Not in the market for a DSLR, but rather something that can get near DSLR quality in a much smaller package. The obvious choices that I can't afford are the Leica M9 nor even the Fuji X100, LOL... >.< [video=youtube;YMok4yGluhE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMok4yGluhE[/video] [video=youtube;L-VoXxwGWYc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-VoXxwGWYc[/video] At any rate, can anyone recommend anything that can perform like the two above but for well less than a grand USD? (I'm leaning in the 500-700 range complete; ie box, warranty software, batteries, SD card).
hmmm surprised knotra or noasian hasnt posted yet....or even runtohell with his spesh offers....-whistle
I would get the Sony NEX-5 that is the cam i have its a cross between a DSLR and a Digital Cam its really good.....
Checking out the NEX5, seems very versatile in the number of older lenses that one can adapt to it: [video=youtube;hBox_wfAM08]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBox_wfAM08[/video] [video=youtube;Ev5K9BLUrlM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev5K9BLUrlM[/video] [video=youtube;orqSoZ4MHxk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orqSoZ4MHxk[/video] After watching all the videos, I'm a bit disappointed by the flash attachment that the NEX5 has. I'm also not so crazy about the softer focus. But overall though, I think it's a good camera worth consideration. The Panasonic Lumix GF2 is also a very good choice: [video=youtube;0kUfgCmUeyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUfgCmUeyo[/video] [video=youtube;cwSy2xuOBEU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwSy2xuOBEU&feature=related[/video] [video=youtube;J7q9nP0fKB4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7q9nP0fKB4[/video] Thought their touch screen may seem to need work (as in the first video) it may simply take getting used to (as in the second video). But their high ISO noise ratio may be a killer in low light. It seems that Panasonic also has a lot of lenses that can retrofit into their lens mount (which I assume is the same as the GF1). At any rate, both good choices and I thank forum respondents for suggesting them. I have a lot more to think about.
u also gotta consider apart from the body, which lens you're going to get to start with different lens = different $$ to spend... and if u want them all... >.<
Ha ha, Yeah, <sigh> I'm well versed about the equipment trap, as there's always going to just one more piece of something that's going to make your photography "great," LOL. I used to even have my own darkroom and shot 35 up to 4x5, and everything in between (35 and 2 1/4 panoramic, 2x3, 645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9). But after I got married and the kids came, that all got put away and it has been gathering dust ever since. My shooting style now is more H Cartier-Bresson than Ansel Adams, so discreet street snaps with wides (about 21mm 135 equivalent) sans flash at low ISO is what my aim is. I used to shoot Kodak Tech Pan (a high contrast line copy film) that I processed with a highly diluted compensation developer (Rodinal) to give great black and white tonal gradation with almost zero grain. In today's terms, they refer to it as High Dynamic Range with high resolution and low ISO noise.
im not a fan of hdr (yet?) just hasn't caught on to me... looks a little artificial and fake? (then again, it is putting together the best bits of each shot together...) ive been lazy lately, just taking fotos of food before i eat it not even properly hahahaha
When taken to excess, HDR does look rather outlandishly impossible, but this "excessive" treatment of a scene's dynamic light range has already been accepted as a new style of photography. So in artistic terms it is already a given. Previously however, in Black and White photography, according to the technical "Zone" system developed by Adams, et al, you can theoretically assign all of an image's inherent tones to an arbitrary 10 level (in practical use 11 actually, since it is inclusive of zero as a level, through to level 10) scale that the human eye can see simultaneously. The trick was to either expand or compress the scene's actual tonal range onto an artificial ten point scale. Over time, this meant that photographers had to come up with methods to expose their film for the shadows (to ensure that the dark areas retained viewable detail) but processed (ie chemically built up) their film just enough so that detail in the brightest highlights was not lost either. One has to realize that all of this was done in the darkroom through a knowledgeable balancing act of physics and chemistry; the amount of science involved was extraordinary. It's all rather easy now as everything is just rendered by a mouse click, LOL... [video=youtube;R9rbfPTipzc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9rbfPTipzc[/video]
ahhh b&w so simple, yet so complicated... so much meaning can be taken from a single shot i haven't done b&w shots for a while maybe soon to start considering LOL have a few on my fb from years ago, but so much effort to post it up here >.<
Tell me about it... I have thousands of images in each negative binder, and I must have at least six or seven of them, not to mention an entire 4 cabinet hanging file filled with transparencies (slides). To scan all of them would be a nightmare. -sleep The good thing about technology is that it totally eliminated the darkroom and more importantly, the time consuming process of loading film. I used to buy 100 to 250 foot rolls and home load. Buying empty cartridges and carrying 30 rolls of film was a reality of shooting. Now, the photo needs of what used to take up the whole of an entire camera bag can fit into my back pocket with a few SD cards and batteries, LOL... But, at any rate, I'm leaning towards the Panasonic Lumix GF2. I'm going to do more research first but these micro 4/3 cameras seem to be a good crossover withou DSLR bulk but retain some degree of sensor size quality.
