Looking for opinions on selecting a camera

[Ariston]

Used Nikon D3 in excellent condition can be had for under 900 usd . Thing of beauty. I found one a couple years ago for under 800, fabulous camera. I now have a D5 but I can't let go of the D3. Truly a groundbreaking camera. No video junk, drives like every Nikon pro camera made since 1959. Find one with less than 50-60,000 clicks on the shutter. Mine only had 8,000. Aftermarket battery packs are cheap now and they work fine. Built like a tank. 12 MP is plenty. MHO

I have a D700, and I just bought a D300 for $39.00 The fact that everyone chases megapixels and ultra-high ISOs is such an advantage for those of us who don't (maybe I should keep my mouth shut).

The OP said he never prints more than 8x10. Just to provide some perspective, if I touch my nose to the 60-inch screen of my 4K TV, I can barely make out the pixels. A 4K image is around nine megapixels, so you could print a 60-inch image, bury your nose in it, and be happy.

If you enjoy cropping instead of composing, that's a different story. It's certainly impressive to be able to crop off half the picture and still have 18 megapixels left, so I understand the desire, if you have the money. But to be able to buy a professional caliber camera for a few hundred dollars is astounding. Think of all the money you get to keep and spend on something else!

 

[mshchem]

I have a D700, and I just bought a D300 for $39.00 The fact that everyone chases megapixels and ultra-high ISOs is such an advantage for those of us who don't (maybe I should keep my mouth shut).

The OP said he never prints more than 8x10. Just to provide some perspective, if I touch my nose to the 60-inch screen of my 4K TV, I can barely make out the pixels. A 4K image is around nine megapixels, so you could print a 60-inch image, bury your nose in it, and be happy.

If you enjoy cropping instead of composing, that's a different story. It's certainly impressive to be able to crop off half the picture and still have 18 megapixels left, so I understand the desire, if you have the money. But to be able to buy a professional caliber camera for a few hundred dollars is astounding. Think of all the money you get to keep and spend on something else!

I still have a Nikon Coolpix 990, I bought it used for 250 bucks 15 years ago . 3.3 M sensor. I made inkjet 8x10 prints, cropped, beautiful images. It came with a 16 M compact flash card . If I put in a 256G card I could take pictures for the rest of my life..

 

[Ariston]

I remember how amazed people were at the resolution of 1080p (2 megepixels) TVs when they came out. They still look amazing, even at 60 inches, as long as you aren't standing an inch from them. I do not hesitate to take the smaller 5 megapixel jpegs with my D700 and D300. I didn't buy them for the resolution, but for the ergonomics, toughness, and performance. I do NOT want to have to deal with 36 MP files for EVERY photo.

That's nothing against those who do; it's just my personal preference.

 

[wahiba]

You state that you want a light weight outdoors digital camera. Best to head to the local charity/thrift shop and look for an older model with a proper viewfinder. I have a Canon A430 4 mega pixels (2272 x 1704} 4 x zoom which works fine. I think their were others in the range. Fuji did a good basic range with a proper viewfinder.

The current situation is that if you want a proper viewfinder you wiil have to pay or carry an SLR lump.

My first digital camera was a Fuji with no zoom lens a proper viewfinder and a screen. After a holiday the 6x4 prints I got from it were fine. 1800 x 1200 sensor if I remember.

The Canon I regularly use along side my analogue kit.

An alternative opinion

 

[RalphLambrecht]

So I'm thinking about buying my first good quality digital camera for my own use. I've been shooting film for 7 years now and before that I either used my phone or a little canon elph point and shoot that my wife and I shared. I've never had a decent DSLR or mirrorless camera. I don't know a lot about all the different tech (although I've been trying to educate myself through youtube). I also have a budget of about $1,200 cdn for the body only. I'm hoping I could get some opinions from the community at large on what's good. I do have a camera in mind though but not sure if my reasoning is sound. Hoping people wouldn't mind sharing their opinions.

