Advice on on buying my first DSLR.

Drenny1982 · Jan 19, 2015

Hi all,

I have about a £700-£800 budget and I am looking to purchase my first SLR. I am a total beginner when it comes to photography but I have a desire to explore and grow in this field.

I am looking for a camera that is suitable for beginning enthusiasts but also one that allows me to mature and take greater control down the line. I am interested in experimenting with landscapes, portrait, urban and sport to start with. I am also going to take a couple of short courses to get the technical foundations down but I mainly plan to improve through practical experience.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks ,

Dren

Lisetta1 · Jan 21, 2015

I guess my advice is different. I'd say "no" to the DSLR (at least for now) and get a bridge cam, maybe SX50, S1 or FZ200, depending on your price range (I'd save the rest for later). I'd use this camera to learn everything I could about photography (i.e. "a lot") and to take tons of photos and develop my eye for composition, ability to choose good subjects and see them well, etc. I would even use "P" mode to concentrate on MY abilities rather than the camera's!

When I felt that my camera no longer served my skills/needs, I'd have a much better idea of whether I needed a compact P&S, mirrorless or DSLR, whether I needed wide angle or zoom or not (and how much), if low light or action shots were important, what image quality I could live with, if I wanted to shoot RAW or JPEGs, do post-processing or not, etc. etc. etc.

I'd vote "bridge cam" or, alternatively, if going "up budget", maybe a P&S like the Stylus 1. Or one of the pocketable Sonys. (The P&S can also be nicely paired with a bulkier mirrorless or DSLR later on, so not a waste)..

I'd learn a lot more before choosing a mirrorless or DSLR. Just my two cents.

JoePhoto · Jan 21, 2015

cberry said:
WTF - this is a great way to put people off the forums and photography. I don't see mirrorless as compelling - others might but in all honesty, what kills it for me is the lag - whether tiny or not between what I see and what is happening.

Are you referring to EVF lag ???

When was the last time you checked into that ???

That was indeed a complaint years ago, w/ the very first EVF's, but I have not heard it repeated much lately.

I had a Minolta A2 years ago w/ EVF and while I admit it was not the best quality, "lag" was not one of my issues.

I certainly and absolutely have had no lag problems on any and I do lots of air-shows. But even if there was it would not be a problem if what you "see" is what you are actually photographing.

EVF's today are quoted w/ less than 5ms delay, and the FZ-1000 can be set for a 60fps frame rate, (which I do use for air-shows but actually 30fps works fine and I don't really even detect a difference).

cberry said:
What then reduces it's appeal further is that the classic lenses I want to use - 35mm f/2 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 aren't as attractive.

There are fewer lens choices. They need to widen the line and stabilize on a mount.

cberry said:
The final nail in the coffin for me is that I like a vibrant second hand market and plenty of after-market accessories. Having lived in places with no camera shops makes me more cautious in terms of what I buy.

True again, because they are new, and changing so fast w/ newer models.

cberry said:
What's best to learn with? Well, people need to make mistakes to learn. I've made plenty and that includes gear purchases which just didn't work out. Frankly, the best camera to learn on for the price at the moment is a used Canon 50D.

ANY camera can be OK to learn on. And certainly that includes the 50D.

But as I mentioned, having Live-View allows direct and immediate WB and over-exposure warnings (and/or histogram).

The concept of Exposure Compensation seems difficult for many to accept/understand and Live-View can absolutely make that easier/quicker.

cberry said:
The best lens? The kit lens or the 18-135 STM (Advanced kit lens) plus maybe a 60mm Macro.

Many beginners do not appreciate the creative aspect available via UWA so I would include that into the curriculum.

cberry said:
Why? AF is dead accurate and there isn't much that the combination cannot do!

Well, could that not apply to most all (quality) AF lenses ???

munchaussen · Jan 21, 2015

Lisetta1 said:
I guess my advice is different. I'd say "no" to the DSLR (at least for now) and get a bridge cam, maybe SX50, S1 or FZ200, depending on your price range (I'd save the rest for later). I'd use this camera to learn everything I could about photography (i.e. "a lot") and to take tons of photos and develop my eye for composition, ability to choose good subjects and see them well, etc. I would even use "P" mode to concentrate on MY abilities rather than the camera's!

When I felt that my camera no longer served my skills/needs, I'd have a much better idea of whether I needed a compact P&S, mirrorless or DSLR, whether I needed wide angle or zoom or not (and how much), if low light or action shots were important, what image quality I could live with, if I wanted to shoot RAW or JPEGs, do post-processing or not, etc. etc. etc.

I'd vote "bridge cam" or, alternatively, if going "up budget", maybe a P&S like the Stylus 1. Or one of the pocketable Sonys. (The P&S can also be nicely paired with a bulkier mirrorless or DSLR later on, so not a waste)..

I'd learn a lot more before choosing a mirrorless or DSLR. Just my two cents.

It´s avery good point that. No needs to change or/buy any lenses.

JoePhoto · Jan 21, 2015

Lisetta1 said:
I guess my advice is different. I'd say "no" to the DSLR (at least for now) and get a bridge cam, maybe SX50, S1 or FZ200, depending on your price range (I'd save the rest for later). I'd use this camera to learn everything I could about photography (i.e. "a lot") and to take tons of photos and develop my eye for composition, ability to choose good subjects and see them well, etc. I would even use "P" mode to concentrate on MY abilities rather than the camera's!

When I felt that my camera no longer served my skills/needs, I'd have a much better idea of whether I needed a compact P&S, mirrorless or DSLR, whether I needed wide angle or zoom or not (and how much), if low light or action shots were important, what image quality I could live with, if I wanted to shoot RAW or JPEGs, do post-processing or not, etc. etc. etc.

I'd vote "bridge cam" or, alternatively, if going "up budget", maybe a P&S like the Stylus 1. Or one of the pocketable Sonys. (The P&S can also be nicely paired with a bulkier mirrorless or DSLR later on, so not a waste)..

I'd learn a lot more before choosing a mirrorless or DSLR. Just my two cents.

This is a very good and accurate post Lisetta.

The biggest problem for any beginner is his own "eye", because that is where all photos start.

Almost anyone can learn how to use a camera, as it is simply a "technical" skill. (albeit direct feedback Live-View/EVF can make it easier than a dSLR w/ no direct feedback)

But photos are an "art" and some people are simply more "creative" than others. Some inherently have the "art" and some have to develop it, (often via trial-error).

And Lesetta, you mentioned "RAW". I do know the FZ-200 has RAW, do you know if all the others you mentioned do ???

And you have mentioned the Stylus-1 often. I like the fact the lens retracts and it is indeed a "fast" lens, BUT ... I notice it starts at a WA of only 28mm, (equiv).

I prefer at least 24mm WA, (and the FZ-200 / FZ-1000's 25mm is barely acceptable to me and why I have a WA-convertor to give me fisheye & 12-14mm).

BUT ... for a beginner maybe that is least important.

But a great post Lisetta !!!

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

Lisetta1 · Jan 21, 2015

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

And Lisetta, you mentioned "RAW". I do know the FZ-200 has RAW, do you know if all the others you mentioned do ???

Click to expand...

Yes, the Canon SX50 and Fuji S1 do have RAW. I think all the bridge cams do now.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

And you have mentioned the Stylus-1 often. I like the fact the lens retracts and it is indeed a "fast" lens, BUT ... I notice it starts at a WA of only 28mm, (equiv).

I prefer at least 24mm WA, (and the FZ-200 / FZ-1000's 25mm is barely acceptable to me and why I have a WA-convertor to give me fisheye & 12-14mm).

Click to expand...

I agree with you that 24mm is much better, but weighing the "camera is a compromise" thing, I think that would be something to "give" on. Like you say, I'm not sure someone starting out would really miss it. For its size and speed, the Stylus goes from 28 to 300mm (equiv) which gives more at the long end than others in its class. Totally a personal preference, but I -think- beginners would appreciate that extra reach rather than the extra wide angle. Good thing to mention though.

Josh152 · Jan 21, 2015

tedolf said:
Drenny1982 said:

Hi all,

I have about a £700-£800 budget and I am looking to purchase my first SLR. I am a total beginner when it comes to photography

Click to expand...

