Should I upgrade?

[someone35]

Hi everyone! I currently have a sony w-350 compact and love photographing and filming and I am thinking on a upgrade to the Samsung NX1000.
It would be my first interchangeable lens camera and the thing I am most looking for is the Full HD video, the bigger sensor,RAW (I do photo manipulations in photoshop a lot) and the ISO.
I would also most probably only have the kit lens (20-50mm) to shoot everything from closeups to monuments.
What do you think? Do I keep the compact or do I upgrade?

(thanks in advance)

[Alpee]

Well all the reports give it a good review, so if you are not going down the SLR route then you wont go far wrong with this one. Best of luck! Alan

[someone35]

Thanks! Do you think that a SLR would be better? I also thought about a Nikon D3100...

[inkista]

Hi everyone! I currently have a sony w-350 compact and love photographing and filming and I am thinking on a upgrade to the Samsung NX1000.
It would be my first interchangeable lens camera and the thing I am most looking for is the Full HD video, the bigger sensor,RAW (I do photo manipulations in photoshop a lot) and the ISO.

Yup. That one will definitely deliver on all those fronts. But then nearly all the current interchangeable lens cameras (Pentax Q excepted) will.

I would also most probably only have the kit lens (20-50mm) to shoot everything from closeups to monuments.

This is the one thing that might give you problems, though. If you stick to only the kit lens, you've negated the advantages of an interchangeable lens camera, and you'll probably be limiting yourself even more than your P&S.

First off, you're going to lose the close-up capability you're used to. A larger sensor means a larger lens, and a larger minimum focus distance. The closest you can get to a subject with the lens zoomed all the way out to 20mm, is about a foot away. Closer than that, and you won't be able to focus.

Secondly, that lens isn't particularly wide. So if you like landscape shooting, or shoot in very small spaces, it may not go as wide as you'd like. It's a 30-80mm [film equiv], while your Sony has the equiv. of 26-105mm. So you're also going to lose a bit off the long end.

What do you think? Do I keep the compact or do I upgrade?

Personally, I say both, if you have the budget. Keep the compact and upgrade. And start saving up for glass. Realistically, I would typically budget $2000-$3000 for any interchangeable lens system, regardless of it being mirrorless or dSLR.

But you don't have to drop that all at once. Until you get a macro lens, your compact can be your macro camera.

I don't know much about the Samsung NX cameras. When I went to mirrorless, I went for micro four-thirds for the large lens selection and the super-cheap used bodies. But I would suggest that you also look at the Sony NEX and Olympus/Panasonic micro four-thirds bodies as well for this class of camera. There are additional features like flip-out LCDs, touchscreens, built-in EVFs, etc. that may be worth looking into. And above all, get a few of these cameras in your hands and see how they feel/operate if you can. I went into a Fry's absolutely determined to pick up an Oly E-P3 or maybe a NEX-3 and walked out determined to get a Panasonic G3.

Secondly, you want to seriously consider what/how you plan to shoot. Mirrorless cameras are great for most of the things you shoot with a P&S. And they have a huge advantage in being smaller and more convenient than dSLRs. But fast action and supertelephoto isn't in the wheelhouse yet. Sports and wildlife are still more dSLR subjects. There's a lot less off-camera 3rd party equipment, so studio-style lighting is easier with a dSLR. dSLRs still have the largest and most responsive systems. The mirrorless cameras are catching up on a lot of these fronts, but they're not there yet. So, think about the systems overall and what the best fit for you is going to be. For a lot of folks, mirrorless can cover everything they need. But I was a dSLR shooter first, and I find I prefer having both systems around to play with.

Thirdly, when you move to interchangeable lens cameras, the instinct of most folks doing it for the first time is to worry about the camera and think about the lenses later. This is entirely understandable, but what you should realize is that the lenses are the permanent purchase. The bodies are the disposable part. They're digital electronics. Like cellphones and computers, they'll probably last 3-5 years before they either break down or you jones for a newer one with nicer features. Your lenses and other "accessories" last through the body changes. So the most important decision you're really making when you select a camera body is what mount system you're locking yourself into. Samsung's NX system has a good solid lens lineup that covers all the basics.

With the Nikon D3100, the only gotcha to know about is that any lens you use has to have AF-S to autofocus. If it's an AF lens, you must manually focus. This won't be an issue with most of the lenses you're liable to want, but it can trip you up with the occasional selection.

