Photography is my hobby, I must admit that am an amateur, but surely it fascinates me very much.
I started photography (in 2007) with Sony Cyber-shot DSC-S650; frequently borrowed Sony DSC-H9 & Sony DSC-H50 from my friends to fulfill my desires.
After few years of borrowing from here and there I wanted to buy a better camera (mean time I already lost my Sony) and I seek my friend's suggestion to help me choose. This friend of mine is a real artist, he is an Architect by profession and a genius in sketching and photography (one can see his work here: Deba's Flickr); he suggested me to go for a D-SLR.
Being an amateur I did not took his suggestion seriously and kept on looking for a super-zoom digital camera. After lot of bla bla n quack quack finally I managed to convince myself for a D-SLR and bought my Nikon D5100 (in July 2011).
I started sharing my Nikon experience (obviously to attract reviews to improve myself) here: My Flickr & My 500px
Everyone come across the question while buying any item - which brand and which model? Camera (be it slr or point-n-shoot) is not an exception. In case of point-n-shoot cameras, the answer is not so difficult to find, but in case of a slr camera - these puzzles are bit tricky. Let's try to solve one by one.
Why D-SLR and not a Point & Shoot?
This is obviously the first question for all photo enthusiasts. A point & shoot (now on I'll address it as PS) gives limited control over a D-SLR. What are these controls and how are they important for an image quality? These controls (basic) name aperture, shutter speed and ISO (sensitivity). The combination of the aperture and shutter speed is often termed as exposure.
These three items basically decides how a picture will look like. A PS camera does not have much controls over these - there the photographer is bit paralyzed, the camera mainly decides how a image will look like and not the photographer. One can argue that, in PS camera you can control the white balance, focus method, flash, etc.; then how come the photographer is not in control? Honestly speaking, white balance is not at all important (!) and like the others. The basics of an image are exposure and ISO. In a PS camera there is very little that a photographer can do to control the desired exposure level. That is why, it is very difficult to make subject isolation in PS (everything in the frame remain focused in PS) which is easy to do in a D-SLR.
 |
| Subject isolation (back ground out of focus) |
Using D-SLR the photographer can capture RAW images whereas using PS one can get only JPEG images. I will not go into the details of RAW vs JPEG. Just for basic ideas - RAW is kind of negative (which you might have seen if you ever came across a film camera) and the photographer can develop thousands of positives (JPEG or whatever format) from that RAW. RAW files gives you the flexibility for thousands of option of post-processing which a JPEG cannot offer.
Come'on dude, don't tell me that a PS cam is crap and do not have any advantages! No, I'm not saying that, a PS camera comes with great flexibility to price ratio, which a D-SLR can hardly offer. PS cams are comparatively cheaper (most important point), light weight (though slr-like heavy PS cams are there now in market), one do not need to change lenses (and no need to carry lenses - so travel light), etc. A super zoom PS camera can serve all needs (be it a romantic full moon night or an adventurous day in a national park) , whereas a good zoom lens for a SLR camera comes with a high price tag. Here comes the good point of a SLR camera - inter changeable lenses. A SLR gives you the flexibility to change the lens depends on the occasion (lets not talk about price now) - be it a macro lens, ultra-wide angle lens, fast lens, super telephoto lens whatever you need just change the lens and you are ready to go. You do not need to change your (expensive) camera body every time. A photo enthusiast will land in a situation when the PS images will look flat, the desired looks/effects will not be delivered by a PS according to the demand. With D-SLR - just change the lens according to the need of the occasion and bingo! You get what you were looking for.
So, there are numerous advantages of a SLR over a PS which one can utilize over the life time of the camera. There is no doubt about the supremacy of a SLR over a PS. If you want to control the looks of your image - do not waste money on PS, buy a SLR. Maybe I dragged a bit here, but this is exactly how my friend convinced me for SLR.
Which brand?
Once you decided to buy a SLR, this will obvious be the next question in your mind - which brand? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, which one?My friend told me, if you want a SLR then make your option list limited into Canon and Nikon, throw out all others. One should go for such brand which has a rich history in Photography and that's obviously either of Canon and Nikon. It does not mean that brands like Pentax, Leica, Olympus, Sony - they do not have a back ground but the problem with these brands are either they are (heavily) expensive or they have a poor lens catalogue to offer. When I say poor lens catalogue - that should not be misunderstood that these brands do not produce superb lenses. These brands produce costly (but superb) lens (also costly third party) and they have comparatively less number of lenses than Canon/Nikon. In a decent price range and with a sound collection of lens (including third-party offerings) Canon or Nikon shall be the primary option.
It is important to note that, Sony's current offerings are really eye-catching; they have improved a lot in the recent years.
One may ask, why should I worry so much about a lens? I already mentioned above: "A SLR gives you the flexibility to change the lens depends on the occasion - be it a macro lens, ultra-wide angle lens, fast lens, super telephoto lens whatever you need just change the lens and you are ready to go. You do not need to change your (expensive) camera body every time." So, it is important to choose the brand which has a wide selection to offer (at a decent price); and/or wide selection of third party makes.
 |
| Close focus with a macro lens |
 |
| A macro shot |
Which type?