Why does a total beginner to photography want to purchase a DSLR?

tedolf said:

but I have a desire to explore and grow in this field.

I am looking for a camera that is suitable for beginning enthusiasts but also one that allows me to mature and take greater control down the line. I am interested in experimenting with landscapes, portrait, urban and sport to start with. I am also going to take a couple of short courses to get the technical foundations down but I mainly plan to improve through practical experience.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks ,

Dren

Click to expand...

Tedolph

To lean photography. Seems pretty obvious to me. There is no reason to start with anything less. Besides if the OP plans on using a DSLR eventually anyway learning on something else and then later spending even more money on the DSLR he could have had all the long would be foolish.

JoePhoto · Jan 22, 2015

Josh152 said:
tedolf said:

Drenny1982 said:

Hi all,

I have about a £700-£800 budget and I am looking to purchase my first SLR. I am a total beginner when it comes to photography

Click to expand...

Why does a total beginner to photography want to purchase a DSLR?

Josh152 said:

but I have a desire to explore and grow in this field.

I am looking for a camera that is suitable for beginning enthusiasts but also one that allows me to mature and take greater control down the line. I am interested in experimenting with landscapes, portrait, urban and sport to start with. I am also going to take a couple of short courses to get the technical foundations down but I mainly plan to improve through practical experience.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks ,

Dren

Click to expand...

Tedolph

Click to expand...

To lean photography. Seems pretty obvious to me. There is no reason to start with anything less. Besides if the OP plans on using a DSLR eventually anyway learning on something else and then later spending even more money on the DSLR he could have had all the long would be foolish.

First of all, since all cameras (dSLR and mirrorless and bridge) are changing so rapidly right now, the OP would probably want/need something newer even if he got the current latest & greatest.

But I think the point above, (and certainly my point), is that dSLR's are no longer the best options anyway and that mirrorless can do virtually everything better.

Mirrorless are absolutely the best to "learn" on because you get direct exposure visualization & assistance before the shot, and thus can see exactly how changing your settings (aperture, shutter-speed, ISO & exposure-compensation) will affect your final image -- (& then verify it by reviewing the shot).

And since mirrorless can today "replace" dSLR for most all applications, he will probably never need/want a dSLR.

And it is my opinion that "tomorrow", there will no longer even be dSLR's. Mirrorless are the FUTURE. (Nikon & Canon could be virtually doomed if they don't adapt very, very soon.)

****************

And it is my opinion that the (mirrorless) Panasonic FZ-1000 is a truly unique camera in that it can replace dSLR's today for many users and many applications. (but not for "pros" or those that need/want ultimate-IQ, or highest-ISO, or narrow-DOF, or use "fast" prime lenses -- but that is less than 5% of all cameras sold today)

The FZ-1000 has faster-AF & shorter shutter-lag & better (5-axis) Image-Stabilization than dSLR's.

So following your train-of-thought, the OP's best option would be the FZ-1000. (but there WILL be an updated version of it by Panasonic, or someone-else, within 1-2 years and I personally will probably want it then)

****************

Cameras today are like computers were a few years ago, when you could not buy one in the store before it was obsolete by the time you got it home, (they have finally stabilized somewhat today).

I was writing a magazine article once, (for Readers Digest), on "How To Select A Computer", but I never finished it because I had to update it every day and I realized it would be too outdated by the time it went to print. (RAM went from <640K to >8-16gigs, HD's went from <40meg to >1+terrabytes, CPU's went from <25-50mhz to -- I don't even know how fast today LOL, etc.)

I predict the same is/will happen with mirrorless cameras, (and dSLR's mirror & focal-plane shutter are still basically pre-1950's technology).

ALL that is really needed is a full lens-line and stable mount for them to dominate the market.

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

Doss · Jan 22, 2015

cberry said:
WTF - this is a great way to put people off the forums and photography.

Absolutely.

There are a few posters (fortunately a minority) who like to talk the talk (and then some) with no evidence they can actually walk the walk.

The self-proclaimed masters using big words and tech' jargon, whether they actually know what they're talking about or not, are the worst kind of educators.

Does anyone who actually enjoy photography, or use it as a means to take good photographs, care about millisecond differences in shutter lags, or the definition of the term 'pre-focus'? Any beginner's thinking they need to know any of this crap to take good photos - forget it. It's far more enjoyable and simple than some condescending types seem to imply

cberry · Jan 22, 2015

JoePhoto said:
cberry said:

WTF - this is a great way to put people off the forums and photography. I don't see mirrorless as compelling - others might but in all honesty, what kills it for me is the lag - whether tiny or not between what I see and what is happening.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to EVF lag ???

When was the last time you checked into that ???

That was indeed a complaint years ago, w/ the very first EVF's, but I have not heard it repeated much lately.

I had a Minolta A2 years ago w/ EVF and while I admit it was not the best quality, "lag" was not one of my issues.

I certainly and absolutely have had no lag problems on any and I do lots of air-shows. But even if there was it would not be a problem if what you "see" is what you are actually photographing.

EVF's today are quoted w/ less than 5ms delay, and the FZ-1000 can be set for a 60fps frame rate, (which I do use for air-shows but actually 30fps works fine and I don't really even detect a difference).

5ms sounds great. Maybe mirrorless has progressed more than I imagine it has. I need that feeling as if I'm part of the action. Staring at a screen doesn't do that for me - although I love my old G12 - it's not compelling even with an OVF.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

What then reduces it's appeal further is that the classic lenses I want to use - 35mm f/2 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 aren't as attractive.

Click to expand...

There are fewer lens choices. They need to widen the line and stabilize on a mount.

JoePhoto said:

The final nail in the coffin for me is that I like a vibrant second hand market and plenty of after-market accessories. Having lived in places with no camera shops makes me more cautious in terms of what I buy.

Click to expand...

True again, because they are new, and changing so fast w/ newer models.

JoePhoto said:

What's best to learn with? Well, people need to make mistakes to learn. I've made plenty and that includes gear purchases which just didn't work out. Frankly, the best camera to learn on for the price at the moment is a used Canon 50D.

Click to expand...

ANY camera can be OK to learn on. And certainly that includes the 50D.

But as I mentioned, having Live-View allows direct and immediate WB and over-exposure warnings (and/or histogram).

The concept of Exposure Compensation seems difficult for many to accept/understand and Live-View can absolutely make that easier/quicker.

Both have live-view. I've explained exposure compensation to 10s of people. The barrier to learning is mostly that people don't know what the problem is and you're selling them a solution. The best camera for beginners has:

Optical stabilization

Works well in low light - bigger sensors are better

has a decent zoom range from 1 lens.

has green auto, P, Tv, Av and M modes

And the No 1 feature: Is going to be used.

For my wife, that's the G7x - for me it's the 70D

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

The best lens? The kit lens or the 18-135 STM (Advanced kit lens) plus maybe a 60mm Macro.

Click to expand...

Many beginners do not appreciate the creative aspect available via UWA so I would include that into the curriculum.

No need. 18mm on APS-C is plenty wide enough. I used to ONLY have a 50mm f/1.8 with my film contax

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

Why? AF is dead accurate and there isn't much that the combination cannot do!

Click to expand...

Well, could that not apply to most all (quality) AF lenses ???

I've found several lenses lacking - massively lacking and needing MFA for my personal satisfaction. A beginner needs something that always works out of the box and from my experience of 4 STM lenses is that they're spot on for beginner use. Sure I still have to MFA +4 on mine but that's accurate enough.

cb

davidedric · Jan 22, 2015

Doss said:
cberry said:

WTF - this is a great way to put people off the forums and photography.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

There are a few posters (fortunately a minority) who like to talk the talk (and then some) with no evidence they can actually walk the walk.

The self-proclaimed masters using big words and tech' jargon, whether they actually know what they're talking about or not, are the worst kind of educators.

Does anyone who actually enjoy photography, or use it as a means to take good photographs, care about millisecond differences in shutter lags, or the definition of the term 'pre-focus'? Any beginner's thinking they need to know any of this crap to take good photos - forget it. It's far more enjoyable and simple than some condescending types seem to imply

Personally, I don't notice any lag, but of course it's different for everyone.

