awboater

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-mx-1/8

 

If you scroll down it let's you compare it's ability to any 3 other cameras listed.

I noticed the article is a bit limited as it does not even show the P330 for comparison, which has the same sized sensor and is useable up to ISO 3200!

I highly recommend the Nikon P330. I have this camera and it is very feature loaded - but your husband might want it for him...

For under $300 it is probably the best camera you can buy.

I also bought a second battery for it, which it sounds like something you may want to do.

http://www.althephoto.com/cameras/p330.php

Also consider the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro - it is a very sharp lens and probably less expensive than the Canon.

Both of your suppositions are true - at 60mm, you will have some issues with bugs as you have to be close, and at 100/105mm it is harder to use due to the shallower DoF - which can be wafer thin, the possibility of having to use a flash, manual focus, tripod, etc.

In fact you all but need to also buy a macro flash when using a macro lens in the 100mm range so you can boost the DoF. Lenses such as the Tokina will go up to f/64 (and don't worry about diffraction at this close range). This drives up the cost significantly since a good macro flash system is not inexpensive, and can cost as much or more than the lens.

Regardless, you will need a tripod when using 100/105mm lenses - so IS is not really necessary as you generally have to turn IS off when using a tripod.

And you also typically need to go to manual focus controls - at least with the 100/105mm macro lenses as the autofocus system in most DSLRs are not very good at such close distances.

And you will also want a shutter release, and if your camera has this feature - use the MUP (Mirror Up) mode, as even mirror slap will cause blurry photos.

I have two macro lenses, a Nikon AF-S 40mm f/2.8 micro (Nikon calls their macro lenses micro) and the Nikon version of the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 macro.

I use the 40mm for all general purpose macro uses - flowers and other inanimate items - as it has a much favorable DoF, and I can use the camera hand-held without a flash.

For bugs (at least those that are not on a pin), I switch to the Tokina 100mm along with a Nikon R1 macro flash, tripod, cable release, etc. While this can be rewarding, it is fairly involved compared to the 40mm focal length.

So as the way I see it; the shorter focal lengths are fine for everything but bugs, and more convenient as you can often use the camera handheld and without a flash. It is also less expensive. For bugs though, the 100/105mm lenses/flash/tripod/cable-release/MUP enabled camera is the way to go.

I have taken my 40mm micro on cruises before - I would not take the 100mm and all of the extra junk on a cruise.

I used to have a Nikon P7000 - predecessor to the P8700, and similar to the Canon G12.

It was a nice camera, but not exactly a pocket camera. For that, I went to a Nikon P330 - sort of like the Canon S110. It is pocket-sized, and I always take it with me wherever I go. In addition, I take a DSLR with me, as well as a Nikon V1 CSC, but for times when those cameras are just too bulky, the P330 works fine.

True it does not have a viewfinder, but I have found that I use the camera mostly in situations where I don't lug the others, and have been willing to trade lack of a viewfinder for the convenience of a true pocket sized camera.

And the f/1.8 lens of the P330, along with image-stacking provides outstanding low-light capability, all the way to ISO 3200.

Note that he said Canon FD not the later autofocus lenses.

 

Dave

Sorry, I should have specifically pointed that out.

For under $300, I don't think you can buy a better point-and-shoot than the Nikon P330.

This camera has so many features - some pretty advanced - it is incredible that you can buy the camera for under $300. For instance, this camera has a rear-curtain flash mode, which are normally only found on DSLRs. Heck, there might even be a couple of entry level DSLRs that do not have that feature:

• 
  
• 12Mp 1/1.7" Back Side Illuminated sensor.
  
• Continuous shutter release - up to 7 frames per second (limited duration).
  
• Magnesium chassis.
  
• Exposure bracketing.
  
• Exposure compensation.
  
• Flash exposure compensation.
  
• Program, Aperture & Shutter Priority and Manual (PSAM) modes, along with automatic.
  
• User defined mode.
  
• Manual focus capability.
  
• Vibration Reduction.
  
• Mechanical/electronic shutter.
  
• fast f/1.8 lens (although it is variable to f/5.6 at the telephoto end); 24-120mm equivalent.
  
• 7-blade iris aperture.
  
• Matrix, center weighted, or spot metering and focusing.
  
• Psuedo HDR.
  
• Dedicated command dial.
  
• Flash modes including red-eye, fill, slow-sync, and rear-curtain sync.
  
• WiFi remote capability (with the WU1a adapter).
  
• Ability to set Color Temperature (3850~10,000 deg K).
  
• Interval Timer.
  
• GPS.
  
• Panoramic, selective color, Hi-key, Low-key, Sepia, Macro, 3D modes.
  
• Built-in ND filter.
  
• Seperate movie button.
  
• Video PAUSE function.
  
• Stereo mic.
  
