Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 25, 2009, 12:12 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

There are now several cameras such as the Nikon D-5000 and Nikon D-90 and some Canon DSLR cameras that can also record video clips, but they are measurably higher in their selling price.

It might be cheaper to purchase an inexpensive camcorder and then go with the Pentax K-2000 or Nikon D-40 camera.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2009, 7:44 AM   #12
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,397
Default

Something else to consider with a dSLR and video is how well they auto focus while shooting. IMHO the best compromise camera in the market is the Panasonic GH1 which has great video and really good stills but this really is not a cheap option.

I have a Canon SX1, Canon 500D and Canon 5D mkII all of which do video and stills. The SX1 is simple to use and gives good results in both still and video. As with a lot of superzoom cameras the image quality in anything apart from good lighting is not as good as a dSLR, also you don't have anything like the same amount of creative control with a superzoom than a dSLR.

If you really want to learn photography outside of composition/lighting/exposure then you need to go dSLR so you can get creative.

When I travel the SX1 goes with me but I do miss the quality of a dSLR. If you went with a dSLR now then you can use the lenses in the future when you upg the camera.

I forgot that I didn't further my point on focus in video with a dSLR currently, basically it isn't there, well it is but not worth using for most things. Shooting video with a dSLR is much more like the pro video shooting process where MF is used a lot so different techniques are needed.

So basically there is no easy choice currently as everything is a compromise. I would think that in the next 1 or 2 generations of dSLR there will be a better AF for video but technology needs to change from the current AF modes in a dSLR.

I probably didn't help but wanted to let you see the full spectrum of limitations at all levels.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2009, 8:19 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Mount Shasta, California
Posts: 1,525
Default

Absent from this discussion is that buying a DSLR does not get you a superzoom. Adding a superzoom lens does, but that approximately doubles the price of the DSLR, in the case of the K2000. I got the K2000 for $400 that mated with my Tamron 18-250, at $450, brings the total DSLR "superzoom" to $850.
pboerger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 13, 2009, 10:34 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

I started out with this same dilema several years ago when I decided to get back into photography. The only difference was that I was not concerned about video. I purchased a superzoom camera and tried hard to convince myself that it was adequate for my needs. It simply didn't cut it. It was OK in ideal lighting conditions, but in low light it was just awful. The image sensors in superzooms are just too small to compete with the larger format sensors in DSLRs. I ended up returning it and buying a DSLR. I added a lens that gave me the superzoom range quite inexpensively buy shopping around. Of course I have since added many lenses, but that was by choice. I also discovered after my purchase that I still needed something more convenient fior those times where it does not make sense to lug around a DSLR or even a superzoom. I ended up adding a pocket camera to my arsenal. It takes video but truthfully nothing beats a camcorder for that purpose, which I have.
Recently, I started thinking that I might want to add a superzoom to my collection so as to have something to in between convenience and quality photography. I guess my point is there is no one size fits all solution out there and the best way to go is to look at your immediate needs and try to go with the best fit within your budget. Later on, you can build your arsenal based on your future needs.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 16, 2009, 11:24 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 3,076
Default

This past April I bought a pentax KM which is the same camera as a Pentax K2000. It's true it doesn't do video, but I'm very happy with it's picture taking quality. I generally use the kit 18-55 lens it came with, but I also use my other Pentax lenses, which include my 55-30, 16-45, 50mm F1.4...along with other older Pentax lenses.

It's lightweight, small and I find it easy to carry around as an everyday camera. I looked at the Canon G10, which is a fine camera, but when I checked the photo quality between the G10 and the KM, IMO...the entry DSLR bested the G10. I believe any DSLR entry...Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. would do the same as the entry DSLR's may not have the MP's as the G10, but they have a bigger sensor which makes the difference.

My vote is the KM / K2000, based on my experience. and maybe get a video cam as others have suggested.

The entry DSLR, whichever make, will as others say open you up to a wider world of photographer than a non dslr.
lesmore49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2009, 10:42 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
anthony_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 211
Default

I'm in the same boat/dilema as you are ramagutierrez. I like the price of the Pentax k2000, but I also don't like the fact that it doesn't have HD capabilities. I'm always running around with three kids at parks, beaches, birthday parties (don't want to carry seperate camera and camcorder, which is collecting dust now) and was looking for a dslr w/hd as well but it would've got me in to the $850 range with the Nikon d5000. So now I'm thinking about waiting for the Panasonic fz35 or the Sony H20
anthony_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 17, 2009, 11:41 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

anthony_b-

I am in a somewhat different situation. I don't like the size kit I have to carry with a DSLR camera, even the Pentax Km or K-2000 camera. So I have also been looking at the Sony H-20 and other superzooms.

I was on www.amazon.com this morning and I found that the price of the Canon SX-10 has been dropped to $306.34 on amazon. That is a substantial price reduction that places it about $60 more than the H-20. The SX-10 has been selling lately for around $350.00 on the internet.

So I am seriously considering the SX10 now as well.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2009, 7:47 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
anthony_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 211
Default

Nnow I'm torn between the yet released in the US Panasonic FZ35 and the Pentax k2000 / KM...Basically the same price one is a P/S and the other is DSLR. They same more or less the same size so that would not be in an issue for me. What would tilt the scale would be if I can get rid of my camcorder and rely on the HD video capabilities of the Panasonic.
anthony_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 19, 2009, 8:16 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default Size Comparision Pentax KM vs Panasonic FZ-28

anthony_b-

The Panasonic FZ-35 will have HD video clips which would be a bonus. As to your size comparison I believe (based on the size of the FZ-28) that the FZ-35 will be physically smaller than the Pentax KM/K-2000 camera.

The Pentax KM of course would give you a much larger imager and more high ISO capability I have used the KM at ISO 1600 and retained image quality. However, the KM does not have HD video.

I have used the Panasonic FZ-28 at ISO 800 with no problems and retained image quality. I have attached a photo of the FZ-28 along side the KM for your reference. Personally, I am at a point in my life where I want a smaller camera when I travel (like the FZ-28) rather than a DSLR, several lenses and an external flash.

Sarah Joyce
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 20, 2009, 7:38 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
anthony_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 211
Default

Sarah, would you say the Pentax and the Panasonic would give you similar IQ at ISO's up to 800 ?
anthony_b is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:19 PM.