What is a bit interesting is that "vision lag" in humans (the time between photons hitting the retina and our perceiving them) is estimated at around 50ms, but of course none of us notice

It's all a matter of what you are used to.

Dave

chuxter · Jan 22, 2015

JoePhoto said:
chuxter said:

JoePhoto said:

BTW: I noticed that specific dSLR has even a "manual-focus" shutter-lag of 300ms. That is the LONGEST I HAVE EVER SEEN on a basic dSLR.

Click to expand...

Why not tell us which dSLR has that unusual specification?

Click to expand...

The D3300 that YOU suggested. Check Imaging-Resource for "MANUAL-FOCUS" time.

You continually run free and loose w/ facts and data. And you "cherry pick" what you report.

The "Manual Focus" AF lag is nonsensical to me. It means nothing as far as I can tell, because nobody [other than you and a few oithers] uses manual focus in 2015, especially not a new photographer.
The reported "Manual Focus" lag was 268 mS, not 300 mS. If you have to round it somewhat, why not to 250 mS?
A better parameter to talk about is the top one in the IR table: "Full Autofocus...". They report a value of 262 mS.
An even better parameter to talk about is the bottom one: "Pre-focused". They report 81 mS. This is the "Shutter Lag", which is the time it takes the mirrors to get out of the way and the shutter to start to open.
The OP should also be told that the AF Lag is 262 mS minus 81 mS = 181 mS. That is how long the camera took to do PDAF with that 18-55 kit lens.
Note the disclaimer in the right column: "All AF timing measured with Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm II kit lens." Any kit lens will be rather slow. At least the OP should be told that other, more advanced [expensive] lenses will be faster. The fastest lenses have ultrasonic, ring AF motors. Unfortunately, I don't know of anybody that tests and reports this! :-(

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

So it must have something to do with the kludge'ie way they have to incorporate Live-View on dSLR's.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The above numbers were NOT related to LV in any way. Go back and look again? There is a separate LV table below the one you reported from! It has much bigger numbers so you should have a heyday!

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

The truth, Joe, is that the FZ1000 has a pre-focus shutter-lag between 101 mS and 112 mS, depending on the FL. Even the post-focus shutter lag was much longer than 20 mS...29 mS according to Dave in that Review. In the dSLR world, pre-focus shutter-lag is greater; you are correct.

Click to expand...

No, the "AF" (+ shutter-lag) is about 100ms on FZ-1000. (about 1/3 that of most entry-level dSLR's)

Again, I'm a BIG FAN of ML cameras. But I like to truthfully report the differences.

JoePhoto said:
And you seem to be creating your own definitions.

When other posters and reviewers create screwy definitions, yes I'm prone to correct them.

JoePhoto said:
"Pre-Focus" has been the term used since auto-focus was introduced by Minolta in the '80's as after a "half"-press and allowing time to focus before the final push for exposure.

True. But you didn't quote the "Pre-focused" time!

JoePhoto said:
It is what you are referring to as "post" focus. (a term not used by Imaging-Resource)

IR used "Pre-focused" time. That is clearly the same as "post focus" time. It is the time AFTER the camera has completed AF. Only you were confused?

JoePhoto said:
************

But it is OK "student" -- I am patient and don't mind teaching you proper terminology.

JoePhoto said:

But 300 mS is much too long!

Click to expand...

It may even be a testing error, I can't imagine "manual" focus shutter-lag being that long.

BUT ... it could also be correct and due to the incorporation of Live-View + "easy-Panoramic" on that specific camera.

NO! Again, you read from the wrong table.

JoePhoto said:
All I can say is that Live-View (and "easy" Panoramic) is natively easy on mirrorless.

JoePhoto said:

The D3 has a lag time of 85-88 mS [same tester]! The old D90 has a lag time of 208 mS. The D750 has a lag of 206 mS. The D810 has a lag of 212 mS.

SO, I think it would be proper to claim that your FZ1000 is twice as fast to capture an image as my D810; ie, 112 mS vs 212 mS. I like 112 better than 212, but not enough to put up w/ a tiny 1" sensor.

Click to expand...

You are still talking about MUCH more expensive cameras. (and still 2X the time)

And MY POINT is that apples-to-apples comparisons must apply to "Live-View" cameras, where I think 3X is applicable (& 10X/20X is most applicable in actual Live-View mode).

Prior to this, you have not made apples-to-apples statements. My gripe w/ you is that you make global statements like "All dSLRs are slow". If you want to be taken seriously, you will stop doing that. My rebuttals have not been to diminish what your blessed FZ-1000 can do, but to simply state the differences accurately.

JoePhoto said:
And mirrorless would still win overall because rear-LCD are most often unusable in sun-light and mirrorless (w/ EVF) can indeed use the "eye" level EVF. (I would not have nor recommend a mirrorless w/out "eye" EVF.)

JoePhoto said:

By now, I have pointed out dozens of your mistakes, thus I don't accept your opinion that you "don't mind acknowledging them".

Click to expand...

And do you admit them ???

JoePhoto · Jan 22, 2015

chuxter said:
JoePhoto said:

chuxter said:

JoePhoto said:

BTW: I noticed that specific dSLR has even a "manual-focus" shutter-lag of 300ms. That is the LONGEST I HAVE EVER SEEN on a basic dSLR.

Click to expand...

Why not tell us which dSLR has that unusual specification?

Click to expand...

The D3300 that YOU suggested. Check Imaging-Resource for "MANUAL-FOCUS" time.

Click to expand...

You continually run free and loose w/ facts and data. And you "cherry pick" what you report.

The "Manual Focus" AF lag is nonsensical to me. It means nothing as far as I can tell, because nobody [other than you and a few oithers] uses manual focus in 2015, especially not a new photographer.

The reported "Manual Focus" lag was 268 mS, not 300 mS. If you have to round it somewhat, why not to 250 mS?

A better parameter to talk about is the top one in the IR table: "Full Autofocus...". They report a value of 262 mS.

An even better parameter to talk about is the bottom one: "Pre-focused". They report 81 mS. This is the "Shutter Lag", which is the time it takes the mirrors to get out of the way and the shutter to start to open.

The OP should also be told that the AF Lag is 262 mS minus 81 mS = 181 mS. That is how long the camera took to do PDAF with that 18-55 kit lens.

Note the disclaimer in the right column: "All AF timing measured with Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm II kit lens." Any kit lens will be rather slow. At least the OP should be told that other, more advanced [expensive] lenses will be faster. The fastest lenses have ultrasonic, ring AF motors. Unfortunately, I don't know of anybody that tests and reports this! :-(

OK ... Ya CAUGHT me ... I EXAGERATED and rounded up instead of down. I CONFESS (hands-up / please don't shoot) !!!

We are still arguing over minutiae !!!

It is all still MUCH MUCH longer than FZ-1000 ... that is the POINT !!!

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

chuxter said:

chuxter said:

So it must have something to do with the kludge'ie way they have to incorporate Live-View on dSLR's.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The above numbers were NOT related to LV in any way. Go back and look again? There is a separate LV table below the one you reported from! It has much bigger numbers so you should have a heyday!

I did not say it directly was, I was just wondering why it was indeed so long, compared to other dSLR's in its class.

The fact that it does panoramic seems the only big difference in the camera. (And obviously it seems like Nikon could have incorporated "easy-panoramic" in ALL of their Live-View cameras.

So (maybe) their is something uniquely different about it, and it results in its normal mode "manual" focus being extraordinarily long.

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

chuxter said:

The truth, Joe, is that the FZ1000 has a pre-focus shutter-lag between 101 mS and 112 mS, depending on the FL. Even the post-focus shutter lag was much longer than 20 mS...29 mS according to Dave in that Review. In the dSLR world, pre-focus shutter-lag is greater; you are correct.

Click to expand...

No, the "AF" (+ shutter-lag) is about 100ms on FZ-1000. (about 1/3 that of most entry-level dSLR's)

Click to expand...

Again, I'm a BIG FAN of ML cameras. But I like to truthfully report the differences.