So how I use my camera is:

Stills photo only. I have no need for video in any capacity.
I mostly shoot nature and travel photos. My camera comes out with me on long hikes. Smaller and lightweight is a benefit for me. I'm hoping to avoid large bodies and large lenses.
My favorite lens that I own is a 100mm macro lens. It's close focusing distance is only a few inches but also works well for images at infinity. I use it 60% of the time. Usually the widest I shoot is 55mm unless I'm away travelling where I'd use a 35mm focal length.
I usually only go out during the day with my camera. While I take a few photos in the house at night, it's less often (usually birthdays, Christmas morning).
I only rarely use flash. Mostly because of how I shoot along with my lack of knowledge currently on how to properly use a flash.
I need to be able to buy an adapter so I have the option to use some of my Voigtlander M mount lenses on occasion, but I plan on buying a native lens or two.
This time around I'm hoping to stay away from prime lenses. I'd prefer to use lenses that allow me to zoom from a wider focal length to one more telephoto. Hopefully one that could cover from 35mm to maybe as much as 135mm ish.
The largest I've ever printed anything is 8" x 12". I can't see me wanting to print larger.

Given my cost and size restrictions I've been looking into the micro 4/3 systems. I've seen lots of videos saying this sensor size is dead now. That it has poorer low light capabilities and tops out at 16mp. Given my usage pattern above I would think that these restrictions won't really come into play for me. Their unpopularity results in a good camera at an excellent price.

I've been debating buying an Olympus OM-D E-M5 which fits the budget. It's small and lightweight. 16mp will produce a decent 8x10/12. It also sells a lens that covers 14-150mm which for it's focal range is physically quite small. ( I think that means the full frame equivalent is 28-300). What are people's opinions on my choice? Am I missing a camera that's better that will fit my needs? Where I'm quite inexperienced with digital cameras and the technology I'm sure there may be better options out there that I've simply missed. I appreciate everyone's feedback and hope to use your opinions to help make my selection. Thanks for your input.

ith yor budjetyou have plenty of options. I would get a low-end new or high-end used name-brand DSLR and try before you buy if possible. general advise is: put your money into lenses not the body. bodies are updated and out-of date quickly. lenses of name -brand manufacturers can often carried over to the next generation body. By lenses that fit your style of photography and maybe a mid-range zoom. That is most-likely all you'll ever need.

 

[George Mann]

in your case, I think you don't need to spend much more than $100 on a decent digital P&S from either Nikon or Canon or any of the other name-brand products. Their zoom range weight and image quality will fit your needs perfectly and you are not out a lot of $$$.I spend $100 on a Nikon Coolpix and it's all I carry on trips it's 16Mpx quality has surprised me often. if you email at rwlambrec@gmail.com, I'll send you a comparison between it and a Nikon D800 on the same subject.

I didn't know that a decent digital point&shoot existed at this price point (new). Care to tell us what model it is?

 

[blockend]

Pick a camera based on other things than megapixels. To perceive a noticeable difference in a print, all other factors being equal, a camera has to have 4 times the number of pixels. You would need 48 mp to get more print definition than a 12 mp camera, 64 mp to improve on 16 mp and 80 mp to beat a 20 megapixel camera. A good lens is a bigger factor in image quality than pixels.

 

[EJArgentina]

I shoot from time to time Provia with a Rolleiflex 3.5F, but more often use either a Sigma Quattro DP2 or my Sigma Quattro DP3. The DP3 has good macro capability. With the Sigmas, one needs strong light. But the image quality is sensational. You can get a new camera for less than USD $1000, one is not too burdensome to carry about.

 

[Ces1um]

I shoot from time to time Provia with a Rolleiflex 3.5F, but more often use either a Sigma Quattro DP2 or my Sigma Quattro DP3. The DP3 has good macro capability. With the Sigmas, one needs strong light. But the image quality is sensational. You can get a new camera for less than USD $1000, one is not too burdensome to carry about.

Thanks for the advice but my original post is nearly a year old at this point. I purchased a camera back in march 2019.