[someone35]

Thanks (internet brofist) LOL
I will keep the compact anyway... The macros are not a big deal, I was thinking about only spending 300€ and if I really like shooting with it I would buy the other lenses. For landscapes I could use the panorama feature for the wide-angle, right?
But I will check them out in person!
And got to say that your profile pic is awesome...

[inkista]

For landscapes I could use the panorama feature for the wide-angle, right?

Yup. It's not exactly the same as using a wider lens, but it can cover the scene.

And got to say that your profile pic is awesome...

Thanks. It's actually a stitched 360x180 panorama. Remapped stereographically.

I got my first dSLR because I wanted to learn how to make these (and shoot them handheld), and that required having a good high-quality fisheye lens.

[someone35]

Will try to make one of those panoramas tomorrow ...
I want to buy one for the video shooting and better pictures... (Fan of Photoshop and AfterEffects )
I looked into the other cameras you suggested the Nex-F3 is the one that is more in my price range... maybe I will spend more money for the flip-out screen.
BTW, the quality of the pictures will be a lot better than the compact cameras ones, right?

[jcuknz]

The advantage of the interchangeable lens camera is that you can swop lenses ... however it doesn't mean you have to. Like many people I had a SLR with just one lens for years in film days. I am a fan of the bridge camera as a design type but dissatisfied with its small sensor so the only apparent solution without going to the weight and cumbersomeness of the DSLR [ APS or FF ] was to go to M4/3 with a moderately long zoom. I was used to having a x12 zoom on my bridge camera so a x10 zoom on M4/3 fits my approach nicely. The advantage of the ILC is in my case the ability to use extension tubes and bellows, actually a rare occasion, but it justified my purchase of a DSLR originally rather than for general photography. So my change from bridge to M4/3 makes the DSLR redundant. Bought 2/h in 2005 it probably deserves a good pensioner's home in its old age though still spritely with less than 10T actuations

Whatever I suggest to Someone35 that they retain the older camera as likely they will find it has a place in their stable and useful as does my bridge camera which is heading my homepage with its capture of a model chopper recently. If your needs are small prints and the web you will find they are a great leveller making the more sophisticated camera a questionable need.

[inkista]

...I looked into the other cameras you suggested the Nex-F3 is the one that is more in my price range... maybe I will spend more money for the flip-out screen.

You may also want to consider looking at purchasing a used camera. One of the main attractions to me of micro four-thirds (aside from the native lens selection) was that there are new bodies every year, and the older bodies depreciated very very quickly. For example, the GX-1 kit was $800 new when it was introduced last year. Today, you can probably find a used one for $350. My G3 went for $650 new when it came out. Today on the used market, it's about $250.

BTW, the quality of the pictures will be a lot better than the compact cameras ones, right?

Well.... it depends.

On the type of picture, and on how you judge quality. And the lenses count, too. It will be different. But while a lot of folks go with the simplistic thinking that bigger is better when it comes to sensors, for some images, you may not see a huge improvement--particularly at web sizes.

Given that you are post-processing already, you're liable to see that you have more latitude and flexibility to do changes with RAW files from a large-sensor camera vs. a 1/2.3"-format P&S sensor. The dynamic range, high-ISO noise performance and the ability to use Adobe RGB vs. sRGB will give post processing a lot more elbow room for changes than what you're used to.

You can achieve a thinner DoF, so if you wanted blurred backgrounds outside of macro shots, this can now be achieved, so that may make a difference. But. Getting that blurred background happens because it's out of focus. You can get anything out of focus, now. So you have to learn how to focus. The tremendous DoF you had with your P&S was a feature, not a bug. Most folks who just want snapshots would prefer a point-and-shoot that have a really hard time getting an out of focus shot.

Generally, a larger sensor camera is less limited than a small-sensored one. Within the limits of what P&S does well, you may not even notice any difference. It's when you start shooting in lower light, or start timing shots without a shutter delay that you start to see some of the major differences between the two types of cameras. With resolutions as high as they are in P&S cameras these days, you may not see as much difference as you assume and post-processing and delivery size are going to play a very big role in how you perceive the image quality. Again, why getting your hands on a camera (and bringing your own memory card along) might be a good idea.

Just as examples:

Powershot S90 (1/1.7"-format 10MP P&S sensor)



G3 + 45-200 OIS lens (2x crop, 16MP four-thirds sensor)


To me, moving from a fixed-lens camera to an interchangeable one isn't so much a straightforward "upgrade" as a sideways move to a different type of tool. It's more flexible and has fewer limits. But there is a learning curve involved, and for some types of shooting, it may not be an immediate or huge improvement. For others, it can make images possible you simply couldn't get with a small-sensor P&S.

