Next camera??

[ajohnw]

I don't know much about DSLRs, but I have an articulated LCD, and have wondered what I would do without it, How can you know if you have a good shot ready or not if you can't see it on the screen well enough to tell if it's in focus etc.? For that matter, I haven't really used my view finder much for that same reason, it's too small to see the image well, though it is just an electric VF. Plus, if you are using a tripod, stability isn't as much an issue.

I'm surprised that you haven't taken shots in situations where the rear screen can't be seen clearly. I hate the things for that reason especially as I suspect the problem is down to back lighting - lap tops don't have the same degree of problem but if cameras were brighter in this area I suppose the battery life would be shortened. Mobile phones can handle this aspect automatically so cameras could too. Some seem to like turning that off.

Olympus had a neat idea on Pen's. Anything that could be shown on the rear screen could also be seen in the viewfinder. Great but they dropped it on the dslr like type cameras. On the other hand on the one I am using currently a preview pops up in the viewfinder with a small square showing the best focus point so I have no need to check. Tough if I don't use enough dof. To check that I have to use the rear screen but could do it with a bit of difficulty via the viewfinder on a Pen.

Maybe some dslr rear screens are better than others in this respect. I've used a number of viewfinderless compacts and all have had this problem.

John
-

[csa mt]

Nick, I agree Canon/Nikon reputation is something to consider. Nikon is out, as none in my price range have the movable LCD. Sony has been getting a very good reputation now, also. Back in the dark ages, I had both Canon & Nikon DSLR's, but the game has changed now with the new entries.

A must for me, is to have both the viewfinder, and the articulating LCD.

[HaseebM]

I want to get into the interchangable lens, and am seriously considering these:

Panasonic GF6

Canon Rebel T3i

I haven't considered Nikon, as in my price (around $500) none have the articulating LCD. The reason the GF6 is being considered, is I've currently got two Pannys now, & am familiar with the controls. However, I'm thinking the Canon would give me more capabilities, and future expansion??

If anyone knows of others I should consider, feel free to suggest them.

Hi Carol, Get the T3i. If you want to upgrade you will find lots of takers in the astrophotography field for a Canon than a Nikon due to 3rd party software support. I hope you are the same Carol and I am happy to see you here.

[csa mt]

Haseeb! Yes I'm the same Carol from CN! So good to see an old friend here!

Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it!

[Nicks Pics]

I'm surprised that you haven't taken shots in situations where the rear screen can't be seen clearly. I hate the things for that reason especially as I suspect the problem is down to back lighting - lap tops don't have the same degree of problem but if cameras were brighter in this area I suppose the battery life would be shortened. Mobile phones can handle this aspect automatically so cameras could too. Some seem to like turning that off.

This is slightly off the topic of :Next Camera", but my LCD is about 3 inches, and the brightness can be adjusted or it can be put on monitor sunlight mode. Maybe the view finders in DSLRs work better than mine does.

[inkista]

Depending on the wildlife you want to shoot, I'd suggest considering a used G5, rather than a GF6 if you still want to do the Panasonic thing, vs. a T3i.

My basis of comparison is that I currently shoot both Canon and micro four-thirds (Panasonic). I was using a G3 and now have a GX-7. On the Canon side I have a 5dMkII and a 50D. My combination of choice for bird in flight/wildlife shooting is my 50D + 400/5.6L USM. That's an $1100 lens. I also used that lens with a Canon XT (350D), and got bird in flight shots with it I'm still proud of, so I don't think a T3i would be that much of a handicap, but obviously a 7D or XXD body would be nicer for that type of shooting.

OTOH. I have successfully used the el-cheapo combo of a G3 and 45-200 OS for less flitty/larger wildlife, such as harbor seals, perched pelicans, and your basic zoo shooting. So if wildlife shooting for you consists of shooting deer and other large mammals, a G3 or G5 (which does have an electronic viewfinder, unlike the GF series) might work for you on a lower budget, and be a lot smaller and lighter than a Canon dSLR setup.

