Need your help guys. Been looking at getting a camera for a while and really not sure what im going to go for. I have been looking at the SONY NEX range or a D5100. Never really had any other cameras other than a point and shoot digital one when I was younger but it had a viewfinder aswell as a screen. It was retro! And im not sure if ill miss the view finder if i go mirrorless. Just want a camera to take photos of brothers rugby, probably of the cats and dogs, holidays. General stuff like that. Will be my camera for a while so want to make sure I pick right. Any advice guys?
If it's just a bit of general snapping, the NEX series is excellent imo. If it's likely to become a hobby where you want to get a bit more creative with your snaps then an SLR is the way to go I think. I'm sure our fellow camera lurkers will help, but my experience with a NEX-5 is that it's a very good piece of kit. But, at the same time, I wonder if a more traditional compact would be better for you? The tech in the newer, more expensive models is mind-boggling these days.
What makes DSLR differ from mirrorless is the viewfinder and its collection of accessories. eg Canon EOS system dates back to 1987, and all lenses from then to now works perfectly with all camera bodies. Mirrorless have adaptors to allow you to use any lens from any manufacturer, at expense of having to manual focus. But DSLRs do excel in auto focusing, if a dog is running towards you at full speed when the sun is setting, the DSLR can get the shot whereas the mirrorless or any sensor based contrast detect AF system will struggle. But if you are not likely to find yourself in that situation, then might as well buy a mirrorless to save your shoulders and future back pains. Sony NEX series and Fuji X-pro1 are both APS-C sized sensor, same as entry level Nikon/Canon. There are also Micro 4/3 sized sensor which is lead by Olympus. Larger sensor offers better image quality but require you to carry a larger lens. Smaller sensors can't do high ISO as well, but overall camera+lens package can be much smaller. However, having said those, if taking snapshots is all you'd want, not photography. Then why not a premium compact like Sony RX-100? Its image quality comparable to many mirrorless cameras, but the camera is small enough to fit in a big pocket.
Thanks for the advice guys I quite like the idea of taking photos of brother while he is playing rugby. I play myself and go to watch him when I can. So will a compact provide the level of precision needed for longer shots? Especially while the target is moving pretty quickly. Would assume it will be similar to the dog situation.
In that case, your options would be DSLR for their phase detect system that can do tracking AF or Olympus mirrorless that is said to have fastest AF for a mirrorless camera. Not sure how well the latter will cope with moving subjects, but they certainly focus very fast. on DSLR, the phase detect systems knows which way to go for a focused shot. Contrast detect on mirrorless/compact does not know, it can only guess the direction and hunt for highest contrast. That is why DSLR still exists, they are needed in sports photography. D5100 has the same AF system as D3100 which I've had, it's not brilliant, and tracking is slightly hit and miss. You should consider D7000 or D5200 for a better AF system. Unfortunately all Canon entry levels have similar relatively poor AF system. (which I've also got in my 5D2)
Cheers for the thoughts will update you with what i actually buy. Will be buying before i head to Jamaica on holiday with the mrs! Cant wait to get snap happy!
While I can no longer claim to have up-to-date gear (Lumix GH1) it has certainly been my experience, sadly, that mirrorless do struggle with autofocus speeds so I've missed out on loads of shots I'd love to have of my dog. Sports are potentially a bit easier to manage, if you're happy to set your focal length manually and wait for the subject to enter that zone. If I had more disposable income for camera stuff I would get another camera with better autofocus speed, because action shots are the most entertaining to me. If you are seriously considering m4/3s then bear in mind (if you didn't already know) that Olympus and Panasonic came to market first, so have a larger range of lenses AND that the Oly and Pana lenses will fit Oly and Pana cameras - i.e. they're interchangeable across manufacturer. As such if I were to splash out now I'd go for the Olympus EM5 (providing the autofocus is fast enough) because it's the best still-image (not video) m4/3s camera currently available (so says the general consensus anyway) and I'll be able to use my Panasonic lenses on it.
Cheers for the thoughts, I'm swaying towards the DSLR. But very interesting to know those lenses are interchangeable over manufacturers. Will need to have a think. From what I read online people have suggested spending more money on your lenses and less on the body. Would you guys agree with that? The D7000 seems like a more semi pro body? Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
For rugby, D7000 is a no brainer. All the entry level stuff is too slow and with the D7100 just released, prices are rock bottom. Get the excellent 70-300mm zoom for that kind of thing as the AF is fast and it's very good quality for the price. Then either an 18-55 kit, or if you have the money, a decent prime will be far better for your photography. But the 70-300 is a must for what you want. The entry level stuff from both Canon and Nikon is shash for sports. Also consider the Pentax K5 if you can still find it at a good price. Fully weather sealed - almost as good AF as the D7000 and the same sensor. Feels more solid in the hand IMHO. But the lenses will be more expensive (although eBay is your friend here).
Cheers. Looks like ill just need to suck it up and save for it. Will probably be getting it next month or the one after as im away on holiday in June so would quite like it for then. Is that the 70 - 300 you are refering to ? LINK