G3+ m.Zuiko 45/1.8

[someone35]

The blurred out background would be nice sometimes too...
Used cameras are not that common in my country and the price of them is not that low here ,... Maybe an older model would work out instead...
Will try to see some of these in person soon...
And are there Bridge Superzooms with a Micro Four/thirds sensor or RAW capability?)... That maybe a pretty good option for me because I am just a amateur with a low budget .

[jcuknz]

Bridge cameras do have the RAW option. But I am happy with what I get with jpg FINE and see no need to use RAW
Sadly there are not bridge cameras with larger sensors .... why I now have my compromise of MFT with x10 zoom as 'second best' but best I can find. But retain my bridge camera for work with my telephoto adaptor which gives me 950mm reach.

It helps us trying to help you if we know where in the world you are.

Depending on your country in buying from overseas there are various import duties and other charges to consider and add to the apparent 'good' price.
If you can import I have bought from KEH and B&H and would go back with need .... others like Adorama. You can trust their description of the product. For adaptors and the like I buy from Hong Kong and China [ EBAY etc]

Often you can organise a blurred background with an editor. Paint.Net is a free download as is GIMP which others here will tell you about. PN is a bit clunky compared to my usual Paint Shop Pro which is reasonably priced. I frequently blurr the background to concentrate attention on the subject. although I am frustrated, I am not willing to spend the time to edit in close to the subject, I need better than a mouse, it does work well if the subject is separated from the background somewhat.
This is using my Panasonic FZ50 which is available on Amazon 2/h from $250 upwards. and is perhap four years out of date


With a low budget the bridge camera is definitely the way I would go and did originally and I am not sorry that I went that way. Entry level DSLRs can be cheaper but are somewhat limited but it depends on what you want to do with the results of your taking the photo.

Kathy mentions some of the limitation, such as low light situations, which do not bother me but is a big concern for others. One of the big bonus's of going to MFT is that I can now happilly work at higher than the 100 ISO I limited myself to with my bridge cameras ... the camera starts at 160 ISO

[someone35]

But I would suggest that you also look at the Sony NEX and Olympus/Panasonic micro four-thirds bodies as well for this class of camera. There are additional features like flip-out LCDs, touchscreens, built-in EVFs, etc. that may be worth looking into.

Just looked at the Olympus E-PM1 (very close to the E-P3) and the touchscreen is really awesome ...
This one comes with a 14-42mm for the same price of the NX1000.
What do you think?

[someone35]

I am from Portugal, Europe. I want to buy the camera for photo editing (photoshop) and in that area I am good *cough*bragging*cough*...
I just wanted the RAW so I could improve a little in photoshop too, and Full HD video because I am also a AfterEffects fan .
Maybe I will wait for the Fujifilm SL1000...

[jcuknz]

Just looked at the Olympus E-PM1 (very close to the E-P3) and the touchscreen is really awesome ...
This one comes with a 14-42mm for the same price of the NX1000.
What do you think?

I am sure it would be good and Olympus is reputed to produce good jpgs, better than Panasonic which I have used these past years but buying an early 2/h E-PL1 I cannot work out the way the menu works so don't like it I used the 14-42 with my G3 but after the x12 zoom of my FZ50 found the lack of reach extremely frustrating ... another of my follibles

As mentioned elsewhere I now occasionally use the E-PL1 with my old Pentax 50mm prime lens, works nicely though manual of course. This was using it and a 100% crop to show the remote plug hole of my Canon DSLR. the 50mm is of course a 100 AoV with MFT so I didn't use a CU lens .... it also was using the camera on-board flash to trigger my remote YN560 as it was night time.


EDIT ... Since you are in Europe you might consider this Panasonic Bridge which may have HD video [ I'm not up with that as yet... all a dark mystery ] It is rather less than the Nikon you mentioned ...I am looking at Amazon UK now I know you are in the EU
Though for all my love of the bridge camera [ Panasonics anyway] if you can afford MFT and manage with the limited lens at roughly comparable prices I would go MFT if it answers your video needs. The increase in sensor size easilly doubles [ when you crop ] the reach of any lens of a P&S if that is an occassional need ... and of course maybe one day you will have the money to buy a WA lens for it like Kathy Don't consider WA adaptors for the bridge camera PLEASE !
Meanwhile the adaptors to use any old lens you can find are reasonably priced on Ebay etc.