More on the Panasonic Lumix GF2, this time versus the Olympus ePL2: [video=youtube;4mWnEd7qITQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mWnEd7qITQ[/video] What's really funny about this video reviewer is that, over the course of several video, I notice that he constantly mispronounces his R's as W's instead, so that THREE becomes THWEE...
I think as a DSLR User it is pretty difficult to tell which "Compact System Camera" is "good", since we are used to the Quality of the DSLRs. The best compact is maybe as good as the worst DSLR. My choice would be between the Olympus and the Panasonic. Both deliver similar quality.
I just bought one of these I also recently bought an Olympus EP-1, however I've found that the micro 4/3 form factor, small as it is, is still too large to be fully portable. I decided to get either a used Canon G11 or a P7000 and after some consideration, the Nikon won out. After my experience, I would suggest that a person should shy away from full size DSLR's unless they are a professional, and even if they are just an amateur photographer to reconsider buying a M4/3. When it comes down to it, portability is just too important a factor, and having something which can fit into a pants pocket is a huge selling point. That said.. my recommendations would be either the Canon G12, the Nikon P7000 or the Lumix LX-5
You know Fearless, I actually was thinking of the P7000 (Nikon) vs G12 (Canon) vs XZ1 (Olympus). But the obvious drawback was that I would have had to settle for a 1/1.7-ish sized sensor, and go without lens interchange ability. That said, I do like the fact that the P7000 has a 200MM 35 equivalent, but don't like it from all the reviews that I'd read regarding its speed from shot to shot. I love the manual controls offered by the XZ1, especially the almost intuitive control ring around the lens, making it feel so much like an older manual camera (which I spent years cutting my teeth on). The G12 frankly is almost a carbon copy of the P7000, so similar in fact, that it would just boil down to brand loyalty for me (I grew up with Nikons, all the way back from the old F series, LOL...) But arguably, I think you should revisit your views of the micro four thirds, as the new Panasonic GF2 isn't necessarily too large if you compare it to what you have (the Nikon P7000). If you held them side by side, you'll find the GF2 is actually smaller than the P7000. Hence if a definition of "fully portable" for you, would be sized as a Nikon P7000, then the GF2 shouldn't be at all a problem: Further, if one looked at some of the micro 4/3's out there now: ...one finds that they're all, IMHO, just about as small or even smaller than your P7000. Thus, IMHO (if cost isn't an issue) I would lean toward a 4/3 system simply because of their larger sensors and lens interchange ability. As it is, I have a tiny Canon SD1400is camera, which is great in terms of portability. Its "credit card" dimensions cannot be beat; however, the images taken from it aren't the best in terms of resolution. A comparison of the two: http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_PowerShot_SD1400_IS-vs-Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-GF2
Personally I think the Sony Nex5 is a winner. My friend has one and the pictures it takes are amazing, the lens it comes with is pretty good and it's very simple to use. There are also good reviews from cnet and lots of websites.
I just got the Lumix one and I must say, the battery life is very, very short .. I mean like 2-hour long and the funny thing is that battery runs low even when it's off so I have to charge it up each time before use and buy an extra battery for backup.
Thanks Reno, BBeS, MrCooperS, and Neg, I went to that comparison site, Snapsort, and it seems that the NEX 5 wins out over the GF2 by a whopping 88 to 56 score. Not that that really matters, as the Leica M9 AND the Fuji X100 also loses to the NEX 5. But, interestingly enough, on a video review (by the Brit sounding Chinese guy who pronounces his R's like Elmer Fudd), it was found to be a bit softer looking than the GF2, despite having the larger sensor (perhaps this was more an issue with the lens). The only bad thing that I can say would be a deal breaker is there is no flash feature (with a really stupid arrangement if you needed one), and that there are only 3 lenses made for it right now. In terms of winning features, it has greater true resolution, and very importantly, in camera HDR and stitch panorama. It also has 2 card slots, which can be used as back up or additional storage. The price difference between the 2 are narrow (about $50 USD). Despite the ratings and the obvious pluses though, I get the feeling I'm still leaning towards the FG2 because I like the idea of changing lenses (which would dictate having something to change to) and having a flash as back up. Battery life isn't that big a deal with me as I usually buy about 10 batteries for everything that I own. Hint: I never buy the original manufacturer, but third party only; they're generally the exact same battery from the exact same manufacturer but labeled with somebody else's name but for tenth of the cost. Just type the battery name in the search box on amazon. I already priced out the GF2's battery (DMW-BLD10) and found the normally $60 item for less than $10. In terms of useful life, I find that the majority of batteries, OEM or independents usually perform about the same, or else the differences are so minor that they certainly don't justify their market cost multiples. At any rate, thanks to everyone for continuing to input opinions into this thread. It's given be lots to think about. I'm going to mull it over a few more days and then make a decision. Please feel free to continue to give your valued thoughts into this process, and thanks again
