I've decided it's time to upgrade from my current Olympus DSLR which is now getting on a bit and showing its age. I don't want to spend more than about 1800 quid tops for the body on its own. And it *must* have an established track record for reliablility and an enthusiastic following so *no* brand new stuff, please. Some bloke on Youtube suggested a short-ilst of the following Nikons: D3, D3s, D4, D4s, D500, D700 and D850. So I'm hoping someone can narrow that lot down for me *or* suggest an equivalent model from another of the big manufacturers (Olympus, Canon, Sony, Fugifilm etc)
I have a Nikon D90 and and 18-200 f5.6 lens, and it's a good reliable camera, with the following provisos:
- although it is advertised as being able to film videos, the quality is poor: I think the compression ratio is too high so there are compression artefacts and a general fuzziness to the image; my phone and my SJCAM 5000 can produce better videos, albeit with a fixed wide-angle lens; the resolution is also a lot less than the native resolution of the sensor: I think it's 1280x720 compared with 4288x2848 for still.
- the auto white-balance tends to give rather low-saturation (low colour) images outdoors on a dull day (although it works fine indoors or in brighter sun); I find it better to set the camera to an appropriate fixed white balance
It has the ability to use the rear screen as a viewfinder, as an alternative to TTL viewfinder, which is useful when you can't get your eye near the viewfinder (eg taking photos from a very high or low vantage point). The rear screen can also be set to display camera stats (shutter speed, aperture, "film" speed, white balance etc) - again useful if you can't see the viewfinder (or can't read the damn numbers without reading glasses - the curse of being older...).
Focussing with a long lens is accurate and fast. Auto-exposure on weighted average seems to get it right most of the time, though the beauty of a digital is that you can take test shots beforehand and make manual adjustments if necessary.
I tend to set digital cameras to a default of -0.3 stops because it's better to underexpose and have to bring a bit of detail out of shadows than have the highlights maxed-out so there's no detail to recover.
It takes full-size (ie not micro) SD cards.
My wife has an old Nikon D300 which is just as good. Its rear screen is starting to go a bit milky, but otherwise it's still damn good for being over 10 years old. I keep meaning to do some comparative shots with my D90 and her D300 of the same subjects with the same lens and aperture, to see how the image sharpness, colour and noise compare at various ASA speeds. That's another thing about the D90: even at 3200 ASA, the noise ("grain", in film terms) is impressively low - yes there's more noise at 3200 than at
200, but at 3200 it's not as bad as my compact camera on its lowest ASA.
The Nikon 18-200 is a pretty good lens with no obvious and offensive geometric distortion (pincushion or barrel) anywhere in the zoom range - a damn sight better than the 28-70 and 70-210 Sigma lenses I bought for my old Canon film SLR many years ago: not the best purchases I ever made :-( At least with software such as PTLens, you can correct for geometric distortion as long as your lens is one of those that the software knows about. Like many lenses with a "trombone" zoom control (as opposed to a twist ring), it does tend to lengthen to maximum zoom if the camera is carried with the front of the lens facing downwards, but there is a catch which can lock the lens in the 18 mm setting - just remember to release it before trying to zoom!
It's a heavy bugger - heavier than the Canon film SLR - but that means it's less likely to shake at lower shutter speeds / longer zooms. I have it on a shoulder strap which carries it against my hip (length carefully adjusted to minimise it bouncing with each step which makes you walk like a saddle-sore cowboy!) and yet capable of being slid up the strap into shooting position at a second's notice.
A couple of points from your thorough and very well-considered post (for which many thanks). Firstly, video is not really an issue. I've got something a bit special which I reserve for that so it's already sorted. Secondly, the lens is every bit as important in so many ways so your observations in that area are noted!
Have you got any particular needs? Does it have to be a DSLR, or will a mirrorless do?
If it's just for photo's, then an Olympus body, if video too, perhaps a Panasonic. They are both Micro 4/3 sensors which are very good.
I have a Nikon D5300, APS sensor, and very good it is too. But I also have an old Panasonic GX1 which is a great camera picture-wise. Neither of those get used as much as my compact point & shoot. Convenience is key, and even though it has a tiny sensor, it is still incredibly good.
If I were to buy a new (or nearly new) camera now, I would probably go for an Olympus M4/3. The cameras are small and light, and the picture quality is superb.
If I had unlimited money, I would have myself a Panasonic Lumix S5, a full frame sensor.
If you have special demands, then the choice may be different.
But honestly, you can't go wrong with any of the major manufacturers, digital cameras are bordering on magic with how capable they are.
I have a Nikon D200 which is today worth less than £100 - it was over a thousand new - and the bog standard 18-55mm and 55-200 zooms. Complex beast to master (around 200 autofocus modes) and full of features that you probably do not need. If my eyesight was better I'd use manual focus...but I can still strap my old manual lenses on it if I care to. Handy as I have a 14mm prime wideangle (not fisheye) and a 400mm prime telephoto with Nikon AIS mounts
If starting from scratch I might go Canon these days.
The lesson here is that unlike the old mechanical cameras - my FE2s are today with what I paid for them 30 years ago - digital SLRs depreciate rapidly. You can pick up last years model at 70% discount second hand.
