Login
Feature
By Vlad Savov and David Pierce
Cameras! It’s almost impossible to get away from cameras nowadays, yet most of us use them with the bare minimum of knowledge required to snap the nearest tweet-worthy scene. That’s not because we don’t care about truly pretty pictures — even casual observers know the difference between good and bad photography — but have you tried to make an educated choice between cameras lately?
Spec sheets are laden with alien terminology like ISO and F numbers, and once you manage to get a grasp of what those mean, you’re still confronted with a spectacular variety of options. To help you navigate your way through this quagmire of excess information, we've put together this guide. It'll enlighten you about which specs are important when, and what cameras are suitable for whom. Sound good? Then read on!
As with our smartphone buyer’s guide, you should be careful not to treat this as a definitive dictum on what to buy. What we’re seeking to do here is help you make an informed decision by separating the meaningful data from the meaningless. This is a guide to discerning the things that will make a recognizable difference in your photographic experience and results. We’ve selected a few of our favorite cameras in the categories below, but those will change over time, whereas the rest of this advice will (hopefully) remain relevant for a long time to come.
Every camera, from the tiny webcam embedded in your laptop’s display to the full-frame pro cameras built by Nikon and Canon, operates along the same set of basic principles. You can discern those from the very name of photography, whose roots are the Greek photos, meaning light, and graph, meaning to draw or record — ergo, a photograph is in its essence a map of light. When you take a picture of your favorite cityscape, you're not actually documenting the streets, or the skyscrapers, or the milling crowds — you're drawing up a recording of the light reflected off them.
The most common technique for achieving this recording is by channelling light through a lens onto a photosensitive material that soaks it up and turns it into an image. That light-absorbing canvas was once film, which has since given way to electronic sensors in modern digital shooters. In either case, initiating the light capture is done by opening a shutter in front of the photosensitive surface. By adjusting how long that shutter stays open (shutter speed), the sensitivity of the digital sensor (ISO), and how much light passes through the lens (aperture), you get the majority of your control over an image.
Light is your ally, darkness your foe
Since light is the only information your photograph collects, it should come as no surprise that well-lit scenes typically come out looking sharper and nicer than dark and moody shots illuminated only by a streetlight. The former just gives you more information to work with. When shooting in the dark, the camera must work either harder (with higher ISO that can lead to unsightly graininess) or longer (with a slower shutter speed that can cause motion blur) to properly recreate the image in front of it. That's where the invention of the flash comes in, providing a strobe of white light synchronized with the opening of your shutter, though it comes with tradeoffs of its own. The strength of the flash can oftentimes wash out fine detail in nearby subjects or lead to the infamous red-eye effect. Tripods are also invaluable in counteracting blurring caused by the photographer's hand, but they can do nothing about motion within your composition and are not exactly portable.
Ultimately, the number one lesson in photography is that there are always tradeoffs. If you want the best possible image quality, you'll need specialized and bulky equipment. Should portability be your highest priority, you'll simply have to accept that some photos and creative ideas will be beyond your reach.
There are a number of other considerations to take into account when composing an image — and, consequently, choosing the best camera for the job — which we’ve detailed below. Once you’ve wrapped your head around what they will mean for your intended photography adventure, you should have a good idea of the kind of camera that will best suit your needs.
As Bruce Dickinson might say, I've gotta have more light!
If you’re new to digital photography, the three things you should acquaint yourself with first are the ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. The three work in concert, and if you can manipulate and control them all, you’ll take fabulous photos without even touching the rest of your camera. Together, they’re known as the Exposure Triangle, because they control how much light you’re exposing the camera to (aperture), how sensitive the camera is to that light (ISO), and how long your exposure lasts (shutter speed).
Coming from the International Organization for Standardization, ISO (it’s not an acronym) describes the light sensitivity of your camera's sensor set against a common standard. It was originally known as "film speed," as it was a static measure of the amount of light a given type of film could absorb, but in modern digital cameras ISO can be adjusted up and down. Higher ISO means a brighter image, which is achieved by digitally amplifying the information collected during exposure. It's an imperfect process that generates errors, which become apparent in your pictures as discoloration and noise — the unattractive speckling effect you usually see in low-light photos.
The quality of your camera's sensor and noise-reduction processing will affect the maximum ISO at which you can produce images that are still worth using. From among the cameras we've tested ourselves, Nikon's impressively large and expensive D3s is far and away the best in that respect. It can shoot at ISO 12,800 the way most cameras perform at ISO 1000, allowing you to keep shooting under significantly lower light.
Measured using the horribly confusing F number scale, the aperture is another of these dead simple settings that tend to upset young children with their obtuse nomenclature. Basically, most lenses have the ability to constrict the light that passes through them using an internal element (called a diaphragm), which can be extended and retracted using controls on the camera. If you want more light in your image, you pull that diaphragm back as far as it would go, or if you need less, you extend it and limit the incoming rays to a narrower, more focused hole. Aperture, therefore, is just a relative measure for the diameter of your lens opening. All you need to know with respect to f-numbers is that lower ones indicate a wider aperture, with f/2.8 and below being the extremes, while higher ones signify more light is being blocked.
Just think of the Aperture Science logo
If light is of paramount importance, you might ask, why would you ever want to constrain its entry into the camera? Well, a side effect of a wide open lens is that it lets in a lot of unfocused light rays. The result is that you get a shallow depth of field, which is to say that anything in front of or behind the area on which you're focusing will appear blurry. That's generally a desirable trait in photography, as it isolates your subject from its surroundings and lets you guide the viewer's eyes, however it can be a problem when you want to have everything in your scene in focus.
As the photo above shows, wide aperture settings tend to constrict the in-focus area to a razor-thin sliver, particularly on nearby subjects. The obvious countermeasure is to tighten up the aperture to f/8 or narrower — that bundles up the incoming light into a more focused beam, which will result in greater depth to your focus area. Do bear in mind that the most extreme depth of field effects are the exclusive preserve of large-sensor cameras; you simply can’t achieve the same defocusing effect with smaller sensors, which retain a generous in-focus depth even at f/1.4.
Shutter speed is as key an element to getting good photos as any. It controls how long the camera spends collecting light, as opposed to ISO and aperture, which control how much light is absorbed at once. It’s measured in fractions of a second, so a shutter speed of "1/125" means the shutter is open for one 125th of a second. Higher shutter speeds mean the camera captures a shorter period of time, which is key for getting blur-free action shots, while lower speeds allow you to soak up more light, albeit at the risk of blurry results if your camera and subject aren't still.
Of course, you don't always have to fear motion blur. Strap your camera to a tripod and you can exploit the blur to your advantage — that's how the pros create those pictures of highways decorated by streaks of light or the waterfalls that look like they're composed of cascading wisps of smoke instead of water. Most of the time, you'll want to match your settings to your circumstances, but it's also good fun to sometimes start with a given set of attributes and rearrange your scene to match them.
The trifecta above are the most important controls on your camera, but there are other attributes you need to be mindful of in the pursuit of the best image quality.
Most professional photographers will tell you that the paramount determinant of image quality is the lens. You can tweak your settings as much as you like, but without a truly sharp piece of glass to filter light through, your pictures will never look their best. The distinction between sharpness and softness in imaging is one of detail: sharp photos retains a clear separation between edges and colors right down to the pixel level.
Unfortunately, nobody has yet invented an easy metric for quantifying lens quality, so you won't be able to simply walk into a store and order up the Superlative Edition of your favored lens. Part of the problem is that lens performance varies both with aperture and zoom level. The sharpest lenses at f/4 are typically f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses that have been pulled back from their highest setting. Similarly, lenses start to exhibit distortion at the extreme wide (16mm and lower) and telephoto (135mm and above) ends of their zoom range, which some cameras are able to automatically correct for with software.