But even most ML cameras have a longer delay -- in every/most ways -- than the FZ-1000. It truly seems unique in many ways.

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

And you seem to be creating your own definitions.

Click to expand...

When other posters and reviewers create screwy definitions, yes I'm prone to correct them.

chuxter said:

"Pre-Focus" has been the term used since auto-focus was introduced by Minolta in the '80's as after a "half"-press and allowing time to focus before the final push for exposure.

Click to expand...

True. But you didn't quote the "Pre-focused" time!

OOPS ... ya caught me again ..... (my bad)

Thank You for adding the "ed" for me.

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

It is what you are referring to as "post" focus. (a term not used by Imaging-Resource)

Click to expand...

IR used "Pre-focused" time. That is clearly the same as "post focus" time. It is the time AFTER the camera has completed AF. Only you were confused?

chuxter said:

************

But it is OK "student" -- I am patient and don't mind teaching you proper terminology.

chuxter said:

But 300 mS is much too long!

Click to expand...

It may even be a testing error, I can't imagine "manual" focus shutter-lag being that long.

BUT ... it could also be correct and due to the incorporation of Live-View + "easy-Panoramic" on that specific camera.

Click to expand...

NO! Again, you read from the wrong table.

As I explained above, I was only questioning "why" the manual-focus time was so extraordinarily long --- and MAYBE it was due to the incorporation of Live-View into the design of the camera.

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

All I can say is that Live-View (and "easy" Panoramic) is natively easy on mirrorless.

chuxter said:

The D3 has a lag time of 85-88 mS [same tester]! The old D90 has a lag time of 208 mS. The D750 has a lag of 206 mS. The D810 has a lag of 212 mS.

SO, I think it would be proper to claim that your FZ1000 is twice as fast to capture an image as my D810; ie, 112 mS vs 212 mS. I like 112 better than 212, but not enough to put up w/ a tiny 1" sensor.

Click to expand...

You are still talking about MUCH more expensive cameras. (and still 2X the time)

And MY POINT is that apples-to-apples comparisons must apply to "Live-View" cameras, where I think 3X is applicable (& 10X/20X is most applicable in actual Live-View mode).

Click to expand...

Prior to this, you have not made apples-to-apples statements. My gripe w/ you is that you make global statements like "All dSLRs are slow".

They are, even your quoted examples of $6000 & $12,000 cameras are at least TWICE as long as FZ-1000.

chuxter said:
If you want to be taken seriously, you will stop doing that. My rebuttals have not been to diminish what your blessed FZ-1000 can do, but to simply state the differences accurately.

But your "differences" are often either minutiae or with MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE cameras.

The (accurate) FACT is that the FZ-1000 is faster in many areas. (and areas that specifically pertain to a "BEGINNER" in this forum)

Certainly (more expensive) dSLR's have MUCH FASTER "BUFFERING", etc. But that is of little concern to most beginners.

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

And mirrorless would still win overall because rear-LCD are most often unusable in sun-light and mirrorless (w/ EVF) can indeed use the "eye" level EVF. (I would not have nor recommend a mirrorless w/out "eye" EVF.)

chuxter said:

By now, I have pointed out dozens of your mistakes, thus I don't accept your opinion that you "don't mind acknowledging them".

Click to expand...

And do you admit them ???

Click to expand...

I have always admitted each and every "mistake" you have pointed out.

YOU won't admit yours or that they are minutiae or pertain to out-of-class cameras.

chuxter said:
chuxter said:

Too many birthdays?

Click to expand...

EVERY birthday after 18 was too-many ---- (actually about 25 was a good period) ....

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

chuxter · Jan 22, 2015

JoePhoto said:
chuxter said:

JoePhoto said:

chuxter said:

JoePhoto said:

BTW: I noticed that specific dSLR has even a "manual-focus" shutter-lag of 300ms. That is the LONGEST I HAVE EVER SEEN on a basic dSLR.

Click to expand...

Why not tell us which dSLR has that unusual specification?

Click to expand...

The D3300 that YOU suggested. Check Imaging-Resource for "MANUAL-FOCUS" time.

Click to expand...

You continually run free and loose w/ facts and data. And you "cherry pick" what you report.

The "Manual Focus" AF lag is nonsensical to me. It means nothing as far as I can tell, because nobody [other than you and a few oithers] uses manual focus in 2015, especially not a new photographer.

The reported "Manual Focus" lag was 268 mS, not 300 mS. If you have to round it somewhat, why not to 250 mS?

A better parameter to talk about is the top one in the IR table: "Full Autofocus...". They report a value of 262 mS.

An even better parameter to talk about is the bottom one: "Pre-focused". They report 81 mS. This is the "Shutter Lag", which is the time it takes the mirrors to get out of the way and the shutter to start to open.

The OP should also be told that the AF Lag is 262 mS minus 81 mS = 181 mS. That is how long the camera took to do PDAF with that 18-55 kit lens.

Note the disclaimer in the right column: "All AF timing measured with Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm II kit lens." Any kit lens will be rather slow. At least the OP should be told that other, more advanced [expensive] lenses will be faster. The fastest lenses have ultrasonic, ring AF motors. Unfortunately, I don't know of anybody that tests and reports this! :-(

Click to expand...

OK ... Ya CAUGHT me ... I EXAGERATED and rounded up instead of down. I CONFESS (hands-up / please don't shoot) !!!

Bang!

JoePhoto said:
We are still arguing over minutiae !!!

It is all still MUCH MUCH longer than FZ-1000 ... that is the POINT !!!

Isn't that minutiae? Why not? Why are your details important and my details are minutiae?

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

So it must have something to do with the kludge'ie way they have to incorporate Live-View on dSLR's.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The above numbers were NOT related to LV in any way. Go back and look again? There is a separate LV table below the one you reported from! It has much bigger numbers so you should have a heyday!

Click to expand...

I did not say it directly was, I was just wondering why it was indeed so long, compared to other dSLR's in its class.

I don't know why, other than it's an entry-level dSLR?

JoePhoto said:
The fact that it does panoramic seems the only big difference in the camera. (And obviously it seems like Nikon could have incorporated "easy-panoramic" in ALL of their Live-View cameras.

They could of course. I'm guessing that Nikon thinks buyers of expensive dSLRs would view that feature similar to "Scene Modes" and stay away in droves?

JoePhoto said:
So (maybe) their is something uniquely different about it, and it results in its normal mode "manual" focus being extraordinarily long.

Nah. I think it's just an error.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

The truth, Joe, is that the FZ1000 has a pre-focus shutter-lag between 101 mS and 112 mS, depending on the FL. Even the post-focus shutter lag was much longer than 20 mS...29 mS according to Dave in that Review. In the dSLR world, pre-focus shutter-lag is greater; you are correct.

Click to expand...

No, the "AF" (+ shutter-lag) is about 100ms on FZ-1000. (about 1/3 that of most entry-level dSLR's)

Click to expand...

Again, I'm a BIG FAN of ML cameras. But I like to truthfully report the differences.

Click to expand...

But even most ML cameras have a longer delay -- in every/most ways -- than the FZ-1000. It truly seems unique in many ways.

That is clearly your view.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

And you seem to be creating your own definitions.

Click to expand...

When other posters and reviewers create screwy definitions, yes I'm prone to correct them.

JoePhoto said:

"Pre-Focus" has been the term used since auto-focus was introduced by Minolta in the '80's as after a "half"-press and allowing time to focus before the final push for exposure.

Click to expand...

True. But you didn't quote the "Pre-focused" time!

Click to expand...

OOPS ... ya caught me again ..... (my bad)

Thank You for adding the "ed" for me.

If you expect readers to understand what you write, you need to use the correct words and spelling. I know that it was just two little letters, but it made a difference!

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

It is what you are referring to as "post" focus. (a term not used by Imaging-Resource)

Click to expand...

IR used "Pre-focused" time. That is clearly the same as "post focus" time. It is the time AFTER the camera has completed AF. Only you were confused?

JoePhoto said:

************

But it is OK "student" -- I am patient and don't mind teaching you proper terminology.

JoePhoto said:

But 300 mS is much too long!

