New camera recommendations?

[French Fry]

Hi guys,
It's time for a new camera over here.

I really like the smaller format SLR models that are coming out.

I'm a not a serious photographer, just want to experiment, learn, take better pictures than I do.

Many pictures of fast-moving children are going to be the predominant subject. Must take good HD video.

I'm not opposed to spending up to $1k or so.
Do not want a big bulky pro setup.

The Olympus E-PL1 PEN seems like what I'm looking for at first glance, but I haven't looked at it's competitors yet.


Any recommendations?

[Jd3]

I would recommend for about $1k you check out the Nikon D7000 (which is what I have). It's on the smallish side for a DSLR, but the sensor is unbelievable...I can get very usable at 6400+ ISO. If you love 'natural light', rather than flash photography, this is fantastic ... it also takes very good HD video - at 30 frames a second (I can't stand the 20 frame per second video - looks jerky to me).

You would still need a lens ... some very good Nikon zooms out there for cheap money ... a lot of good used Nikon out there too ... any low mileage Nikon gear that works well will last (hell, I use some lenses that are over 40 years old and they are stellar !)

You can get smaller cams ... but they tend to have tradeoffs that may have you back to a DSLR eventually ... check the D7k out ...
good luck.

[Blueswede]

Check out the Sony NEX-5 or 7. I"ll be getting one of them between now and Christmas....

[smiert spionam]

The Nikon D7000 is a fantastic all-around camera -- they've squeezed a lot of high-end features into it. The D5100 shares its sensor (best in class), and it's cheaper, though the D7000 has a better viewfinder, faster AF, and wider lens compatibility. If you go with Nikon, one of them should serve you well.

I now use a Sony NEX-5n as my second camera (behind a Nikon D700), and it's amazing. It shares essentially the same sensor as the D5100/D7000, but in a tiny mirrorless body. It's great, but it will not be nearly as effective at tracking fast-moving kids. For that, an SLR is the way to go.

[French Fry]

Thanks guys.
For my usage, I think I'm best served heading in this direction:
Olympus E-PL1
Nikon 1 J1
Sony NEX 5n

I just won't end up carring around a full SLR setup.

Any thoughts on comparing these 3 or perhaps their equivalents?

[smiert spionam]

All interesting cameras, and each has strengths.

I think the real choice is between NEX and m4/3 (micro four thirds, which includes the Olympus you've listed and several Panasonic models). The Nikon is a bit of an oddball in the mix -- they've got some interesting technology in that camera, but it's crippled by a sensor that's only a little bigger than a typical point and shoot. That means that it's going to be the worst in mediocre light or shooting action. For sensor size comparisons, take a quick peek at the chart here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

The NEX has the best basic image quality off the sensor of any compact mirrorless camera. It's especially popular with people who use it as a platform for shooting modified older lenses (Leica, Nikon, etc.). The Olympus four-thirds sensor is not quite as good, but it's a more fully featured system overall, with wider lens choices. I suspect it will be the Goldilocks choice for you -- but I'd recommend handling each of them and reading further.

[French Fry]

Thanks, great info.

The olympus looks like a great fit for me and is at a very attractive price through costco.com

The downsides seem to be slower auto-focus and only 720p video.

When people criticize a camera like this for being slow on focusing, is it the sort of thing that only a serious user would notice?

I'm coming from a Canon Powershot SD870 compact. Will I be noticing how much better the olympus is, or will I be noticing it's drawbacks?

[French Fry]

I guess I'm not ruling out a new compact either.

the Nikon COOLPIX AW100 looks decent?

[smiert spionam]

That bundle is definitely attractive -- a lot of camera for the price. You should see a decent jump in both image quality and handling speed over your little Canon, though it still won't be as quick as a DSLR. That's because an SLR uses phase-detect autofocus, and even the most basic type is quicker than the contrast detection system of the Olympus.

It would be a good idea to handle an Olympus a bit in the store to see how you like it (Best Buy probably has them on display). That should help you assess how it will work for you.

You could supplement the Olympus with a faster prime lens -- both the 20/1.7 or 45/1.8 are fairly reasonably priced, and will give you better performance in low light. The 20mm is a fairly "normal" field of view on 4/3, while the 45mm is a short telephoto that is nicer for portraits.