I have a Nikon J1 - since replaced by later models, the J2 etc - which are system cameras. There have interchangeable lenses, a screen view finder on the back, the usual SLR functions (perhaps a bit slimmed down), but no ‘one eye’ view finder. This makes them very compact. The J1 body isn’t much larger than a compact 35 mm camera like an old Olympus Trip. It comes with a 50mm lenses. I have a telephoto lenses also. There are other lenses.
I’m not an expert by any means. I just wanted a decent camera which wasn’t too bulky. The J1 has done the job.
Doesn't the usage also narrow down your choice? For instance a raw output rather than just jpeg to allow further large poster type photos from a cropped camera image output. Perhaps a sensor with larger array elements, fewer pixels, to to give a better noise performance for low light applications etc.
If you switch allegiance to another maker then all of your existing lenses become redundant or at best dumb as rocks.
My set of lenses ranges from 8mm f4 to 1600mm f6.3 so I am not keen to move away from Pentax. Even though their body range is now very limited.
Right now there are non-DSLRs with remarkably good wide range zooms that can rival DSLR performance since the system is no longer constrained by the old rules of film cameras. Don't discount them out of hand.
They have to make RGB images that are pin sharp at the focal plane but they no longer all have to be all at exactly the same magnification. Digital post processing makes the final full colour result.
I think that is what he is asking - what sort of cameras are out there that he can match to his usage.
In many ways whilst the very technical features on my D200 would have suited me in younger days, these days a more 'point and click' approach and leave the rest to post processing seems to be what I do.
So maybe a D90 etc. Another great camera you can pick up second hand for £100
Indeed, although some might not have the option to save as RAW files, automatically saving as jpg - or perhaps tiff - only. One other thing to consider is whether there is a viewfinder or not; trying to see what you're hoping to photograph with a rear screen only can be very difficult in bright sunlight. The zoom lenses are extraordinary; on my
5-years old Powershot it's optically 24 - 500 (35mm equivalent), and can focus down to 1 cm for macro use. I've no idea what they can do now.
And, as you get older, your eyes aren't as good as when you started photography several decades ago!
But how long do the batteries last when driving that screen? My DSLR can take 100s of photos, over a 2 week holiday, without having to pack a spare battery or a charger.
I still use my Caplio GX8 (2007) which has a 25-80 optical zoom that also zooms the optical viewfinder. It can take raw images which Irfan converts into a .tiff that Lightroom can handle.
Problem with these Powershots and similar is they all use tiny sensors. And trying to do a 20x zoom means poor image quality at both ends of the range. I wouldn't want anything with less than an APS-C sized sensor. And big zooms on those or full-frame cameras are *heavy*. I'm not interested in a camera body wieghing a kilo and a zoom weighing another kilo or more. Which is what all those photo-journos do, although it has to be said that the images they produce are often amazing.
So I'll stick with my Pentax K-S1 which has a proper viewfinder and no option to use the rear screen as one (this is a plus), no foldout rear screen (another plus) and under 600gm with lens and battery.
Do you have any specific musts or what do you take photos of.
As I'm thinking, is a high or fast FPS rate needed. Do you needfull frame.
Sometimes a second hand higher end camera migh be a wise move. It all depends on your photography, most cameras are pretty good at the level you're looking at. I'm happy with my mirrorless EOS M6 mkII which is 1/2 your budget. I've even used the 4k movie mode at 60 FPS rather than a fast still mode. It's small and light and with the lens off can be put in a pocket, with the lens in another pocket. I got the electronic viewfinder too which is one thing I didn't like about mirrorless or rather just using the LCD for framing. I've never really liked nikon menus they don't; seem as intuative as canons. Just like I prefer Mac OS over windows . Fujifilm are good value (not cheap) and rival canon and nikon, but if you already have Nikon lenses maybe stick with a nikon. You could try asking on rec.photo.digital , although I doubt everyone will agree.
I've never really liked pentax, sony or panasonic. But maybe that's just a personal thing.
but if I were looking for one in that price range I'd go for the canon EOS 90D or the canon EOS 6D mkII I'd spend quite a few hours staring at the tech specs and trying to decide which is more important to me.
It's not what you asked, i'm sort of asking a question myself,
I've a DSLR I never use, but we've a Nikon P900 and i've no idea why anyone would need anything else, i'd need a wheelbarrow full of lenses to replicate it with a DSLR, i'm sure that i'm missing out on the better results that they deliver in certain circumstances, could someone point out what those are?
In fact I took a pic of India Mill chimney
formatting link
I was walking to work one sunny day, printed it on canvas, mounted it, hung it on the wall at work and a customer bought it from me! This pic was taken with my Huawei P20 phone.
I was prompted by this thread to look again at Nikon prices and features
- and the one Id go for today would be a second hand D3200 or D3300 or a new D3500.
They have a 24mega pixel CCD, decent shutter and film speed ranges and not too many confusing knobs on. And are relatively cheap at under £300 S/H in vgc.
Once you run to the limits of that - well the D90 is damned good.
I wouldn't recommend something as old as a D90 - it'll be getting to the point where the shutter mechanism will fail, and it'll cost more to repair than it's worth. (I had the shutter fail on a D100 a few years ago. Got a D810 now, so in theory that's bullet proof.)
That's what we have, as I say, done nothing with it, I really wish I had the time and inclination to have a play, I am interested in being interested in photography if that makes sense.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.