Ryan (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} ryanbrenizer) wrote,@ 2006-12-14 11:45:00 |
|
How to buy a digital camera #4: Entry-level dSLRs
I know, I know: the term "entry-level dSLR" is more than a bit oxymoronic -- even the most basic models have more wheels, buttons, manual controls and ways to get confused than any point-and-shoot, and there's a fairly steep learning curve to go from getting decent results to good results (great results are another matter entirely). But all dSLRs are not the same, and certainly not the same price. So I'm going to focus on good kits that can be thrown together for about $1500 or less.
This market, unlike the others I've written about, isn't completely gutted (yet.) There are few enough models out there that I've at least held and shot with almost all of them. I'm not going to pretend this counts as thorough testing, but it helps. Because of my familiarity and because there are fewer models, I will get more model-specific today than I have been. But still, let's lead with some general issues.
Should I get a dSLR?
The first, and most important sign, is if your jaw hit the table when I described $1500 as a cheap price for a decent kit. Yes, dSLRs are nice, but a lot of things that are expensive are nice. If you're not seriously committed to photography … or seriously rich … it's probably better to get a nice point-and-shoot to take with you on a trip around Europe you bought with the savings. Consider that I don't own any truly exotic equipment because my type of photography doesn't require it, but my gear still approaches five figures. If you're doing this on an amateur basis, it can be a great money sink, and you may need to consider whether you want to take the best possible pictures of your newborn son or be able to put him through college. Or, to put it in perspective, you could just get a car that's slightly less nice than the one you wanted. Let's say you've got the dough. Why spend it here?
Fast action: If you want to spend a lot of time photographing sports (especially indoor sports), pets running around, etc. a dSLR will make your life much easier. They focus quickly, have virtually no shutter delay, good frame rates (generally 3 per second in this market), and you can put them to higher ISO sensitivities to stop action. You will need to invest in more than the basic kit lenses to really get the most out of this, though.
Depth-of-field control: Try this with a point-and-shoot:
Two of the biggest factors affecting depth-of-field control are lenses with wide apertures (that let in a lot of light) and the size of the sensor. With just two exceptions so far, fixed-lens digitals have much smaller sensors, which leaves you with the "everything in focus" look as your only option. And it doesn't have to break the bank -- the camera + lens combo that took this can be picked up on the used market for about $550.
You want to look like a bad-ass photographer: Admit it. I'm being facetious, but simply carrying a dSLR has gotten me into places from people assuming I'm press, so not entirely facetious.
-----
It's the lenses.
More than anything else, this is the most important reason. fixed-lens cameras CAN be made with big sensors -- just most aren't. They CAN be made to have no shutter delay -- but most do. But dSLRs have interchangeable lenses, and that's like getting a new camera every time you switch one out. It's the whole point: as I said before, if you aren't going to switch lenses, get another type of camera. The basic kit lenses are (generally) mediocre, but not truly awful -- very few lenses in the days of computer design are as bad as some of the older stinkers. But there are some great options for good prices -- you can put on a cheap prime (non-zooming) lens like the 50mm f/1.8 ($80-$100, everyone makes 'em) and get extremely sharp photos even in very low light with nice depth-of-field control. You lose the versatlity of a zoom, though, so I recommend every new dSLR buyer start with one or two zooms and the "nifty fifty."
If the lenses are so important, should you just buy whatever camera has the best lens system? Maybe, and that's certainly what Nikon and Canon -- who have the biggest lens systems -- want you to think, but most of you will never buy the truly exotic lenses, so who cares about them? In the arena of basic lenses, some makers are better than others (which I will get to later), but all makers have some pretty good options, especially when you include third-party lenses like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.
This again? Yeah, 2006 was a big year for VR across a number of lines, especially in this market. Traditionally, dSLRs get their anti-shake from expensive lenses. Sony, building on Minolta's use, put out a camera that moves the sensor itself to compensate for camera-shake and Pentax, for whom 2006 was a very good year, put out two models with this feature.
Now, in-body VR isn't as good as lens-based VR at telephoto ranges where it really matters, so a lot of Nikon and Canon users dismiss it. This is just sour grapes. In-body VR is a great option, and if you don't want it, you can always turn it off. Whether it's enough of a boon to guide your purchasing hand is up to you -- me, I have the VR lenses I need and freakishly steady hands, so I'm not jumping at it. But I certainly wouldn't mind the option.
Does your hand love it?
If you buy a dSLR, you're probably going to use it a lot. It has to feel good in your hands. You should feel comfortable with the layout, being able to quickly learn how to change settings without tearing yourself away from the scene you're photographing. And you probably want it to be rugged, because you spent money on the thing and don't want it breaking. Now, this is partially an aesthetic thing -- people have different sized hands, are comfortable with different weights, etc. My D200 feels perfect to me, but I can also palm a basketball.
There happens to be a clear best-in-class model in this category -- the Pentax K10D. It's the only camera in this section with weather-sealing, giving it a major advantage for rugged field work. It's also really comfortable to hold. In contrast, I find the Canon XTI not just small, but small and uncomfortable, and the Sony A100 feels like it's going to break apart in my hands. Again, it's an aesthetic thing.