Lenses are like sunscreen: all-important
There are a couple of easy guiding principles that can steer you in the right direction. Firstly, construction materials matter. Canon's L series of lenses and the higher end of Nikon's Nikkor line are both built out of real glass on the inside and extremely robust materials on the outside. The kit lenses bundled with DSLRs and the non-removable ones on cheaper cameras are made from plastic both on the inside and out, which makes them less reliable in the long term and less awesome when you come to review your results. That's not a universal rule, there are some exceptionally good lenses with plastic optics, but generally, you'll be able to tell a good lens by its considerable weight and durable feel.
The second point to remember is that prime lenses — those without a zoom function, whose focal length is fixed — tend to perform better than zoom lenses, owing to their simpler construction. For the absolute best results, you'll want a camera capable of exchanging lenses, together with wide-aperture lenses at each of the most common focal lengths: e.g. 24mm, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, and 200mm. That's more than a backpack's worth of gear to heave around with you (and quality glass weighs quite a bit anyway), so do it only if you're unwilling to compromise on sharpness and flexibility.
A common misconception people have is that shutter lag actually has anything to do with the shutter. Oh sure, there's a minuscule delay between the instruction to open and the shutter actually opening, but the lion's share of lag actually comes from the automated focusing and metering systems. Metering is what the camera does to judge how long it needs to expose the image for, while autofocus is a little more self-explanatory. Cameraphone makers have gotten wise to the fact people want to see the picture taken the moment they press the button, so we now have phones like the Amaze 4G that continuously refocus and re-meter the scene so as to be ready at a moment's notice. Nikon has gone one step further with the introduction of Smart Photo Selector in its new 1 Series: it shoots up to 20 photos while you have the shutter button half-pressed and automatically selects the best five after you take your picture.
Neither Nikon nor HTC's solution is ideal. They're trying to dodge the problem of focusing speed, but the only true solution is more focusing points on your camera combined with a faster focusing motor for the lens. The reliability and quickness of autofocus, particularly in low light, is one of the ways in which professional cameras still stand head and shoulders above the rest. Canon's recently announced EOS 1D-X packs in a whopping 61 AF points, with 41 of them being of the more precise cross-type variety. Stick a fast-focusing lens on that camera and you can bid adieu to shutter lag.
Straying beyond 8 megapixels is overkill for all but the pros
If there’s one rule to follow in photography, it’s that cameras with larger sensors take better photos. That’s a generalization, of course, but it’s based on a very basic empirical truth: the bigger the photosensitive surface area, the more light is taken in at a time. Practical evidence for this is abundant, from the Nikon 1 series that disappointed everyone with its undersized CX sensor, to the Nokia N8, which remains the smartphone camera champion today thanks to its class-leading 1/1.83-inch sensor.
Full-frame cameras derive their name from the size of their sensors, which match the "full frame" of 35mm film, and are predictably the professionals' favorite choice. With a full-frame camera, a 24mm lens gives you exactly that focal length, whereas with smaller sensors, you're subject to a crop factor that tends to turn everything into a slightly more zoomed-in version of itself (i.e. if the sensor is 1.5 times smaller than full-frame, as with Nikon's popular DX format, you get 1.5 times the focal length; with a 24mm lens, that'd mean an effective focal length of 36mm).
Bigger really is better when it comes to camera sensors
Alas, pricing and sensor sizes scale rather proportionally, so medium format and full-frame cameras are usually outside the reach of most enthusiasts, which is why the most popular digital SLRs today feature the APS-C format. It's a happy compromise.
Strictly speaking, a megapixel is one million pixels, but it's somewhat meaningless to know that your camera shoots 10 million pixels at a time. What you want to know, and what the megapixel count truly tells you, is how big you can make your image without having to enlarge it digitally (and suffering the resultant degradation in image quality). A 3-megapixel photo is more than dense enough to be printed out at the US standard 6- x 4-inch size at 300ppi, while 9 megapixels get you closer to a regular sheet of paper at the same density. Compromise a little on the pixel density, say down to 200ppi, and you'll get massive printouts from a humble old 12-megapixel shooter. Now, there are no guarantees that the actual photo would look good — megapixel numbers only measure the number of data points recorded by the camera — but at least you'll be able to do it.