The Canon system is probably more flexible than micro four-thirds, but the mft gear is now my main shooting system, despite having lots of Canon gear, simply because smaller and lighter is more convenient and easier to lug about with me. If the gear's too heavy, you get more reluctant to carry and use it when you need it, in my experience. YMMV. Take a gander at the size differences on camerasize.com.

[csa mt]

Hi Kathy; thanks so much for sharing your experiences with Panasonic/Canon. I've already dropped the GF6, as it has no viewfinder. I'm reluctant to buy used, so with Panasonic the next choice would be the G6, which is about $250 over the T3i.

Sizes are:

FZ70 (my current camera:
5.1x 3.8x 4.7 (1.33#)

T3i: 5.2x 3.9x 3.1 (18.2 oz body)

G6: 2.20x 1.93 (3.88 oz body)

So the T3i is about the same size as what I'm currently using, of course depending on lens.

So it now would be the T3i or the G6. I don't know the advantages of either over the other one; outside of the small size of the G6. For what it's worth I don't carry the camera for long periods of time.

[HaseebM]

Hi Carol, I really think you should go for the T3i. Of course you need to spend over time on lenses but once you have a couple or at most three in your kit bag, you will be set. Macro is fun and some third party zoom lenses are cheap like Tamron for instance. Here's a short score point review between the two. Hopefully this helps.

G6 vs T3i

[csa mt]

Hi Haseeb! Thanks for the link, very informative! I do enjoy macro also!

[inkista]

Carol, I understand your feelings about getting used gear, but just understand the T3i is an older model, too. The current model in that line for Canon is the T5i. The G6 looks expensive in comparison to the T3i, but it is newer, which is why it's more expensive. The T3i initially came out in 2011. The G6 in 2013. The G5 in 2012.

You may want to look at the Canon template on Wikipedia to see the age/tiering of the Canon dSLR models.

I mentioned a used G5 because micro four-thirds tends to depreciate like lightning. You're unlikely to find one more than two years old, which cuts down on the possibility of abuse/misuse, and the price for a used body is around US$250. That G3 I used to take the pictures I linked to? $175 used on KEH right now. I use reputable dealers with good grading and return policies, like B&H, Adorama, and KEH, and have always been happy. My GX-7 body, which currently retails around $1000 new, cost me a hair under $600 purchased used.

Bodies come and go. It's the glass that's gonna stay with ya.

One more thing. A dSLR size/weight is the body and the lens combined. This makes it substantially different from a fixed-lens camera. Here's what you're really looking at in terms of the FZ-70 vs. the T3i [click on THIS LINK]. That comparison gives the T3i with both the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-250 STM telephoto zoom--both of which are considered small/light lenses, and which still won't give you nearly as much "reach" as the lens you're used to on the FZ-70. Try clicking on "Lenses" and swapping out for the 100-400L, and you'll see how dramatic the size/weight difference can get with a system camera. (Actually, to achieve 1200mm equiv., you'd need an 800mm lens, but that's a $14k lens and requires special support gear, and is unrealistic as a lens you'd actually get/use.)

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi Carol,

Just to give you another perspective. Here's a Zach Arias vid showing what a simple PnS can do.
( for the pictures go straight to 15:15 )

Zack Arias, Cheap Camera Challenge (Pro Tog, Cheap Cam)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh6zr3wKRV0

HTH

[inkista]

Actually, Zack Arias's own blog entry might be a better link.

http://zackarias.com/uncategorized/b...m-checked-off/

However. One should also note that a) Arias doesn't shoot wildlife or landscapes for a living, b) that shoot was mostly about off-camera flash and Arias's own not-insignificant skills at composition, street shooting, and getting people in front of the camera to do what he needs to make a portrait, and c) Arias's own chosen gear are a PhaseOne and a passel of Fuji X cameras.

Just because you CAN get an amazing image with a cheap P&S camera doesn't necessarily mean you'd want to. And on top of that, the FZ-70 is already pretty amazing with a 20-1200mm equiv. lens, the PSAM modes, a flash hotshoe, and RAW capability, which already puts it head and shoulders above most other P&S cameras in my book. If Carol's already finding it restrictive, another 1/2.3"-format sensor P&S is unlikely to fill the ticket.

[nimitzbenedicto]

the FZ-70 is already pretty amazing with a 20-1200mm equiv. lens, the PSAM modes, a flash hotshoe, and RAW capability, which already puts it head and shoulders above most other P&S cameras in my book. If Carol's already finding it restrictive, another 1/2.3"-format sensor P&S is unlikely to fill the ticket.

I agree the FZ-70 is awesome: dpreview http://www.dpreview.com/products/pan...asonic_dmcfz70.

Just wanted to make Carol feel at ease about selecting cameras.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

btw, thanks for Arias' link.

other DigitalRev cheap cameras challenges here:
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...r+cheap+camera

[ajohnw]

Kathy is right here. Plus ideal conditions which is what usually lets small sensors down - when they aren't.. There are some 1/1.7 sensor p&s cameras about as well using a modern sensor. A lot bigger than 1/2.3 but zoom range stops at 300mm equivalent full frame. Compact but it just doesn't come anywhere near to m 4/3 other than 2 lenses are really needed to cover the same range on that.

Personally I am little reluctant to mention m 4/3 to some one moving to a larger sensor as I feel there is a need to know what one is getting in to on m 4/3. Kathy has found that total weight of the kit comes in as a major advantage. Not size really. The same thing cause me to have a look at it. While it's nice to have say a 150-500mm zoom on a crop camera it's rather a lot to carry around. I found that I hardly used it because of that. Basically it's not just camera weight. Lens weight matters a lot if people need to carry them around.

On the other hand something like a crop camera plus a standard zoom and say a 70-300mm can do a lot and will produce good pictures and is manageable.

One camera that is modern and may suit you is the Canon 100D (SL1) but not tilt screen. My son bought one and it's rather well thought out for a camera in that price range. Also small and light - Canon's answer to m 4/3. I suspect it's in you price range with the standard zoom.

One of the catches with m 4/3 is that in some ways the cameras are over priced in comparison to crop dslr's. The lenses aren't cheap either really but there is more of a reason for that. The small sensor and small pixels need generally higher quality optics than even full frame lenses. Surprisingly some m 4/3 lenses are as well. I'm inclined to say all of them reall. There is a catch though. For instance I have a 75-300mm zoom so on m 4/3 it's reckonned to be 150-600mm equivalent. It is after a fashion but there is no way that it will resolve as much as a full frame camera would with a 600mm lens on it. The same applies to crop dslr's. That's the downside. The plus is a lot less weight and lower cost compared that way on both crop formats.

John
-

[csa mt]

"If Carol's already finding it restrictive,"

Please know, I am not in any way finding the FZ70 restrictive! I simply wanted to have an additional camera with interchangable lens.

I guess the best route for me is not to get another camera, and stick with what I have.
Thanks everyone, I appreciate your time & trouble in replying!

[inkista]

Well, you can think of "with interchangeable lens" as one way that the FZ-70 is restricting you.

But, if you can get all the photos you want with the camera you have now, then maybe it's best to wait a bit, and stick with what you have. To me, the main reasons to upgrade from a bridge superzoom like your FZ-70 to a dSLR or other larger-sensor camera would be:

• You want better low-light performance
• You want more dynamic range
• You want to have more depth-of-field control
• You want to use different lenses
• You want faster responsiveness [less shutter lag] to time shots

A lot of us who shoot the big system cameras also shoot a P&S of some kind, so it's not "or" as much as "and". Fixed-lens cameras are mighty convenient and compact.