• full 1080p HD movie.
  
• low-light "stacking" mode.
  
• Programmable function button.
  

There is a rumored Nikon P340 to be announced soon, which is supposed to have a 1" sensor (Same size as the Nikon 1 series and the Sony RX100). That means that the P330 might soon even be less expensive... unless of course you want the P340.

If I were looking at a Nikon point & shoot, I would only consider the "P" series which are their premium cameras, and even then, I am not so sure about the P5xx series (I dislike bridge cameras). I would avoid the "S" (standard) and "L" (entry level) series as they are not nearly as good... and a few "L" series are downright awful.

The 75-300mm is rumored to be the worst lens Canon has ever made.

While there are a few adapters available for certain applications (such as a Nikon lens to Canon body, or Canon FD lens to Nikon body), they are really not a viable solution.

First, the optics will be suspect, and you may not get as sharp of a photo.

Second, the focus point often changes, so you may not be able to focus to infinity.

Third, you will have to use manual focus and manual exposure controls.

Manual focus these days is not that easy as DSLRs lack the ground glass focus grids that SLRs of old had.

Generally, you will likely find less than acceptable results.

I use Abobe Premiere Elements - which is the video version of Adobe Elements. You can typically get both packages (the video and camera versions bundled together) for around $100 or so. Or either one separately for $60 ish.

Oh, by the way, most DSLRs (at least Nikons) use phase detection focusing. Compact cameas typically use contrast detection. My D7100 for instance uses the Multi-CAM 3500FX phase detection focus module (same one as used in the D4 and D800).

Some cameras, such as the Nikon 1 series use a combination hybrid phase/contrast detection, which seems to give them an advantage.

At risk of going off in a tangent about shutter lag, I will concede that cameras such as the A77 have a better "live view" shutter delay than cameras such as the A7R - but there is still a considerable shutter delay in DSLR terms (0.122 sec in continuous AF mode for the A77). And for some reason the A99 has an even slower 0.153sec lag in continuous AF mode. There is no such thing as zero shutter delay.

The best DSLRs are well under 0.1sec, and some cameras, such as the Nikon D4 are around 0.043sec.

Again, if you consider a 90mph fastball travels 13ft in 0.1sec, you want a low shutter lag camera for sports and action photography.

Not to belabor the point, but these days, shutter lags are generally overlooked when people are in the market to buy a DSLR. Manufacturers don't make it any easier as they rarely - if ever - publish shutter lag data.

The old notion that ALL DSLRs have improved shutter delay is not as true as it once was. Due to the cut-throat competition in the DSLR market, the performance of cameras - especially in the entry level segment - has gone down as manufacturers try to obtain a certain price-point.

True, Sony DSLRs have significantly less lag than traditional DSLRs when used in live view mode, but it is a moot point as in my view, you should not be using live view for anything but video anyway - and especially not for sports or action; you cannot possibly hold a DSLR at arm's length and not introduce significant camera shake.

The point I am really trying to make - and forgive me if I tend to waver - is that ALL cameras have some shutter delay, whether it be mirrorless, mirrored DSLR, transparent mirror or some other kind of thing. When shopping for a camera, if sports and action photography is important, those cameras with delays under 0.100sec should be considered best.

Worth mentioning that the one exception to that rule has always been Sony DSLRs and SLT cameras...their live view and viewfinder shooting performance is the same, no lag, no delay, no difference.

Ummm...

According to http://www.imaging-resource.com testing, even Sony's flagship A7R has a significant shutter delay, in the 0.360sec range, which is mediocre for a DSLR. Virtually all of the Nikon DSLRs have significantly less delays, down to 0.045sec for the high-end cameras.

Quoting from http://www.imaging-resource.com:

The Sony A7R's full-autofocus shutter lag (with the subject at a fixed distance) was 0.359 second in Single-area AF mode. This increased slightly to 0.362 second in Multi-area AF mode. That's quite a bit slower than the average pro DSLR and even slower than most consumer DSLRs, but only slightly slower than most CSCs.

While the live view of 0.360sec is significantly better than live view of other DSLRs, the overall 0.360sec shutter delay is unimpressive when compared to other cameras using the viewfinder.

Don't take my word for it - look it up here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/camera-reviews/sony/a7r/sony-a7rA6.HTM

Shutter delay is an often overlooked parameter for a DSLR as most people feel they are an improvement, but they are not. There are compact cameras that are faster than 0.360sec.

I think you mean touch screen.

No, I mean flip screen. When you use the flip screen as opposed to using the viewfinder, you are also using live view. Live view is actually the main culprit as that adds 1 second to the delay in taking the photo.

However, if you look at the http://www.imaging-resource.com website - that tests things such as shutter delay - you will also find that most cameras with flip screens also have longer shutter delays than those cameras without them. The differences may only be 0.1sec, but it is pretty consistent that the delays are longer.

Therefore, I can only conclude that those cameras with flip screens are optimized for live-view, etc.

The D5000 is a fairly old camera, there are much nicer cameras these days, especially when it comes to low-light performance. Unfortunately, Canon cameras, with their smaller sensors, do not tend to have very good low-light performance if you believe DxOMark sensor ratings. The DxOMark ratings consistently rate Canon cameras low light performance below in contrast to Nikon, Sony, and Pentax.

One thing you should know that most of the articulated flip screens on DSLRs result in a higher shutter delay, even if they are not used.

For example, Nikon's D3200 has a 0.12sec delay when in continuous shutter mode (typically used in sports and action photography), while the D5000 has a 0.25sec delay when the flip screen is not used, and a delay greater than 1sec when it is used.

The thing is, you should really avoid using the articulated screen in most cases.

1. the articulated screen promotes poor camera handling, which invariably results in blurry photos. You simply cannot hold the camera steady enough to get good results that way.

2. Using the flip screen (aka live view) adds over 1 sec delay in your shutter. If you can learn to use the camera without the flip screen, you will find the camera responds much faster. Consequently, using the flip screen is all but worthless for action and sports photography. This is true regardless of camera brand.

3. Flip screens eat batteries at a high rate. You will probably only get half the photos per charge when using live view and the flip screen.

4. Depending on the weather, you may have a tough time even seeing or composing your subject, depending on how bright the sun is.

5. Overuse of the flip screen will prematurely wear out your camera.

You should only use the flip screen/live view during video use or when the camera is on a tripod. If you are using it more than that, learn how to hold the camera by looking through the viewfinder. It will result in better (blur free) photos, a faster responding camera, etc.

I will guess that 90% of your dissatisfaction with the D5000 is over use of the flip screen. The reason most DSLRs do not have flip screens is that they are as much of a problem as a benefit.

The 18-55mm "kit" lens that comes with the D500 is no worse or better than Canon's entry level lens. I would not go so far as to call them bad, but there are better lenses available, such as the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. Neither Nikon or Canon make a lot of good APS-C lenses.

If you go to a website such as http://www.imaging-resource.com, which tests shutter lags among other things, you will find that the flip screens on all brands of DSLRs have the most shutter delay - even when they are not used. This is probably because they are optimized for video use, so in my view, that is an unacceptable compromise as you are losing action and sports performance. I would never own a DSLR with a flip screen.

My "binoculars" is a camera.

If you buy the camera before you go on a cruise, you will have photos of the entire cruise. Even if you could get a good deal on a camera in St. Thomas - which I doubt you will - why lose half your photo opportunities.

As far as warranty, I bought a Nikon grip once in St. Maarten. It had a Nikon USA warranty good for the USA and Caribbean.

Pretty cool example.

My recommendation, if you are a Nikon shooter, save and just buy the Nikon lens, it really is superior glass, although expensive, you do get what you paid for.

The problem is, if you are a DX shooter, Nikon (nor Canon for that matter) really produce many premium DX lenses. The 17-55mm f2.8 is about it for both brands, with a possible nod to the Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 Dx fisheye - it could be considered a premium lens also.

And in DxOMark testing, the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 has been shown to be superior to both the Canon and Nikon 17-55m f/2.8.

Thing is, for Dx shooters, the only time you really need to go with a Dx lens is in the wide angle area, as you can use many of the fine Nikon telephoto lenses.

But in the wide angle arena, to get the best lenses you have to go to the 3rd party. For example, the Sigma 17-35mm f/1.8 is quickly gaining reputation as the best Dx lens ever made, and neither Canon or Nikon make anything close.

Neither do Nikon or Canon have anything to match the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.

And while it is not a fast lens, nothing Nikon or Canon make is as wide as the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5~5.6 - which is a non fisheye lens.

Thing is Canon and Nikon simply provide lip service for premium Dx/EF-S lenses. With a couple of exceptions, they are all consumer grade. To get premium APS-C lenses, you have to go to the 3rd party. I won't go as far as calling them professional lenses, but the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 especially is certainly a premium lens with a lot better build quality than the Nikon 10-24mm consumer-grade lens.

Of the 13 DSLR lenses I own,

two are Sigma:

8-16mm f/4.5~5.6

17-50mm f/2.8

three are Tokina:

11-16mm f/2.8

100mm f/2.8 macro

80-400mm f/4~5.6

eight are Nikon:

10.5mm f/2.8 fisheye

18-200mm f/3.5~5.6G

28mm f/1.8G

40mm f/2.8G micro

50mm f/1.4G

70~300mm f/4.5~5.6G

80-200mm f/2.8D

85mm f/1.8G

I always try to buy quality lenses, and while a couple of them in my lens farm are a bit iffy (especially the Tokina 80-400mm), I go with Nikon when it makes sense, but I am not afraid to go aftermarket if needed, especially for wide angle DX lenses.

I have historically considered Tokina, Sigma, Tamron in that order when looking at 3rd party lenses.

Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 is a killer lens and in my view, none of the manufacturers offer any lenses near it.

Sigma has gone up a notch in my comfort level after purchasing two Sigma lenses last summer; the 17-50mm f/2.8 and the 8-16mm f/4.5~5.6

Before I purchased those lenses, I read an awful lot of negative reviews about them, so much so that it made me hesitate. But after reading other reviews about the premium quality of the 17-50mm f/2.8, I took a chance and bought one.

And I have been really happy with it. Perhaps there is some truth to different lenses having different quality, or perhaps Sigma's reputation is mostly due to offerings in the past, I don't know.

And I bought the Sigma 8-16mm as there is no wider non-fisheye lens you can buy for a cropped DSLR. That extra 3mm over my Tokina is significant.

I now use the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 when I am inside buildings, museums, cathedrals, etc. where the fast f/2.8 comes in handy, but now use the Sigma 8-16mm for all outside wide shots.

Of course, both lenses are about the same size and weight, so I would rather only take one or the other on vacation.

And the Sigma 8-16mm is just a work of art - including that bulbous front glass element.

So for at least the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5~5.6 and the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, none of the camera manufacturers make anything like them. And for the 17-50mm f/2.8, both Canon and Nikon make a similar 17-55mm f/2.8, but from DxOMark testing, neither of the camera brand lenses can touch the Sigma in quality.

And how about the new Sigma 17-35mm f/1.8? That is a unique lens. It listed for around $700 last Aug when it first made it to market, but now it is over $900 - probably due to high demand.

Thing is, the camera manufacturers only give cropped lenses lip service, and mostly their offerings are consumer-grade lenses. If you want premium cropped lenses, you all but have to go to the third party.

Rumor has it Canon is about to announce a new APS sized mirrorless camera, if that is the direction you are headed...

http://photorumors.com/2013/12/02/the-latest-canon-rumors-eos-m2-to-be-announced-soon-specifications-leaked/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PhotoRumors+%28PhotoRumors.com%29

I have the D7100 - great camera. I bought mine in May.

Saw Amazon had them for $799 for a short while yesterday - a great deal if you could get one.

I use a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for my main lens with the D7100. It is a pretty decent lens.

I also take either a Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5~6.5 or a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 when I am going on a cruise. And usually I take the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4/5~5.6.

I have 13 DSLR lenses, but most stay home when I go on cruises.

I am sure you will have fun with it.

You may want to invest in a good set of Ni-MH AA rechargeable batteries, such as Sanyo Eneloop XX, which are rated for 2400mAH. You can get a set of 4 with charger for under $30 at Amazon, etc.

I would avoid the department store Ni-MH batteries such as those from Duracell and others as they typically only have a 1300mAH capacity, so they will not last as long between charges.

If in doubt, look for the mAH rating on the battery packaging. I would recommend at least 2000mAH minimum for a camera.

I have found that most people that say the V1 sucks don't actually own one...

I bought mine about a year ago when Nikon had rebates for $299. At the original $899 price it was way overpriced, but I'd challenge anyone to find a better camera for $299.

Yea, the controls, dials, and interface was not as good as it could be - but for $299, I can live with that minor annoyance.

And the shutter lag is very short; under 0.1sec, which is in the same range as advanced and professional DSLRs. Which means this camera is better for sports and action than even entry level DSLRs.

Funny thing though, the Sony RX100 has the same sized sensor - and there has not been the criticism as with the V1, and at $799 (Rx-100M2), it is not exactly cheap either. I think it might be that the V1 was the first 1" camera.

BTW, I have a V1 and use it as a backup for my D7100.

And I have the FT-1 adapter so I can use my DSLR lenses on the V1 (which is one of the primary reasons I bought it).

With the FT1 adapter and my 70-300mm lens, with the crop factor - it is equivalent to a whopping 810mm.

Here is the V1 with the stock 10mm lens:

And with the 70-300mm fully zoomed in (bow of the boat in the center of the first photo):

I agree - upgrade lenses before upgrading the body.

I have a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for my "normal" lens for my D7100. It is a great lens and would be a great upgrade for your camera.

I also use either a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 or the Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8 depending on if I am shooting sports and how much I need to exercise (the 80-200 is oh so heavy).

Unfortunately, you would not be able to autofocus with the 80-200 f/2.8 with either a D3xxx or D5xxx DSLR, so your logical choice if you want a fast sports telephoto would be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

However, your 55-200mm should provide good daylight performance, so there is probably no reason to upgrade unless you have a specific issue with the lens (need a sports lens, etc).