Click to expand...

It may even be a testing error, I can't imagine "manual" focus shutter-lag being that long.

BUT ... it could also be correct and due to the incorporation of Live-View + "easy-Panoramic" on that specific camera.

Click to expand...

NO! Again, you read from the wrong table.

Click to expand...

As I explained above, I was only questioning "why" the manual-focus time was so extraordinarily long --- and MAYBE it was due to the incorporation of Live-View into the design of the camera.

Nah.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

All I can say is that Live-View (and "easy" Panoramic) is natively easy on mirrorless.

JoePhoto said:

The D3 has a lag time of 85-88 mS [same tester]! The old D90 has a lag time of 208 mS. The D750 has a lag of 206 mS. The D810 has a lag of 212 mS.

SO, I think it would be proper to claim that your FZ1000 is twice as fast to capture an image as my D810; ie, 112 mS vs 212 mS. I like 112 better than 212, but not enough to put up w/ a tiny 1" sensor.

Click to expand...

You are still talking about MUCH more expensive cameras. (and still 2X the time)

And MY POINT is that apples-to-apples comparisons must apply to "Live-View" cameras, where I think 3X is applicable (& 10X/20X is most applicable in actual Live-View mode).

Click to expand...

Prior to this, you have not made apples-to-apples statements. My gripe w/ you is that you make global statements like "All dSLRs are slow".

Click to expand...

They are, even your quoted examples of $6000 & $12,000 cameras are at least TWICE as long as FZ-1000.

Hmmm...

A D3s costs $5200 [if you can find a new one].

A D4s costs $9600.

I can't remember mentioning a $12,000 body?

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

If you want to be taken seriously, you will stop doing that. My rebuttals have not been to diminish what your blessed FZ-1000 can do, but to simply state the differences accurately.

Click to expand...

But your "differences" are often either minutiae or with MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE cameras.

Even if they are much more expensive, you can still quote their performance values accurately! Besides, I only went up-scale because you didn't reference anything like "dSLRs that cost about the same as the FZ-1000". Instead, you made a global statement that could be read as "no dSLR, regardless of price, has performance values close to the FZ-1000."

JoePhoto said:
The (accurate) FACT is that the FZ-1000 is faster in many areas. (and areas that specifically pertain to a "BEGINNER" in this forum)

That I can agree with.

JoePhoto said:
Certainly (more expensive) dSLR's have MUCH FASTER "BUFFERING", etc. But that is of little concern to most beginners.

I dunow? It doesn't take a beginner long to appreciate a BIG, FAST buffer.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

And mirrorless would still win overall because rear-LCD are most often unusable in sun-light and mirrorless (w/ EVF) can indeed use the "eye" level EVF. (I would not have nor recommend a mirrorless w/out "eye" EVF.)

JoePhoto said:

By now, I have pointed out dozens of your mistakes, thus I don't accept your opinion that you "don't mind acknowledging them".

Click to expand...

And do you admit them ???

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have always admitted each and every "mistake" you have pointed out.

YOU won't admit yours or that they are minutiae or pertain to out-of-class cameras.

I spoke to those issues above.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

Too many birthdays?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

EVERY birthday after 18 was too-many ---- (actually about 25 was a good period) ....

I peaked in my 30s. Late bloomer, I guess?

cberry · Jan 22, 2015

JoePhoto said:
chuxter said:

JoePhoto said:

chuxter said:

JoePhoto said:

BTW: I noticed that specific dSLR has even a "manual-focus" shutter-lag of 300ms. That is the LONGEST I HAVE EVER SEEN on a basic dSLR.

Click to expand...

Why not tell us which dSLR has that unusual specification?

Click to expand...

The D3300 that YOU suggested. Check Imaging-Resource for "MANUAL-FOCUS" time.

Click to expand...

You continually run free and loose w/ facts and data. And you "cherry pick" what you report.

The "Manual Focus" AF lag is nonsensical to me. It means nothing as far as I can tell, because nobody [other than you and a few oithers] uses manual focus in 2015, especially not a new photographer.

The reported "Manual Focus" lag was 268 mS, not 300 mS. If you have to round it somewhat, why not to 250 mS?

A better parameter to talk about is the top one in the IR table: "Full Autofocus...". They report a value of 262 mS.

An even better parameter to talk about is the bottom one: "Pre-focused". They report 81 mS. This is the "Shutter Lag", which is the time it takes the mirrors to get out of the way and the shutter to start to open.

The OP should also be told that the AF Lag is 262 mS minus 81 mS = 181 mS. That is how long the camera took to do PDAF with that 18-55 kit lens.

Note the disclaimer in the right column: "All AF timing measured with Nikkor AF-S 18-55mm II kit lens." Any kit lens will be rather slow. At least the OP should be told that other, more advanced [expensive] lenses will be faster. The fastest lenses have ultrasonic, ring AF motors. Unfortunately, I don't know of anybody that tests and reports this! :-(

Click to expand...

OK ... Ya CAUGHT me ... I EXAGERATED and rounded up instead of down. I CONFESS (hands-up / please don't shoot) !!!

We are still arguing over minutiae !!!

It is all still MUCH MUCH longer than FZ-1000 ... that is the POINT !!!

And the 70D focuses in less than that - yes, that's a cheap kit lens and will focus slower on the D3300. Ultrasonic and STM motors focus faster

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

So it must have something to do with the kludge'ie way they have to incorporate Live-View on dSLR's.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The above numbers were NOT related to LV in any way. Go back and look again? There is a separate LV table below the one you reported from! It has much bigger numbers so you should have a heyday!

Click to expand...

I did not say it directly was, I was just wondering why it was indeed so long, compared to other dSLR's in its class.

The fact that it does panoramic seems the only big difference in the camera. (And obviously it seems like Nikon could have incorporated "easy-panoramic" in ALL of their Live-View cameras.

So (maybe) their is something uniquely different about it, and it results in its normal mode "manual" focus being extraordinarily long.

There is something unique about it - it was tested with the cheapest budget lens which is designed to keep entry costs down.

Why it's not there is that people don't use it. Can you imagine the guys at Nikon saying - well, how can we make this camera less attractive for beginners?

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

The truth, Joe, is that the FZ1000 has a pre-focus shutter-lag between 101 mS and 112 mS, depending on the FL. Even the post-focus shutter lag was much longer than 20 mS...29 mS according to Dave in that Review. In the dSLR world, pre-focus shutter-lag is greater; you are correct.

Click to expand...

No, the "AF" (+ shutter-lag) is about 100ms on FZ-1000. (about 1/3 that of most entry-level dSLR's)

Click to expand...

Again, I'm a BIG FAN of ML cameras. But I like to truthfully report the differences.

Click to expand...

But even most ML cameras have a longer delay -- in every/most ways -- than the FZ-1000. It truly seems unique in many ways.

Unique? It's called a recent model.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

And you seem to be creating your own definitions.

Click to expand...

When other posters and reviewers create screwy definitions, yes I'm prone to correct them.

JoePhoto said:

"Pre-Focus" has been the term used since auto-focus was introduced by Minolta in the '80's as after a "half"-press and allowing time to focus before the final push for exposure.

Click to expand...

True. But you didn't quote the "Pre-focused" time!

Click to expand...

OOPS ... ya caught me again ..... (my bad)

Thank You for adding the "ed" for me.

JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

It is what you are referring to as "post" focus. (a term not used by Imaging-Resource)

Click to expand...

IR used "Pre-focused" time. That is clearly the same as "post focus" time. It is the time AFTER the camera has completed AF. Only you were confused?

JoePhoto said:

************

But it is OK "student" -- I am patient and don't mind teaching you proper terminology.

JoePhoto said:

But 300 mS is much too long!

Click to expand...

It may even be a testing error, I can't imagine "manual" focus shutter-lag being that long.

BUT ... it could also be correct and due to the incorporation of Live-View + "easy-Panoramic" on that specific camera.

Click to expand...

NO! Again, you read from the wrong table.

Click to expand...

As I explained above, I was only questioning "why" the manual-focus time was so extraordinarily long --- and MAYBE it was due to the incorporation of Live-View into the design of the camera.

JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

All I can say is that Live-View (and "easy" Panoramic) is natively easy on mirrorless.

JoePhoto said:

The D3 has a lag time of 85-88 mS [same tester]! The old D90 has a lag time of 208 mS. The D750 has a lag of 206 mS. The D810 has a lag of 212 mS.

SO, I think it would be proper to claim that your FZ1000 is twice as fast to capture an image as my D810; ie, 112 mS vs 212 mS. I like 112 better than 212, but not enough to put up w/ a tiny 1" sensor.

Click to expand...

You are still talking about MUCH more expensive cameras. (and still 2X the time)

And MY POINT is that apples-to-apples comparisons must apply to "Live-View" cameras, where I think 3X is applicable (& 10X/20X is most applicable in actual Live-View mode).

Click to expand...

Prior to this, you have not made apples-to-apples statements. My gripe w/ you is that you make global statements like "All dSLRs are slow".

Click to expand...

They are, even your quoted examples of $6000 & $12,000 cameras are at least TWICE as long as FZ-1000.

JoePhoto said:

If you want to be taken seriously, you will stop doing that. My rebuttals have not been to diminish what your blessed FZ-1000 can do, but to simply state the differences accurately.

Click to expand...

But your "differences" are often either minutiae or with MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE cameras.

The (accurate) FACT is that the FZ-1000 is faster in many areas. (and areas that specifically pertain to a "BEGINNER" in this forum)

Certainly (more expensive) dSLR's have MUCH FASTER "BUFFERING", etc. But that is of little concern to most beginners.

You're FZ-1000 fixated and have rightly criticized the lowliest lens Nikon produces by attacking the body. Non-sequitur.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

And mirrorless would still win overall because rear-LCD are most often unusable in sun-light and mirrorless (w/ EVF) can indeed use the "eye" level EVF. (I would not have nor recommend a mirrorless w/out "eye" EVF.)

JoePhoto said:

By now, I have pointed out dozens of your mistakes, thus I don't accept your opinion that you "don't mind acknowledging them".

Click to expand...

And do you admit them ???

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have always admitted each and every "mistake" you have pointed out.

YOU won't admit yours or that they are minutiae or pertain to out-of-class cameras.

I'm not impressed with the lens on the FZ-1000 - corner softness is showing pretty bad softness, it's dead slow compared to the G7x which costs a lot less but is geared for a completely different market. Low light performance suffers considerably as a result as does depth of field control. It's an interesting beginner package for sure but one I wouldn't suggest to my wife who is in a similar situation. In fact, the G7x suits her better because we already have the most versatile tool in our budget - the 70D and a bunch of lenses.

Price-wise, I paid 15% less than what the FZ1000 costs for the 650D + 18-135mm STM which incidentally focuses faster than the FZ-1000. Just a touch over what the FZ1000 costs, I can add the 50mm f/1.4 and trounce the FZ in depth of field and low light performance.

This is why the dslr is the way to go - there is a fantastic lens designed for each and every purpose which will always exceed what you can do with a compact.

the 10-18 STM - great low price, adds UWA for awesome stills and video.

The 85mm f/1.8 - great starter portrait lens

the 60mm f/2.8 Macro - one of the most under-valued lenses.

the 50mm f/1.4 - Just plain brilliant - but a little fragile.

The 55-250 STM - again a wonderful sports lens bargain.

Nikon will also have great lenses for beginners that fit a purpose properly.

I bring these up because a beginner will see their photos take a direction and they can follow it with a dslr without ditching the entire kit.

cb

JoePhoto · Jan 23, 2015

cberry said:
cberry said:

650D + 18-135mm STM which incidentally focuses faster than the FZ-1000.

Click to expand...

Are you crazy ???

In Live-View mode, (which is the apples-apples comparison), the 650D AF time is over a full-second compared to 101ms for FZ1000, (10X faster)

"Pre-focused" the 650D is 62ms compared to FZ-1000's 29ms, (2X faster).

Even in non live-view the 650D AF is almost 269ms compared to 101ms for FZ-1000, (again almost 3X faster).

Non Live-View "pre-focused" is 650D EVEN LONGER @ 74ms while the FZ-1000 is still only 29ms, (again more than 2X faster).

cberry said:
cberry said:

Just a touch over what the FZ1000 costs,

Click to expand...

You call $550 USED + $400 just a "touch" over, (for a camera w/ "ONE" fixed-focal length LENS).

Did I already say you were crazy ???

cberry said:
cberry said:

I can add the 50mm f/1.4 and trounce the FZ in depth of field and low light performance.

Click to expand...

YES you can, but I still have "handheld-NIGHT-shot" for low-light AND UNSURPASSED 5-AXIS IS.

And I can selectively control DOF in PP if wanted.

cberry said:
This is why the dslr is the way to go -

That is why it is NOT the way to go. (Not to mention dSLR's will be GONE in 5-10 years.)

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

cberry · Jan 23, 2015

JoePhoto said:
cberry said:

JoePhoto said:

650D + 18-135mm STM which incidentally focuses faster than the FZ-1000.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Are you crazy ???

What's the minimum focus time of both combinations? Not pre-focus - the minimum focus time?

JoePhoto said:
In Live-View mode, (which is the apples-apples comparison), the 650D AF time is over a full-second compared to 101ms for FZ1000, (10X faster)

"Pre-focused" the 650D is 62ms compared to FZ-1000's 29ms, (2X faster).

Even in non live-view the 650D AF is almost 269ms compared to 101ms for FZ-1000, (again almost 3X faster).

Non Live-View "pre-focused" is 650D EVEN LONGER @ 74ms while the FZ-1000 is still only 29ms, (again more than 2X faster).

Who cares about apples to apples? Normal use scenario v normal use scenario. Phase detect through the 70D in AF with this lens is faster than the FZ1000. Period. The 650D with the firmware update has similar AF performance. I've used them both extensively - I know. BHPhoto lists a believable 150ms, prefocused, it's half of that.

Normal usage for me is pre-focus with SLR but point and pray with an EVF.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

Just a touch over what the FZ1000 costs,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You call $550 USED + $400 just a "touch" over, (for a camera w/ "ONE" fixed-focal length LENS).

Did I already say you were crazy ???

I paid just over $500 for the 650D + 18-135 STM NEW - don't know why you're paying double.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

JoePhoto said:

I can add the 50mm f/1.4 and trounce the FZ in depth of field and low light performance.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

YES you can, but I still have "handheld-NIGHT-shot" for low-light AND UNSURPASSED 5-AXIS IS.

And I can selectively control DOF in PP if wanted.

Then shoot with your iphone. Frankly I don't care that you have some fancy gadget that provides unsurpassed IS in 5 axis or 10 axis. The cameras are meant for completely different markets. What is handheld night shot? Oh a scene mode that the 650D has as well which is... not useful. A properly exposed shot with the right aperture is more pleasing than some techno-geekery that stitches together 3 shots and combines them in some way without any artistic control.

JoePhoto said:
JoePhoto said:

This is why the dslr is the way to go -

Click to expand...

That is why it is NOT the way to go. (Not to mention dSLR's will be GONE in 5-10 years.)

When I bought my SLR, people were saying that digital will never beat film. Now people are saying that the SLR will die. What's certain is that technology will progress but I don't think that the form factor will go - maybe I'll have to get used to an EVF at some point but I'm sure the glass will stay.

Maybe in 12 years things will be different but we'll still need large sensors, still need wide apertures for some of the artistic effects but the cost will drop and the quality rise.

Possibly, only Sony and Canon will survive - I find Nikon's positioning a little precarious even though their products are great. The FZ1000 will certainly be gone in 3 years - the Canon 70D will still be in service in 7.

JoePhoto · Jan 23, 2015

cberry said:
JoePhoto said:

cberry said:

cberry said:

650D + 18-135mm STM which incidentally focuses faster than the FZ-1000.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Are you crazy ???

Click to expand...

What's the minimum focus time of both combinations? Not pre-focus - the minimum focus time?