Based on the sensor size there are two different type of D-SLR camera: DX and FX. I'm keeping micro four thirds and the new mirror-less cameras out of discussion. Canon and Nikon do not have four-thirds, their mirror-less venture is not upto the mark yet.
FX cameras have a sensor size of a 35 mm film, approximately 36x24 mm. That's why FX cameras often termed as 35 mm format or Full-frame camera.
DX (also referred as cropped size sensors or APS-C) camera has a sensor size of approximately 2/3 of a FX sensor - 24x16 mm.
Sensor is the heart of a camera. Better the sensor - better the camera. Obviously the FX cameras come with much better quality than DX cameras and FX (camera body and lenses) are much more expensive than DX.
Being amateur or beginner, DX should be your choice to start with. One should not spend a heavy amount on FX in the beginning. Later in future, after getting a good grip over basic D-SLR know hows, one can consider upgrading to a FX system. More lucidly, if your photographs start to paying you up then you can consider a upgrade. Otherwise a DX is more than enough.
With the recent launch of Nikon D600 and Canon 6D at a price tag of USD 2,099/-, there are some discussion on air that FX prices are lowering down. But do not misguided by such discussions. D600 (body only) costs almost 1.7 times of a Nikon D7000 (one of the best DXs in market today) with a kit lens!
Read more from a professional: DX vs FX
Read more from a professional: DX vs FX
Which model?
Now I know that, I'm going to buy a D-SLR camera (DX body) of Canon or Nikon. The question is which model finally? It is pointless to debate about the supremacy of Canon and Nikon. Here I took help from SNAPSORT. When I checked with them, it was quite clear for me that I will go with Nikon. They have two very good DX camera i.e. D7000 and D5100; but Canon do not have anything like them in the same price range.
Finally I made my mind for D5100; D7000 was my top choice but it was out of my budget).
Almost a year ago, when I bought my camera, Nikon's D3200 was not there. Even today when having a option of D3200, I will still prefer either D5100 or D7000. The extra mega-pixel count of D3200 failed to lure me. Apart from that, I do not see any further advantages of it above D5100. There is one more good DX body by Nikon - D90. D90 is bit costly affair than D5100 but cheaper than D7000. On the other hand, D7000 is much better than D90 in many regards. If the budget is really tight, then D3100 can be considered - it gives very good value to it's price and able to produce quality images.
Read more from a professional: D5100-01, D5100-02, D7000-01, D7000-02, D3100-01, D3100-02, D90
Finally I made my mind for D5100; D7000 was my top choice but it was out of my budget).
Almost a year ago, when I bought my camera, Nikon's D3200 was not there. Even today when having a option of D3200, I will still prefer either D5100 or D7000. The extra mega-pixel count of D3200 failed to lure me. Apart from that, I do not see any further advantages of it above D5100. There is one more good DX body by Nikon - D90. D90 is bit costly affair than D5100 but cheaper than D7000. On the other hand, D7000 is much better than D90 in many regards. If the budget is really tight, then D3100 can be considered - it gives very good value to it's price and able to produce quality images.
Read more from a professional: D5100-01, D5100-02, D7000-01, D7000-02, D3100-01, D3100-02, D90
Which kit lens?
Irrespective of the DX body you choose, make sure that you are buying AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR lens along with. This is the best DX lens available at a reasonable price which will cover your regular needs.
Here I would like to conclude my article. Wish you all Happy Photographing :)
Read more:
D-SLR buying guide 02
When I finished the above article, Nikon's D3200 was already in the market and on 06-November-2012 Nikon (Europe and Asia, not US!) introduced D5200 - as an advancement of D5100.
These 2 models were not discussed earlier in my article, here I would like to share what I feel about them. Please note that, this article is not a lab test report of all these camera bodies - whole and sole my personal opinions only.
I asked myself a question: Given a chance, would I like to have either of these 2 (D3200 or D5200) as my first D-SLR ahead of D5100 or D7000? The answer was a straight and big NO. Obviously the next question: Why?
Let's keep D7000 out of this for the sake of simplicity, till date D7000 is the numero uno advanced entry-level DX camera and stands ahead of all these kids in many regards (D90 falls short to D7000 - refer to any pro sites like DP Review and you will get the same conclusion; D300S is not an entry level camera - though DX but it is a dedicated advanced camera).
So, it is about the superiority of 18 months old D5100, 6 months old D3200 and just born D5200.
ADDENDUM 01 dated 08-November-2012
When I finished the above article, Nikon's D3200 was already in the market and on 06-November-2012 Nikon (Europe and Asia, not US!) introduced D5200 - as an advancement of D5100.
These 2 models were not discussed earlier in my article, here I would like to share what I feel about them. Please note that, this article is not a lab test report of all these camera bodies - whole and sole my personal opinions only.