[arthur rotfeld]

Would you consider the Canon Digital Rebel to be too bulky?
It's a camera that could really grow with you. In many ways it's pro level and will keep up with fast moving kids.


I have an old Rebel, about 6 years old now, as good as the day I bought it and it has been all over with me, including about 200 days of fishing and hiking trips.

[smiert spionam]

I doubt you'd see much difference between what you've got now and the Coolpix -- more of a lateral move than anything. If you want the best image quality in a tiny compact, the Canon S95 or the new S100 are as good as it gets. The Olympus kit from Costco, though, will be still be quicker, with better image quality.

[French Fry]

Originally Posted by arthur rotfeld

Would you consider the Canon Digital Rebel to be too bulky?
It's a camera that could really grow with you. In many ways it's pro level and will keep up with fast moving kids.


I have an old Rebel, about 6 years old now, as good as the day I bought it and it has been all over with me, including about 200 days of fishing and hiking trips.

Yeah, I think it might be. I may eventually look into something like that, but I'm looking for something that would be a little more convenient for my daily use.

I'm not a pro, just looking for a solid step up from my current compact, which just broke.

[French Fry]

Originally Posted by smiert spionam

I doubt you'd see much difference between what you've got now and the Coolpix -- more of a lateral move than anything. If you want the best image quality in a tiny compact, the Canon S95 or the new S100 are as good as it gets. The Olympus kit from Costco, though, will be still be quicker, with better image quality.

Thanks a lot for all the info you've provided!

I'll try to check all these out in person this week.

[GAD]

I have a lot of cameras, ranging from film SLRs, to the earliest of digicams, to a Canon 1Ds Mark II.

I have a Panasonic GF1, which was one of the best in the OP's desired range of mirror-less cameras. My review of it is here: http://www.gad.net/Blog/2010/09/01/p...ix-gf1-review/



It's a fun camera, but the entire idea has a flaw, IMO, and that is that with anything other than a pancake lens, the camera is no longer small. In fact, with a longer lens, the camera is downright unwieldy because it becomes lens heavy. It's now too big for a pocket, and too awkward to hang around the neck because it hangs lens down (similar to a DSLR with a long lens). I own three lenses for it, and have spent a great deal of time with it. Today, it sits in my office, never used. Why?

The Panasonic LX5 crushes it in almost every way. The LX5 takes better pictures, is faster, more responsive, smaller, and just works better IMO.

The only time I grab the GF1 is when I'm in a rangefinder kind of mood. With the pancake 20mm lens, the GF1 is a lot of fun, but there's no zoom, so it can be limiting. If you love a good prime, then the 20mm is great - surprisingly good in fact. Which brings me to another point:

I have the 20mm, the 14-45mm, and the 100-300mm lenses. The only one I'm impressed with is the 20mm. The 100-300 cost a good chunk of money, and feels like a cheap toy. Granted, I'm spoiled by shooting Canon L lenses for years, but the 100-300 is stiff, huge in comparison to the body, and difficult to shoot with without the added viewfinder, which makes the camera even bigger.

For my money, the mirrorless cameras look like the answer to having great pics from not-so-bulky interchangeable lens cameras, and I suppose they are, but I don't recommend them. I recommend the LX5, or if you must have interchangeable lenses, get a small DSLR.

I'm sure the newer mirrorless cameras have less of the issues than I found with the GF1, but they don't overcome the awkward feel of a tiny camera with a big lens. Of course, as with all things gear-related, YMMV, etc. For this 30-year photography veteran, they're a pass.

[PacoCasanovas]

I use a Panasonic FZ38 super-zoom camera, which makes some great picts (if you stay on or below ISO 400), good HD video (720p 60fps AVCHD-lite with stereo sound). Has a nice Leica 18x zoom lens for it's class, record stills in JPEG or RAW and both, PASM for still photos and even for videos!!!
It's not comparable to a DSLR but does a pretty nice job here....

Today you get the FZ150 with FullHD recording, improved picture quality (pretty impressive up to ISO 800 under low-light conditions IMO) for about 400$ - which is a bargain