://www.adorama.com/), or B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/) and familiarizing yourself with just what the focal lengths (http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/focal-length.html) and maximum apertures (http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/maximum-aperture.html) mean.

Olympus (http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/lens/dea/products/lens/index.asp)
Sony (http://www.sony.net/Products/dslr/lenses.html)
Pentax (http://www.pentaxslr.com/lenses)
Nikon (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/index.page)
Canon (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111)

[jdepould]

For my money, I'd say used Nikon D50. You can pick one up for $300-400. Pick up an SD card, bag, 50 and cheapo 18-55 and you're looking at about $600-700. Macro is expensive. You can get a decent tele zoom for under $400, might want to wait awhile and let the bank account recover.

[ditch_azeroth]

i'm not sure if this guy already got a camera, but why not go for a nikon d60? the kit lens that comes with it is excellent for it's price range and you can do pretty much a lot with it - and you'll even have a few spare beans to get yourself a couple of cold ones (after buying yourself a decent bag and a 2 or 4GB SD).

[Chip]

I've had the Panasonic FZ-18 for a few months now, and overall, I'm quite happy with it.

The good: the 35mm equivalent of 28-504 is excellent. You can get close ups of animals fairly far away, and close ups of small animals (bees, lizards, etc) can be had, too; camera controls are very logical and easy to use; when the lighting is good to decent, the camera will not stand in your way of taking a good shot; nightime and low light shots are good, but a tripod helps very much; indoor shot of non-moving things like displays at a museum or posed people can be taken without a flash in many situations - the built in image stabilazation works pretty well.

The bad (or marginal might be a better way to say it): camera gets noisy if the ISO is over 400 (small sensor and increased megapixel count has a lot to do with this, I guess); camera isn't too rugged - made of plastic - I got dust in the sensor of my first one, but Crutchfield replaced it free of charge; dynamic range isn't that great - so, if you're shooting outdoors with part of the scene somewhat dark and part failry bright, the camera won't come too close to properly exposing the whole scene; focus on moving targets in low light isn't great, but that's not much of a surprise given the price point; and, even though you can zoom in on flowers and animals, you'll get more of a close up than a true macro.

All in all, I'm very happy with it, especially for the US $350 price. And I'm slowly figuring out how to work around some of the camera's shortcomings (maybe more of my shortcomings?) I've found - both with in camera settings and post production. Will it do all that you're looking for? No. But, it's a good place to start.

PS - The FZ18 is only non-point and shoot camera I've owned, so take all this for what it's worth.

[Sulinde]

Thank you all for the responses. I have managed to get back to a few stores for some more hands-on action, and am sold on the DSLR route. That said, I still have a lot of choices to make. I do not absolutely need the size of the E420, and was actually looking more at the E520/510 than the 420 ... but it sounds like for the price I would be better off with either a jump to the up XSi or over to the XTi or to the D60. To top it off, the cameras I would eventually upgrade to (of course, by time I do they will be obsolete, or their features will be dropped down to the body size and price of current entry-level SLRs) are looking like Canons and Nikons, which would make owning Olympus glass rather silly.

I suppose when it comes down to buying the camera as a system, and purchasing not only a potential future line of cameras but also a subscribing to a line of lenses, the D60 looks like the best shot for my price range. It comes with a stabilized lens, for one thing ... but I will take another look at the XTi too.

At this point, I don't think I would be unhappy with any one of these cameras, but I would rather spend more money now for glass that will last. It sounds like Nikon or Canon are the way to go in that department.

Thanks again,

Sulinde

[inkista]

Yeah, look at the XTi again. Ahem. Sorry. Canon shooter. :) And be aware that an new entry-level Canon is coming, the XS (1000D) (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon_1000d/) which will (hopefully) be around the same price point as the D60.

The only drawback of the D60 is that it will only autofocus with AF-S lenses, so again, look at the lens you want for that 50'-away-wildlife, and see if Nikon offers it with AF-S and if you can afford it. If not, then you may want to consider the D80, or a Canon body (all the Canon digital bodies autofocus with all EOS lenses).

[KodiakStar]

I hate how everyone is so anti-Olympus.

They are great cameras that take good pictures. Sure there may be fewer lenses out for them, but not everyone will be able to afford every cannon or nikon lens that is out there.

If you truly want to use those lenses, there are adapters for them as well.

[inkista]

I'm not anti-Olympus. I used to shoot with an Olympus OM-10 for two decades, and I'm about to put a Zuiko 50mm f/1.2 Auto-S (OM mount) on my XT. If an Olympus will do everything you want, they're great cameras with terrific glass. But if what you want is to shoot sports or wildlife, there are better choices out there. If what you want is high iso noise performance, there are better choices. And using OM lenses means that you're limited to shooting in M or Av modes only and manual focusing.

Which is exactly what you'd be doing putting an OM lens onto an EOS body with an adapter, in exactly the same way you would with a 4/3 body. (Ok, if you got the right chip on the adapter ring, you'd have in-body stabilization as an advantage on a Oly body). But on an EOS body, I've got a larger sensor, better noise performance, the chance of eventually using it on a full-frame body, and still being able to use every Canon autofocus lens that I can afford.

Let's take the simple case of wanting to shoot a high school basketball game in the gym. For that, you need a fast lens with autofocus. The fastest affordable current lens Olympus offers is the 50mm f/2 macro. For $371.00 (the 150 f2 is $2k). Yes, you can get faster OM lenses, but that requires doing the antique mall/eBay/used thing and worrying about condition and returns. And you have no autofocus. Basketball moves quickly. Yes, you can manually focus, but you're not going to get the same number of keepers you would with autofocus. On the Canon and Nikon sides you can still get a 50mm f/1.8 prime for $100 or less. And if you shift your budget to $350, you can get 50mm f/1.4 primes or 85mm f/1.8 primes--neither of which you can find as new autofocusing Zuikos for 4/3.

As far as I can tell, the one thing that an Olympus really shines at is being able to mount nearly any make of manual lens with an adapter. So if you're a lens collector or an oldtimer who collects cameras and lenses, it's the must-have body. But for a newbie out of the gate who's used to newfangled luxuries like shutter-priority mode and autofocus, this isn't going to be an area of fascination.

Hopefully, this will change when Olympus gets more lenses out there for 4/3. But the fact that they scrapped the OM mount means they don't have the 20 year advantage of Canon's EOS, Pentax' s 30-year advantage of the K-mount or Nikon's 40-year advantage of the F-mount to build on.

[LilKaylah]

I am not anti-Olympus either but I have to admit that I would prefer a Nikon as well (I don't want to bore you with all the reasons) :p

In general I found this little article on digital cameras (http://alum.hampshire.edu/~iwf06/digital-cameras.html) which I think summarizes some main points to consider when buying a digital camera - of course it is much more focused on beginners than professionals, but I think also newbies should get some information on here.

While I am on that beginner vs. professional topic: I thought that maybe some pros would be interested in adding to the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_camera)site about digital cameras as it seems to me that some work still needs to be done on there..