Finally I am glad you are competant with the editor since it helps whatever you shoot with

[Manfred M]

If you are going to be doing a lot of video as well as still shots, you might want to consider something other than a DSLR. Those pesky mirrors that have to flip up and out of the way are not the greatest for shooting video. Pretty well anyone that I know who is a serious DSLR video shooter will end up spending a fair bit of money to put a Zacuto Z-finder or better on the LCD screen on the back to facilitate their video work.

If video is a mainstay of what you will be shooting, I would suggest you have a hard look at one of the mirrorless EVF designs. This will give you the best of both worlds. Panasonic has been getting a lot of kudos for their video capable mirrorless designs. Given their strong video heritage, Sony has some interesting offerings too.

[someone35]

Sorry for the misleading title GrumpyDiver but right now my top choice (the Olympus E-PM1) is a mirroless cam...

Do you think I should choose the 14-42mm and 40-150 lens? I can afford those. And is the angle of it wider and the focus distance lower?

[jcuknz]

A word of caution ... the Olympus cameras do not have a EVF and will be tricky to hold steady when shooting with that 150 lens held out away from your body. I have the VF-3 viewfinder which helps but not as nice as working with the EVF built in ... silly really but I guess I am wed-ed to holding cameras to my eye though with Hi-8 video I am/was happy holding the camera away from my body ... yes it is that long ago that I shot video Stills and video are different ballgames. I aim to start again now I have the GH2 which is reputed to be good .. rather dissapointed with video out of my FZ50 and Cough Cough I think I know how to shoot movies having worked in the industry Also had a problem in finding an editor which would handle MOV files which held me up for a couple of years ... video is not important to me having left it for retirement.

So an OLy with the 14-42 or 14-45 lens would be AOK I think but you need the Pany's EVF for anything longer .. since 150 is 300 AoV remember. So maybe save the pennies and just get the kit lens

I thought you could only afford one lens It may not be quite as good as the small zoom range lenses but with Oly I would be looking at the 14-150 lens or 14-140 with Pany. Using the 14-150 with a Pany might be a problem becuase it doesn't have OIS I think?

EDIT .. a bit of day dreaming .... having had the Angeniuex f/2 12-120 zoom for my personal H16RX way back it would be nice as a videographer if the x24 f/2.8 lens that Lumix produced for the FZ200 could be tweaked as a lens for MFT video users. Video needs the constant aperture zoom that stills can survive without. Maybe not for production work but for the rough and tumble of news shooting YEAH it would be good

[Manfred M]

Sorry for the misleading title GrumpyDiver but right now my top choice (the Olympus E-PM1) is a mirroless cam...

Do you think I should choose the 14-42mm and 40-150 lens? I can afford those. And is the angle of it wider and the focus distance lower?

The Olympus makes still fine cameras, but I don't see a lot of video shooters using it (and I don't know why).

My recommendation is that you go to a camera store and have a very good look the various models to see what works best for you.

With the micro four-thirds cameras, you can also use Panasonic lenses on it. The advantage of the Olympus is that it uses in-camera stabilization versus the in-lens stabilization used by Panasonic; so this is worth thinking about . I shoot the Panny 14-140mm lens on my dedicated video camera (Panasonic AF100) and one of the main reasons for going for that specific lens is that has a linear focus motor, rather than the stepping motor used in most still camera lenses. It gives you pretty well the same range as the two lenses you are looking at; so it might be worth considering if you are planning a lot of video work.

The other thing to consider is that you will need a tripod if you plan to shoot at longer focal lengths. I can hand-hold long lenses for still work, but I shoot as wide as I can when hand holding for video shots, to minimize camera movement. Image stabilization helps, but not that much.

[someone35]

Yeah... I found a kit with both for only 50€ more and the camera itself also costs less so that is a win
I will check how much the body and the Panny lens cost (UPDATE: just checked a LOT out of budget ), also the viewfinder sometimes the screen in sunny places can become really hard to see....
I already have a tripod so that is not a problem
But I definitively have to grab some cameras in real person to know.

And, jcuknz, for video editing I use Apple's Final Cut Pro (if you have a Mac), AfterEffects and I have heard pretty well about Premiere Pro

[Manfred M]

And, jcuknz, for video editing I use Apple's Final Cut Pro (if you have a Mac), AfterEffects and I have heard pretty well about Premiere Pro

Premiere Pro is part of the Adobe Creative Suite (as is After Effects) and the two integrate quite well. I use both Final Cut Pro 7 (I tried X once and the critics were right in their assessment) and Premiere Pro for video work (Mac and Windows).