According to Imaging-Resource. their "AF" time is from full-press to actual capture. So it would include both.

cberry said:
cberry said:

In Live-View mode, (which is the apples-apples comparison), the 650D AF time is over a full-second compared to 101ms for FZ1000, (10X faster)

"Pre-focused" the 650D is 62ms compared to FZ-1000's 29ms, (2X faster).

Even in non live-view the 650D AF is almost 269ms compared to 101ms for FZ-1000, (again almost 3X faster).

Non Live-View "pre-focused" is 650D EVEN LONGER @ 74ms while the FZ-1000 is still only 29ms, (again more than 2X faster).

Click to expand...

Who cares about apples to apples? Normal use scenario v normal use scenario.

Well, "normal" use for FZ-1000 is Live-View. (with a CHOICE of using either "eye" level or rear-LCD)

But either way the FZ-1000 is faster, (much faster).

HEY ... you should be HAPPY because your Canon-dSLR Live-View AF of 1 second is almost TWICE as fast as most Nikons on Live-View. REJOICE

cberry said:
Phase detect through the 70D in AF with this lens is faster than the FZ1000. Period. The 650D with the firmware update has similar AF performance. I've used them both extensively - I know.

Well, evidently you DON'T know. Cause you are wrong. period

cberry said:
BHPhoto lists a believable 150ms, prefocused, it's half of that.

That would be "factory" spec. period

If you wanna go with that .... the FZ-1000 is 20ms. (3X faster) period

cberry said:
Normal usage for me is pre-focus with SLR but point and pray with an EVF.

cberry said:

cberry said:

cberry said:

Just a touch over what the FZ1000 costs,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You call $550 USED + $400 just a "touch" over, (for a camera w/ "ONE" fixed-focal length LENS).

Did I already say you were crazy ???

Click to expand...

I paid just over $500 for the 650D + 18-135 STM NEW - don't know why you're paying double.

You then listed the 50mm f/1.4, which is $400.

cberry said:
cberry said:

cberry said:

cberry said:

I can add the 50mm f/1.4 and trounce the FZ in depth of field and low light performance.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

YES you can, but I still have "handheld-NIGHT-shot" for low-light AND UNSURPASSED 5-AXIS IS.

And I can selectively control DOF in PP if wanted.

Click to expand...

Then shoot with your iphone. Frankly I don't care that you have some fancy gadget that provides unsurpassed IS in 5 axis or 10 axis. The cameras are meant for completely different markets.

I thought the market was to "take photos".

cberry said:
What is handheld night shot? Oh a scene mode that the 650D has as well which is... not useful. A properly exposed shot with the right aperture is more pleasing than some techno-geekery that stitches together 3 shots and combines them in some way without any artistic control.

I agree that it is un-usable on 650D, (but VERY useful on FZ-1000).

cberry said:
cberry said:

cberry said:

This is why the dslr is the way to go -

Click to expand...

That is why it is NOT the way to go. (Not to mention dSLR's will be GONE in 5-10 years.)

Click to expand...

When I bought my SLR, people were saying that digital will never beat film. Now people are saying that the SLR will die. What's certain is that technology will progress but I don't think that the form factor will go - maybe I'll have to get used to an EVF at some point but I'm sure the glass will stay.

But dSLR glass is basically incompatible w/ mirrorless.

Even the Canon M used new glass.

cberry said:
Maybe in 12 years things will be different but we'll still need large sensors, still need wide apertures for some of the artistic effects but the cost will drop and the quality rise.

Possibly, only Sony and Canon will survive - I find Nikon's positioning a little precarious even though their products are great. The FZ1000 will certainly be gone in 3 years - the Canon 70D will still be in service in 7.

LOL ... (you are joking I assume)

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

cberry · Jan 24, 2015

Joe,

you're dismissing facts because of your bias once more.

I know a conversation is over when people repeat the same arguments.

If the FZ1000 isn't selling as many units as the brilliance of the device according to you would suggest, there must be a reason. Just because you can't seem to process that the normal use of a dslr is with phase detect which is faster than the FZ1000 EVERY TIME and you're still beating about the live-view use scenario with the 650D tells me that you want the fastest live-view camera.

Your argument is:

Live-view is better for beginners so they need the best live-view camera.

The question isn't which camera is best at live-view. There I agree that the FZ has considerable advantages and the reason that I don't go into drawbacks such as an over-illuminated screen which makes you consistently under expose, crappy auto exposure and white balance and such is that regardless of if it had better image quality - it's still not a tool I'd recommend for a beginner who wants to learn.

It's for a beginner who may want to learn but doesn't necessarily want the bother - i.e. my wife - but it's far too big for her.

A beginner camera for someone who wants to learn according to me needs the following:

1. easy control of exposure

2. availability of aperture control across 35mm focal lengths from 24mm - 85mm down to f/1.8 or f/2.8 and from 70-200mm to f/4

3. reasonable high ISO performance

4. A good expandable flash system.

5. Modes that offer minimal shutter lag.

6. Fast AF

7. Manual focus without focus by wire (although STM is quite accurate and controllable by comparison to wheels or dials in other lenses.

The FZ doesn't meet MY criteria - neither does the G7x as a single camera.

be happy.

cb

JoePhoto · Jan 24, 2015

cberry said:
Joe,

you're dismissing facts because of your bias once more.

YES, one of us certainly is !!!

cberry said:
I know a conversation is over when people repeat the same arguments.

Then why are you back ???

cberry said:
If the FZ1000 isn't selling as many units as the brilliance of the device according to you would suggest, there must be a reason.

Since many stores remain back-ordered, I suggest they may be selling as many as they can produce. (I pre-ordered 3 months ahead, yet had to wait over a month for mine.)

cberry said:
Just because you can't seem to process that the normal use of a dslr is with phase detect which is faster than the FZ1000 EVERY TIME

I suggest you go argue that with Imaging-Resource. THEY are the ones that say your dSLR is 2X to 10X SLOWER. I am only the messenger.

And while I agree that Phase-Detect is (was) faster, it is also true that Contrast-Detect could be more "accurate". (I have seen many, many posts about focusing failure/error in the dSLR forums.)

Perhaps DFD is overall better, (and could even be improved w/ faster CPU's).

I have never seen any GH-4 complaints about focusing, (nor the FZ-1000 and I have had 100% success).

Note that I especially like the "pin"-point focusing feature on FZ-1000, I have tested it and it works well when an animal/bird is obscured through tree-limbs or brush where even center-box focusing is too wide.

cberry said:
and you're still beating about the live-view use scenario with the 650D tells me that you want the fastest live-view camera.

I am only saying that since mirrorless is always Live-View, the only real apples-apples comparison possible MUST be @ Live-View.

And while Live-View may not be a viable option w/ dSLR (for several reasons), it IS most viable via mirrorless because we can CHOOSE to shoot (and/or REVIEW IMAGES) with EITHER our "eye" level finder or rear-LCD.

So whats the matter, are you ASHAMED of your dSLR "Live-View", (or should I call it DEAD-View) ???

And I am sorry you don't have a "choice" of either "eye"-level or rear-LCD for either shooting or reviewing your images, (in bright sunlight). I most often use BOTH as I first preview my image on the rear-LCD and then quickly put it to my eye for the final composition/framing and shot because I an hold it more steady via "eye" finder. And it is quicker to be able to instantly "toggle" from menu-changes to instantly seeing the effects on the rear-LCD -- before making final image/exposure via "eye" finder.

cberry said:
Your argument is:

Live-view is better for beginners so they need the best live-view camera.

Well, yes, I do think Live-View is better for beginners because they have a direct visual representation of shutter-speed, aperture, and ISO changes.

They can see WB errors and over-exposure warnings.

cberry said:
The question isn't which camera is best at live-view. There I agree that the FZ has considerable advantages and the reason that I don't go into drawbacks such as an over-illuminated screen which makes you consistently under expose,

There are several different screen settings that impact the way it is displayed.

cberry said:
crappy auto exposure and white balance

Whoa .... that is certainly debate-able. I have had no problem, nor difference from my dSLR's (that I still own).

cberry said:
and such is that regardless of if it had better image quality - it's still not a tool I'd recommend for a beginner who wants to learn.