I asked myself a question: Given a chance, would I like to have either of these 2 (D3200 or D5200) as my first D-SLR ahead of D5100 or D7000? The answer was a straight and big NO. Obviously the next question: Why?
Let's keep D7000 out of this for the sake of simplicity, till date D7000 is the numero uno advanced entry-level DX camera and stands ahead of all these kids in many regards (D90 falls short to D7000 - refer to any pro sites like DP Review and you will get the same conclusion; D300S is not an entry level camera - though DX but it is a dedicated advanced camera).
So, it is about the superiority of 18 months old D5100, 6 months old D3200 and just born D5200.
What advancement does D3200 and D5200 have over D5100?
- D3200 and D5200 deliver 24 megapixel image whereas D5100 delivers 16 megapixel image,
- D3200 and D5200 equipped with EXPEED 3 processor whereas D5100 is equipped with EXPEED 2.
- D5200 (not D3200) has 39 focus points whereas D5100 (also D3200) has 11 focus points.
These are the three major features where these three cameras differ with each other.
Are these differences substantial?
Theoretically YES but practically NO. Please note that, I'm not trying to defend my purchase of D5100. Anyone would like to defend his/her purchase, no one will admit that it was a mistake. But I'm not trying to do anything like that.
24 megapixel vs 16 megapixel
If you lured just by megapixel count of your camera and you have an opinion like more the pixel count better the picture then you will definitely argue with me. But do you really need that 1.5 times more megapixel count? Do you really have any business with that? Did you already realized that your each RAW file will be of 24 MB if you shoot with D3200/D5200?
So what?
Let's come to the points. We (you and me) do not need a 24 megapixel image. Where are we going to post our images OR how we are going to use our images? Mainly we will post our images on web and for that 24 megapixels is a waste. Even if you print your image then it is never bigger than A3 or A2 size - 16 megapixel image is completely perfect for that size. When I do my image processing, I connect my laptop with a 21" monitor - there it looks perfect. In no web services you are going to view your image in bigger scale than that. Let'c consider that, you are going to use the camera as a (bit) professional way - for event or wedding photography, there also your client do not want an image bigger than A2 size (if printed) and in majority cases it will be for web and will remain in soft form only.
The pain lies somewhere else, apart from eating your disk space at a monster rate with 24 MB image each there is another concern. Just for your information: at this moment only my RAW files captured a space of 65 GB (since August-2011) - mine is 16 MB RAW image each with D5100, the JPEGs and TIFFs sizes are additional. Now the concern, do you understand the fact that bigger your RAW file size - slower the process of your engine will be! Your computer will take lot of time to load each image and also to load your customized changes - Photoshop/Lightroom will cry! My engine is a vaio i5 with 4 Gb RAM - it is just OK for me but not enough. It makes a sound like crazy while image processing - I'm considering to upgrade the RAM to 8 GB just because of this issue. Now imagine, how it will behave with 24 MB RAWs!
To get more clear views, I recommend you to read some more on the web about practical life experience with Nikon's D800 which captures at whooping 36 megapixel. Seriously you have to upgrade then your engine - a SSD drive will be compulsory (an expensive affair). Are you ready to invest so much when it is about your first time?
Remember, D7000 captures at 16 megapixel only - no one complained about the pixel count of it.
EXPEED 3 vs EXPEED 2
EXPEED 3 is the upgraded version of EXPEED 2 (it is the image processor of the camera) - definitely must be better than EXPEED 2. But D7000 and D5100 have EXPEED 2 inside them - there is nothing to complain about their image quality.
What I'm trying to say here is, may be EXPEED 3 is better than it's older counter part but does it compulsorily required to possess? Here I do not have much to say - you better think and decide.
39 focus points vs 11 focus points
Ofcourse this is a major advancement of D5200 (same as in D7000) and a good feature - good to have. If you start as a beginner then my words: less is good. with 11 focus points (in D5100 also in D3200) you learn better composition and better focus techniques for still photographs. As you do not have plenty of resources, gradually you learn to master the trick of using your limited resources smartly. But you will feel the limit of less focus points while doing sports or bird (dynamic wildlife) photography.
D3200 or D5100?
D3200 does not have anything interesting to offer above D5100. 24 megapixel image is of very limited use (or of no use!) and the EXPEED 3 engine is as good as EXPEED 2 (I believe). On the other hand D5100 have many advantages over D3200 like it can do bracketing (compulsory for making HDR images), it has articulated LCD which is a handy feature, etc. Also the D5100 comes with a little bit less cost tag than D3200 (after price revision).
D5100 or D5200?
We (you and me) do need that 24 megapixel count and EXPEED 3 (as I mentioned above). Therefor, its about having 39 focus points only - this might prove like substantial but remember only one feature will cost you substantially. Is it wise to pay only for single useful feature?
I would have appreciated the D5200 if it has inherited some the very useful feature of D7000 like an in-built focus motor which could have open a wide range of compatible lenses, or may be a weather seal which would have made it less vulnerable to dust/rain/snow, or may be a change in maximum shutter speed or in continuous drive mode (fps), etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment