Understanding SLR Cameras.

[Luther Moore]

I have been looking around for a slr camera for landscape photography and found a few nice mid priced second hand ones. A few have smaller bodies and the more expensive ones are larger,even though the smaller ones have more mega pixels.

My sister has a Nikon D7000 (16MP) and it's a big camera.What would she have that say a smaller Nikon D3200 (24MP) wouldn't have?

[ErrolC]

This site is a good start for the technical side (although I notice that their summary doesn't report on some aspects of the D7000 for some reason). Also see bythom.com/currentdslr.htm

More expensive ones are generally better, sometimes in ways that aren't obvious on most spec sheets.

Newer cameras tend to have better software, and often inherit software and features from older, more expensive models.

Cheaper models generally have fewer focus points, fewer controls (so changing settings involves more use of menus, rather than button/switch/dial combinations), slower burst speeds (eg 4 frames per second on D3200, 6fps on D7000), smaller batteries, poorer viewfinders, poorer screens, worse weather sealing, lower expected life, may have no focus motor.
They do weigh less, which could be important if you are taking landscapes somewhere remote.

[Luther Moore]

Thanks for the reply Errol.

I did notice on my sisters camera that she had the screen on the top to see her settings and the D3200 doesn't.My older film Canon slr also has that and makes it a lot easier than flicking through the menu to adjust settings.

Do the larger body cameras have a larger Mirror for wider shots? I noticed while looking at cameras in a shop window that the larger slr's have a bigger circle thing that you attach the lens to.

The thing that was on my mind is why does a 24MP camera cost less than a more expensive 16MP, your answers pretty much explain why.

[ErrolC]

The top (and recent middle) range cameras are 'fullframe' (FX in Nikon lingo), and act as 35mm equivalents. Others have smaller sensors (DX for Nikon of the sort you are looking at), and have various 'crop factors' - if you put a 50mm lens on a D3200 or D7000, it acts as a 50x1.5 = 75mm lens, while on a D3 it is just a 50mm.
The physical mount on the camera is the same, however (for a given manufacturer). The new 'mirrorless' models (like the Nikon J1) have smaller sensors again, bigger crop factors, and require an adapter to us the D3/D3200 type lenses.
Not sure how much a second-hand fullframe DSLR will cost.

[fwx]

Hi Luther, with a DSLR, the mirror only affects what you see thru the viewfinder, not what ends up in the photo. And no matter what the format (DX or FX) or sensor size (16MP or 24MP) the image produced will look the same in terms of size and shape; it may just contain more or less detail (information).

For most day-to-day landscape photography the MP count is less important than the lens quality and photographer's technique (exposure, depth of field, etc). I would say your D3200 would give excellent results with a good lens.

[ruakituri]

To be honest, the body is only half the battle. Choosing a suitable lense for the task at hand can also be make or break for a great photo.

[Luther Moore]

Thanks for the reply's,last thing I want is to buy the wrong camera and end up wasting good photo opportunities and time travelling because of the crap quality of the camera.

So a cheaper camera with a with a good lens should do the trick.

Gee wiz there is a lot to taking photos, it's not just point and shoot like most people think.

[suthg]

The ability to take and handle sequence photos quickly - ie focus, set aperture/speed and then repeat full images quickly at 4 frames a second is a minimum for sport photography. So the data handling capability is worth looking at for sport or airshow considerations, but - they pale into insignificance when considering landscape shots, which need a quality lens and a good image resolution and good light handling capability - and patience... have people tried taking good full frame shots of the moon for example?

A slower camera with a bloody good lens may take fantastic landscape photos. Hence the last comment from fwx...

[Luther Moore]

How does a slower camera effect a photo? I don't know much about frames per second.

[Ykato]

Apr 12, 2013 23:00:32 GMT 12 Luther Moore said:

How does a slower camera effect a photo? I don't know much about frames per second.

If you are only looking at Landscape photography it not really an Issue, what I think SuthG is pertaining to is How Many pics the camera can take & how fast it can process the images if you hold the shutter button down at one time - like photographing fast moving aircraft etc.

I.e My camera can take 6-7 Photo's per sec & can take 32 Raw images at the highest Raw setting's before it slows to 1 pic at a time.
& 64 Photo's in the highest Jpeg setting before it slows to 1 pic at a time & then you have to hold off for few secs before you can do it again.

Don't know it that helps you at all? think the 3200 burst rate is 4 FPS per sec.

[Luther Moore]

I understand now,thanks.So you really only need that for sport and stuff,landscape photography would only need one photo at a time, unless you were shooting a flock of birds flying away or something.

[dinor]

Hi Luther

I use a D5100, the reason I bought it was that a) and most importantly it has exactly the same higher resolution sensor as the D7000...ie. the image quality will be identical b) it is smaller and less complex than the D7000 and c) its a little more complex than the D3200 (!) and as you gain experience gives a little more scope for adjusting various settings than a D3200....however you can choose to have it set up as simply as the 3200 if you wish.

This camera has been superseded in the last couple of months by the D5200 and IMHO is a steal at the discounted prices at which it is currently being offered here in Oz at least...its the mid range bargain of the year.

The only negative I have found with the camera is at times the buffer seems to get full and it won't fire for a few seconds. I lost a couple of potentially nice opportunities at Omaka ( especially one where I had spent some effort planning to compose the FW190 doing a run over the turret of the Anson..aagggghhh) but if you are aware of the limits you can manage. However buying a camera just for its frame rate burst capabilities is wrong..at least for a first DSLR..other factors are much more important...and that feature alone won't give you good photos IMHO.

I invested in the best glass I could and use a nikon 16-85 and nikon 70-300... The second lens again for the price point is a bargain......A wise man told me....spend the money on the lenses as inevitably you will change bodies every few years but lenses last a long long time....and I am glad I listened...at least up to my affordability level !

Heres a quick comparison to help...also click on the dpreview links..great resource.

snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D5100

www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100/


Cheers Dino

[Ykato]

Apr 13, 2013 0:02:34 GMT 12 dinor said:

Hi Luther

I use a D5100, the reason I bought it was that a) and most importantly it has exactly the same higher resolution sensor as the D7000...ie. the image quality will be identical b) it is smaller and less complex than the D7000 and c) its a little more complex than the D3200 (!) and as you gain experience gives a little more scope for adjusting various settings than a D3200....however you can choose to have it set up as simply as the 3200 if you wish.

This camera has been superseded in the last couple of months by the D5200 and IMHO is a steal at the discounted prices at which it is currently being offered here in Oz at least...its the mid range bargain of the year.

The only negative I have found with the camera is at times the buffer seems to get full and it won't fire for a few seconds. I lost a couple of potentially nice opportunities at Omaka ( especially one where I had spent some effort planning to compose the FW190 doing a run over the turret of the Anson..aagggghhh) but if you are aware of the limits you can manage. However buying a camera just for its frame rate burst capabilities is wrong..at least for a first DSLR..other factors are much more important...and that feature alone won't give you good photos IMHO.

I invested in the best glass I could and use a nikon 16-85 and nikon 70-300... The second lens again for the price point is a bargain......A wise man told me....spend the money on the lenses as inevitably you will change bodies every few years but lenses last a long long time....and I am glad I listened...at least up to my affordability level !

Heres a quick comparison to help...also click on the dpreview links..great resource.

snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon-D5100

www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond5100/


Cheers Dino

Nice pics they are too

[dinor]

Hi Ykato...considering your Hamilton Thread pics I am flattered...thank you.

Dino

[ErrolC]

Looks like there will be articles of particular interest to Luther in the next few days on bythom.com/

How to Choose a Camera (Intro with Homework)
...
Soon I'll have my first article that further develops this idea, targeting landscape photography.

[Luther Moore]

Thank Errol,I'll have a read of it.

[Luther Moore]

I ended up getting a Nikon D90,not a bad camera for a beginner.

[Ykato]

May 16, 2013 21:47:54 GMT 12 Luther Moore said:

I ended up getting a Nikon D90,not a bad camera for a beginner.