An argument can be made that the old Pentax K-1000 was the best ... LOL

cberry said:
It's for a beginner who may want to learn but doesn't necessarily want the bother - i.e. my wife - but it's far too big for her.

It is a big lens. I wish it was smaller.

cberry said:
A beginner camera for someone who wants to learn according to me needs the following:

1. easy control of exposure

I have that via FZ-1000, I shoot manual all the time. (especially at night -- and easier than some of my older SLR's where you could not see the shutter-speed or aperture or focus-scale at night w/out flashlight -- FZ-1000 is all illuminated)

cberry said:
2. availability of aperture control across 35mm focal lengths from 24mm - 85mm down to f/1.8

Why stop there ??? .... Why not f/1.4 or 1.2 ???

cberry said:
or f/2.8 and from 70-200mm to f/4

Do you have anything against 400mm @ f/4, (and digital zoom to 3200mm) ???

cberry said:
3. reasonable high ISO performance

I have never denied a larger sensor has better ISO, so YOU WIN on that point.

cberry said:
4. A good expandable flash system.

FZ-1000 can mount external flash, and wireless fire multiple units also. (albeit I have not done that yet)

cberry said:
5. Modes that offer minimal shutter lag.

We have already established FZ-1000 is 2X to 10X faster than your dSLR, (but remember you are arguing w/ Imaging-Resource, not me).

cberry said:
6. Fast AF

See above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and discuss w/ Imaging-Resource ....

cberry said:
7. Manual focus without focus by wire (although STM is quite accurate and controllable by comparison to wheels or dials in other lenses.

I would also prefer a true "manual" focus, but the FZ-1000 is work-able.

Focus "peaking" is nice, and "focus-MAGNIFICATION".

cberry said:
The FZ doesn't meet MY criteria - neither does the G7x as a single camera.

Then I would suggest you do NOT buy one.

cberry said:
be happy.

I am happy, with my FZ-1000.

And especially happy when I shoot images that were previously impossible via dSLR. (like shooting "up" from ground level --or-- hand-holding @ 3200mm --or-- shooting close/macros @ 1/4000 to darken background w/out HSS flash or 1/1000 for effective fill-flash in sunlight beyond 50').

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

tedolf · Jan 24, 2015

JoePhoto said:
cberry said:

Joe,

you're dismissing facts because of your bias once more.

Click to expand...

YES, one of us certainly is !!!

JoePhoto said:

I know a conversation is over when people repeat the same arguments.

Click to expand...

Then why are you back ???

JoePhoto said:

If the FZ1000 isn't selling as many units as the brilliance of the device according to you would suggest, there must be a reason.

Click to expand...

Since many stores remain back-ordered, I suggest they may be selling as many as they can produce. (I pre-ordered 3 months ahead, yet had to wait over a month for mine.)

JoePhoto said:

Just because you can't seem to process that the normal use of a dslr is with phase detect which is faster than the FZ1000 EVERY TIME

Click to expand...

I suggest you go argue that with Imaging-Resource. THEY are the ones that say your dSLR is 2X to 10X SLOWER. I am only the messenger.

And while I agree that Phase-Detect is (was) faster, it is also true that Contrast-Detect could be more "accurate". (I have seen many, many posts about focusing failure/error in the dSLR forums.)

Perhaps DFD is overall better, (and could even be improved w/ faster CPU's).

I have never seen any GH-4 complaints about focusing, (nor the FZ-1000 and I have had 100% success).

Note that I especially like the "pin"-point focusing feature on FZ-1000, I have tested it and it works well when an animal/bird is obscured through tree-limbs or brush where even center-box focusing is too wide.

JoePhoto said:

and you're still beating about the live-view use scenario with the 650D tells me that you want the fastest live-view camera.

Click to expand...

I am only saying that since mirrorless is always Live-View, the only real apples-apples comparison possible MUST be @ Live-View.

This is the flaw in your reasoning.

DSLR's have both, so depending on the circumstance either is usable.

For low light sports, the DSLR's PDAF is better than the best Live View PDAF.

But that is about the only advantage a DSLR has over some mirrorless cameras.

I do not include your favorite camera in that group.

JoePhoto said:
And while Live-View may not be a viable option w/ dSLR (for several reasons), it IS most viable via mirrorless because we can CHOOSE to shoot (and/or REVIEW IMAGES) with EITHER our "eye" level finder or rear-LCD.

So whats the matter, are you ASHAMED of your dSLR "Live-View", (or should I call it DEAD-View) ???

And I am sorry you don't have a "choice" of either "eye"-level or rear-LCD for either shooting or reviewing your images, (in bright sunlight). I most often use BOTH as I first preview my image on the rear-LCD and then quickly put it to my eye for the final composition/framing and shot because I an hold it more steady via "eye" finder. And it is quicker to be able to instantly "toggle" from menu-changes to instantly seeing the effects on the rear-LCD -- before making final image/exposure via "eye" finder.

JoePhoto said:

Your argument is:

Live-view is better for beginners so they need the best live-view camera.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, I do think Live-View is better for beginners because they have a direct visual representation of shutter-speed, aperture, and ISO changes.

They can see WB errors and over-exposure warnings.

JoePhoto said:

The question isn't which camera is best at live-view. There I agree that the FZ has considerable advantages and the reason that I don't go into drawbacks such as an over-illuminated screen which makes you consistently under expose,

Click to expand...

There are several different screen settings that impact the way it is displayed.

JoePhoto said:

crappy auto exposure and white balance

Click to expand...

Whoa .... that is certainly debate-able. I have had no problem, nor difference from my dSLR's (that I still own).

JoePhoto said:

and such is that regardless of if it had better image quality - it's still not a tool I'd recommend for a beginner who wants to learn.

Click to expand...

An argument can be made that the old Pentax K-1000 was the best ... LOL

JoePhoto said:

It's for a beginner who may want to learn but doesn't necessarily want the bother - i.e. my wife - but it's far too big for her.

Click to expand...

It is a big lens. I wish it was smaller.

JoePhoto said:

A beginner camera for someone who wants to learn according to me needs the following:

1. easy control of exposure

Click to expand...

I have that via FZ-1000, I shoot manual all the time. (especially at night -- and easier than some of my older SLR's where you could not see the shutter-speed or aperture or focus-scale at night w/out flashlight -- FZ-1000 is all illuminated)

JoePhoto said:

2. availability of aperture control across 35mm focal lengths from 24mm - 85mm down to f/1.8

Click to expand...

Why stop there ??? .... Why not f/1.4 or 1.2 ???

JoePhoto said:

or f/2.8 and from 70-200mm to f/4

Click to expand...

Do you have anything against 400mm @ f/4, (and digital zoom to 3200mm) ???

JoePhoto said:

3. reasonable high ISO performance

Click to expand...

I have never denied a larger sensor has better ISO, so YOU WIN on that point.

JoePhoto said:

4. A good expandable flash system.

Click to expand...

FZ-1000 can mount external flash, and wireless fire multiple units also. (albeit I have not done that yet)

JoePhoto said:

5. Modes that offer minimal shutter lag.

Click to expand...

We have already established FZ-1000 is 2X to 10X faster than your dSLR, (but remember you are arguing w/ Imaging-Resource, not me).

JoePhoto said:

6. Fast AF

Click to expand...

See above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and discuss w/ Imaging-Resource ....

JoePhoto said:

7. Manual focus without focus by wire (although STM is quite accurate and controllable by comparison to wheels or dials in other lenses.

Click to expand...

I would also prefer a true "manual" focus, but the FZ-1000 is work-able.

Focus "peaking" is nice, and "focus-MAGNIFICATION".

JoePhoto said:

The FZ doesn't meet MY criteria - neither does the G7x as a single camera.

Click to expand...

Then I would suggest you do NOT buy one.

JoePhoto said:

be happy.

Click to expand...

I am happy, with my FZ-1000.

And especially happy when I shoot images that were previously impossible via dSLR. (like shooting "up" from ground level --or-- hand-holding @ 3200mm --or-- shooting close/macros @ 1/4000 to darken background w/out HSS flash or 1/1000 for effective fill-flash in sunlight beyond 50').

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

TEdolph

Advice on on buying my first DSLR.

New member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts