What is best camera below an SLR for the money?

[slimz]

Mrs. Mantooth may want to hold her horses: http://gizmodo.com/5903091/is-this-the-first-leaked-shot-of-the-nikon-d3200

If nothing else, 3100 may drop in price a little.

[puniraptor]

iPhone

[yoga-like_abana]

i absolutely love snobs. camera snobs, wine snobs, cigar snobs, bbs snobs etc.
and im being serious they are so passionate.

[raquetcat]

I want to get a lower level slr and am thinking about getting the sony alpha a35 or a55, would this be a good choice?

The guy at Wolfe's said he recommended it over the Nikon or Canon because it's a little faster and the image stabilizer is in the camera and not the lens, but I doubt I'll ever buy a bigger lens so not sure how much it matters.

Thoughts?

[pissclams]

i've thought about it for about 10 minutes and that's a weird rough ridin' selling/recommendo point. 

if the guy wasn't selling the CMOS sensor, he's probably not worth listening to.  you should really buy a camera body separate and then the appropriate glass (camera pro term) for your projected uses.

[raquetcat]

i've thought about it for about 10 minutes and that's a weird rough ridin' selling/recommendo point. 

if the guy wasn't selling the CMOS sensor, he's probably not worth listening to.  you should really buy a camera body separate and then the appropriate glass (camera pro term) for your projected uses.

I know I want a CMOS sensor, is there much of a difference as long as it's a HD CMOS sensor? Here is what the a55 has:
APS-C 'Exmor' APS HD CMOS sensor

[SleepFighter]

I want to get a lower level slr and am thinking about getting the sony alpha a35 or a55, would this be a good choice?

The guy at Wolfe's said he recommended it over the Nikon or Canon because it's a little faster and the image stabilizer is in the camera and not the lens, but I doubt I'll ever buy a bigger lens so not sure how much it matters.

Thoughts?

The bottom line is that any DSLR-like you buy new today will be an amazing piece of equipment more than capable of taking tremendous pictures, and if you're the kind of person that is asking camera questions on a wild wild cats related forum there is nothing that you need it to do that any DSLR-like you happen to pick up won't be able to handle.  This is particularly true for people that will display most of their pictures online, which again, is most people.

The in body image stabilization is a big deal to some people.  Certainly it doesn't hurt.  Also notice I wrote DSLR-like in the previous paragraph.  That's because these Sony's don't have a traditional optical viewfinder.  They have an electronic viewfinder which isn't necessarily "worse" than an optical one, especially in comparison to the smaller dimmer ones you'll find in these camera's entry-level competition. Having said that, the biggest problem with buying a Sony is that their system isn't as fully fleshed out as those of Nikon or Canon.  There aren't as many lenses available, either first or third party.  There aren't as many flashes and other accessories available for them either.  If you're only ever going to leave the kit lens hanging off the end of your camera that doesn't matter to you.  And the truth is, that describes most people that buy an entry level DSLR.

The other class of camera that I think that maybe you should look at are the mirrorless cameras.  The Sony Nex system, the micro 4/3s offerings from Olympus and Panasonic, and maybe the Nikon 1 series give you a bunch of the advantages of DSLR-likes (image quality,flexibility) in a more convenient to carry size.  The biggest problem with these cameras is that their pretty much all over-priced right now as the competition that has driven the prices down so much in compacts and DSLRs hasn't had time to work through this segment.

Whatever you get, if you're serious about using it, try at least picking a couple of cameras up.  Figure out where the aperture and shutter speed controls are.  See how comfortable it is to find and use those controls while you are composing a picture.  Pick the camera that does what you need it to do and feels the best while you're doing it.

[raquetcat]

I want to get a lower level slr and am thinking about getting the sony alpha a35 or a55, would this be a good choice?

The guy at Wolfe's said he recommended it over the Nikon or Canon because it's a little faster and the image stabilizer is in the camera and not the lens, but I doubt I'll ever buy a bigger lens so not sure how much it matters.

Thoughts?

The bottom line is that any DSLR-like you buy new today will be an amazing piece of equipment more than capable of taking tremendous pictures, and if you're the kind of person that is asking camera questions on a wild wild cats related forum there is nothing that you need it to do that any DSLR-like you happen to pick up won't be able to handle.  This is particularly true for people that will display most of their pictures online, which again, is most people.

The in body image stabilization is a big deal to some people.  Certainly it doesn't hurt.  Also notice I wrote DSLR-like in the previous paragraph.  That's because these Sony's don't have a traditional optical viewfinder.  They have an electronic viewfinder which isn't necessarily "worse" than an optical one, especially in comparison to the smaller dimmer ones you'll find in these camera's entry-level competition. Having said that, the biggest problem with buying a Sony is that their system isn't as fully fleshed out as those of Nikon or Canon.  There aren't as many lenses available, either first or third party.  There aren't as many flashes and other accessories available for them either.  If you're only ever going to leave the kit lens hanging off the end of your camera that doesn't matter to you.  And the truth is, that describes most people that buy an entry level DSLR.

The other class of camera that I think that maybe you should look at are the mirrorless cameras.  The Sony Nex system, the micro 4/3s offerings from Olympus and Panasonic, and maybe the Nikon 1 series give you a bunch of the advantages of DSLR-likes (image quality,flexibility) in a more convenient to carry size.  The biggest problem with these cameras is that their pretty much all over-priced right now as the competition that has driven the prices down so much in compacts and DSLRs hasn't had time to work through this segment.

Whatever you get, if you're serious about using it, try at least picking a couple of cameras up.  Figure out where the aperture and shutter speed controls are.  See how comfortable it is to find and use those controls while you are composing a picture.  Pick the camera that does what you need it to do and feels the best while you're doing it.

Thanks sleepyfighter this is some great hciq you're spitting. After doing a little web-ernet searching it looks like the mirrorless cameras are as much or only slightly cheaper than the sony a55 I was thinking about getting. And you're right about me probably never buying many lenses/flashes etc. for it and also the any DSLR-like camera being able to do what I want to do part. Great input.

[SleepFighter]

Those Sony cameras do have slightly worse high-iso performance than their Nikon and Canon competition (read shoot in dim light capability).  Don't know how much that matters to you.  But then there's going to be other things that the Sony does better than the similarly priced Nikon/Canons (e.g. significantly better frame rates).

Just get something that you'll be willing to carry around, and then use it.  That's really the best camera advice to give to anyone.  For some people that means their iPhone, for others it's a Nikon D4.  Whatever. 

[steve dave]

I think I may go test drive that Canon S100 this weekend clams

[pissclams]

it's a great camera.  you'll be amazed at the pics it can take.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-S100-vs-Canon_PowerShot_S95

i've got the S95 which is last year's version of canon's high end point and shoot.  takes great pics and if you want to get a little bit into photo nerdy stuff, it allows you to manually adjust settings.  also has a great sensor for low light shooting.

i'd go with the s100 since the s95 hasn't dropped in price.

[slimz]

I want to get a lower level slr and am thinking about getting the sony alpha a35 or a55, would this be a good choice?

The guy at Wolfe's said he recommended it over the Nikon or Canon because it's a little faster and the image stabilizer is in the camera and not the lens, but I doubt I'll ever buy a bigger lens so not sure how much it matters.

Thoughts?

The bottom line is that any DSLR-like you buy new today will be an amazing piece of equipment more than capable of taking tremendous pictures, and if you're the kind of person that is asking camera questions on a wild wild cats related forum there is nothing that you need it to do that any DSLR-like you happen to pick up won't be able to handle.  This is particularly true for people that will display most of their pictures online, which again, is most people.

The in body image stabilization is a big deal to some people.  Certainly it doesn't hurt.  Also notice I wrote DSLR-like in the previous paragraph.  That's because these Sony's don't have a traditional optical viewfinder.  They have an electronic viewfinder which isn't necessarily "worse" than an optical one, especially in comparison to the smaller dimmer ones you'll find in these camera's entry-level competition. Having said that, the biggest problem with buying a Sony is that their system isn't as fully fleshed out as those of Nikon or Canon.  There aren't as many lenses available, either first or third party.  There aren't as many flashes and other accessories available for them either.  If you're only ever going to leave the kit lens hanging off the end of your camera that doesn't matter to you.  And the truth is, that describes most people that buy an entry level DSLR.

The other class of camera that I think that maybe you should look at are the mirrorless cameras.  The Sony Nex system, the micro 4/3s offerings from Olympus and Panasonic, and maybe the Nikon 1 series give you a bunch of the advantages of DSLR-likes (image quality,flexibility) in a more convenient to carry size.  The biggest problem with these cameras is that their pretty much all over-priced right now as the competition that has driven the prices down so much in compacts and DSLRs hasn't had time to work through this segment.

Whatever you get, if you're serious about using it, try at least picking a couple of cameras up.  Figure out where the aperture and shutter speed controls are.  See how comfortable it is to find and use those controls while you are composing a picture.  Pick the camera that does what you need it to do and feels the best while you're doing it.

Thanks sleepyfighter this is some great hciq you're spitting. After doing a little web-ernet searching it looks like the mirrorless cameras are as much or only slightly cheaper than the sony a55 I was thinking about getting. And you're right about me probably never buying many lenses/flashes etc. for it and also the any DSLR-like camera being able to do what I want to do part. Great input.

You can get into an Olympus micro 4/3 that's a couple of years old right now for under $200 if you look in the right places. They've released so many iterations in the last couple of years that it's rapidly driven down the price of the earlier generations. The Olympus micro 4/3 have IBIS. The big advantage of micro 4/3 right now over Sony is that there is a lot, lot of glass already available for it through Panny, Olympus, and third parties (http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html)--and it's easy to adapt legacy glass for it, too.

[HeinBallz]

Not that anyone cares - but this question is a major pet peeve of mine and I get it from people all the time.  For fucks sake, buy a name brand you've heard of - don't ask people about megapixels, because this isn't 1998 and if it has some flashy selling point like facial recognition or if Ashton Kutcher is telling you it's awesome, It probably rough ridin' sucks.  It's a point & shoot Camera. Unless you want a DSLR, It's all going to suck by comparison. 

If you're looking at the higher end point & shoot and are willing to spend $500 on a camera, why not drop another $400 & get a DSLR.

[michigancat]

best camera under $200? Best under $150?

[SleepFighter]

best camera under $200? Best under $150?

They are all the same.

[michigancat]

best camera under $200? Best under $150?

They are all the same.

I don't believe you.

[SleepFighter]

best camera under $200? Best under $150?

They are all the same.

I don't believe you.

Believe what you want.  The sensors in cameras in that class were commoditized long ago.  Sure, there are differences in handling, image processing, and lenses, but those deltas are small, and what you gain in one model in a given category you lose in another.  Cell phone cameras have destroyed the margins in the low cost compact market and camera makers have settled on sameyness. 

If you don't want to spend too much on a camera, use the one in your phone.  If you want to supplement that, get one that is water/shock proof.  That way you can take a camera to the beach/skiing/whereever and not worry about dropping it in the water.

[HeinBallz]

I think you should specify that differences in Lens quality in camera's under $200 are all small...  Higher priced camears the lens makes a larger difference than the sensor.   

[SleepFighter]

I think you should specify that differences in Lens quality in camera's under $200 are all small...  Higher priced camears the lens makes a larger difference than the sensor.

Agreed.  And not just lens differences.  What makes the s95/s100 as good as it is compared to its competition at the higher end of the compact market has as much to do with handling and image processing as the lens or the sensor.

[michigancat]

best camera under $200? Best under $150?

They are all the same.

I don't believe you.

Believe what you want.  The sensors in cameras in that class were commoditized long ago.  Sure, there are differences in handling, image processing, and lenses, but those deltas are small, and what you gain in one model in a given category you lose in another.  Cell phone cameras have destroyed the margins in the low cost compact market and camera makers have settled on sameyness. 

If you don't want to spend too much on a camera, use the one in your phone.  If you want to supplement that, get one that is water/shock proof.  That way you can take a camera to the beach/skiing/whereever and not worry about dropping it in the water.

I'm referring to things like durability/build quality. I'm sure they aren't all the same in that department. I'm also sure most cameras would be better than my phone's camera.

[SleepFighter]

best camera under $200? Best under $150?

They are all the same.

I don't believe you.

Believe what you want.  The sensors in cameras in that class were commoditized long ago.  Sure, there are differences in handling, image processing, and lenses, but those deltas are small, and what you gain in one model in a given category you lose in another.  Cell phone cameras have destroyed the margins in the low cost compact market and camera makers have settled on sameyness. 

If you don't want to spend too much on a camera, use the one in your phone.  If you want to supplement that, get one that is water/shock proof.  That way you can take a camera to the beach/skiing/whereever and not worry about dropping it in the water.

I'm referring to things like durability/build quality. I'm sure they aren't all the same in that department. I'm also sure most cameras would be better than my phone's camera.

The question you're asking is akin to "What's the best cheap DVD player available?"

Sure, you can buy some off brand thing that is absolute garbage, but as long as you buy a Panasonic/Canon/Nikon/Sony/Samsung/Pentax/etc they're cost reduced commodities.

[michigancat]

The question you're asking is akin to "What's the best cheap DVD player available?"

Sure, you can buy some off brand thing that is absolute garbage, but as long as you buy a Panasonic/Canon/Nikon/Sony/Samsung/Pentax/etc they're cost reduced commodities.

You could have just said "I don't know". From my experiences with low-end headphones, there are huge differences across name brands.

[SleepFighter]

The question you're asking is akin to "What's the best cheap DVD player available?"

Sure, you can buy some off brand thing that is absolute garbage, but as long as you buy a Panasonic/Canon/Nikon/Sony/Samsung/Pentax/etc they're cost reduced commodities.

You could have just said "I don't know". From my experiences with low-end headphones, there are huge differences across name brands.

Good luck.

[steve dave]

The question you're asking is akin to "What's the best cheap DVD player available?"

Sure, you can buy some off brand thing that is absolute garbage, but as long as you buy a Panasonic/Canon/Nikon/Sony/Samsung/Pentax/etc they're cost reduced commodities.

You could have just said "I don't know". From my experiences with low-end headphones, there are huge differences across name brands.

I've always had a canon elph and if I was buying one of those instead of the S100 I would get the 300HS which is in that price range.  They've always done very well for me. 

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-ELPH-300-HS/dp/B004J41T7Q

[Mikeyis4dcats]

I've been really thinking aboiut getting this....
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D3100-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-G-VR-DX-AF-S-Zoom-Lens-Factory-Demo-59484.cfm

We currently have a Canon S series thats about a year old.