Let's pause here before we talk specific systems, though.
I know, I know: the term "entry-level dSLR" is more than a bit oxymoronic -- even the most basic models have more wheels, buttons, manual controls and ways to get confused than any point-and-shoot, and there's a fairly steep learning curve to go from getting decent results to good results (great results are another matter entirely). But all dSLRs are not the same, and certainly not the same price. So I'm going to focus on good kits that can be thrown together for about $1500 or less.
This market, unlike the others I've written about, isn't completely gutted (yet.) There are few enough models out there that I've at least held and shot with almost all of them. I'm not going to pretend this counts as thorough testing, but it helps. Because of my familiarity and because there are fewer models, I will get more model-specific today than I have been. But still, let's lead with some general issues.
Should I get a dSLR?
The first, and most important sign, is if your jaw hit the table when I described $1500 as a cheap price for a decent kit. Yes, dSLRs are nice, but a lot of things that are expensive are nice. If you're not seriously committed to photography … or seriously rich … it's probably better to get a nice point-and-shoot to take with you on a trip around Europe you bought with the savings. Consider that I don't own any truly exotic equipment because my type of photography doesn't require it, but my gear still approaches five figures. If you're doing this on an amateur basis, it can be a great money sink, and you may need to consider whether you want to take the best possible pictures of your newborn son or be able to put him through college. Or, to put it in perspective, you could just get a car that's slightly less nice than the one you wanted. Let's say you've got the dough. Why spend it here?
Fast action: If you want to spend a lot of time photographing sports (especially indoor sports), pets running around, etc. a dSLR will make your life much easier. They focus quickly, have virtually no shutter delay, good frame rates (generally 3 per second in this market), and you can put them to higher ISO sensitivities to stop action. You will need to invest in more than the basic kit lenses to really get the most out of this, though.
Depth-of-field control: Try this with a point-and-shoot:
Two of the biggest factors affecting depth-of-field control are lenses with wide apertures (that let in a lot of light) and the size of the sensor. With just two exceptions so far, fixed-lens digitals have much smaller sensors, which leaves you with the "everything in focus" look as your only option. And it doesn't have to break the bank -- the camera + lens combo that took this can be picked up on the used market for about $550.
You want to look like a bad-ass photographer: Admit it. I'm being facetious, but simply carrying a dSLR has gotten me into places from people assuming I'm press, so not entirely facetious.
It's the lenses.
More than anything else, this is the most important reason. fixed-lens cameras CAN be made with big sensors -- just most aren't. They CAN be made to have no shutter delay -- but most do. But dSLRs have interchangeable lenses, and that's like getting a new camera every time you switch one out. It's the whole point: as I said before, if you aren't going to switch lenses, get another type of camera. The basic kit lenses are (generally) mediocre, but not truly awful -- very few lenses in the days of computer design are as bad as some of the older stinkers. But there are some great options for good prices -- you can put on a cheap prime (non-zooming) lens like the 50mm f/1.8 ($80-$100, everyone makes 'em) and get extremely sharp photos even in very low light with nice depth-of-field control. You lose the versatlity of a zoom, though, so I recommend every new dSLR buyer start with one or two zooms and the "nifty fifty."
If the lenses are so important, should you just buy whatever camera has the best lens system? Maybe, and that's certainly what Nikon and Canon -- who have the biggest lens systems -- want you to think, but most of you will never buy the truly exotic lenses, so who cares about them? In the arena of basic lenses, some makers are better than others (which I will get to later), but all makers have some pretty good options, especially when you include third-party lenses like Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.
In-Body VR
This again? Yeah, 2006 was a big year for VR across a number of lines, especially in this market. Traditionally, dSLRs get their anti-shake from expensive lenses. Sony, building on Minolta's use, put out a camera that moves the sensor itself to compensate for camera-shake and Pentax, for whom 2006 was a very good year, put out two models with this feature.
Now, in-body VR isn't as good as lens-based VR at telephoto ranges where it really matters, so a lot of Nikon and Canon users dismiss it. This is just sour grapes. In-body VR is a great option, and if you don't want it, you can always turn it off. Whether it's enough of a boon to guide your purchasing hand is up to you -- me, I have the VR lenses I need and freakishly steady hands, so I'm not jumping at it. But I certainly wouldn't mind the option.
Does your hand love it?
If you buy a dSLR, you're probably going to use it a lot. It has to feel good in your hands. You should feel comfortable with the layout, being able to quickly learn how to change settings without tearing yourself away from the scene you're photographing. And you probably want it to be rugged, because you spent money on the thing and don't want it breaking. Now, this is partially an aesthetic thing -- people have different sized hands, are comfortable with different weights, etc. My D200 feels perfect to me, but I can also palm a basketball.
There happens to be a clear best-in-class model in this category -- the Pentax K10D. It's the only camera in this section with weather-sealing, giving it a major advantage for rugged field work. It's also really comfortable to hold. In contrast, I find the Canon XTI not just small, but small and uncomfortable, and the Sony A100 feels like it's going to break apart in my hands. Again, it's an aesthetic thing.
Let's pause here before we talk specific systems, though.