Practically speaking, however, you're not likely to need such huge images. Most digital imaging ends up being consumed on computer screens, and if all you're needing are 900px-wide pics for Facebook, well, even a solitary megapixel will suffice. If you're shooting for billboards, murals, or other enormous photo sizes, you should get all the megapixels you can, but for the average photographer, other specs matter more.
Optical viewfinders are a funny thing. Until you use one, you wonder why everyone bothers with the effort, then you get your first DSLR and you can't live without one. Mirrors in SLR cameras reflect the exact image that will be imprinted onto the sensor to a sort of porthole atop the camera, that's your viewfinder. Once again, the more expensive models offer a more luxurious experience, with the Canon 7D and Nikon D700 featuring bigger, more comfortable viewfinders than entry-level DSLRs. Electronic viewfinders (EVF) are getting much better and starting to compete, particularly in Sony's line of single-lens translucent (SLT) cameras like the A77, but it'll take some doing to convince traditionalists to let go of the more natural way.
If your camera doesn't have an optical viewfinder, then you'd better make damn sure it's equipped with a good LCD. You’ll be using it to both frame and review photos, so any shortcomings in terms of color fidelity or resolution can force you into a guessing game you don't want to play. LCD resolution is measured in dots, with 230,000, 460,000, and 920,000 being the typical values. The more dots the better, obviously, but do take a moment to check out the quality of the screen as well. Sony and Samsung are using OLED displays in some of their latest cameras, which look fantastic. As for touchscreen functionality, we've yet to see anyone pair it with a reasonable control scheme on a camera, so we'd advise skipping it.
Zoom is a simple concept — it’s how close you can get to whatever you’re shooting, without having to physically move closer — but it’s not always obvious what you’re really getting. The actual x-multiple of your zoom is much less important than the angle measurements at the widest and closest settings, which measure how much you can fit into your photo. A camera that starts at 28mm and has 10x zoom will ultimately get closer (280mm) than one that begins at 24mm (240mm when zoomed in), though the tradeoff is a smaller field of view when you’re zoomed out. If you want to be as close as possible to your subject, the most important number is the telephoto angle, more so than the x-multiple. But be warned: cameras with huge zoom tend to be hard to hold steady when zoomed in, so getting sharp photos might be tough even with the best image stabilization. Additionally, as discussed above, the more flexibility you gain with zoom, the less likely you are to get the highest image quality — lens makers have to compromise on something, so if you're going after a massive zoom range, bear in mind that it won't deliver sublime images the way a fixed focal length might.
When it comes to zoom operation, fixed lens cameras have the upper hand. They usually have powered zoom mechanisms, allowing you smooth control at the press of a button. Interchangeable lenses are more fiddly for the newcomer, as their zoom is usually (but not always) controlled mechanically with a ring around the body of the lens. That gives more granular control to those want it, but can be offputting to the casual user. Finally, do yourself a favor and ignore the very idea of a "digital zoom." It's done either by enlarging the picture (and reducing its quality) or cropping down to a smaller area of the sensor, both of which you can do much better with dedicated post-processing software on your computer.
Whether optical or electronic, a good viewfinder is well worth having
Figments of marketing imagination: digital zoom and digital image stabilization
As with digital zoom, digital image stabilization (IS) is more marketing ploy than a useful feature. The optical stuff, however, is a whole other story. Lenses with optical IS are equipped with internal elements that move in the opposite direction to any small movements you make, steadying the image that arrives onto the sensor. Nikon's Vibration Reduction, demonstrated above, is particularly effective, allowing you to shoot at two or three steps slower shutter speed than you usually would be able to without motion blur. For example, if 1/40 shutter speed is your floor before you start seeing blurring on a regular lens, its VR version will move that down to 1/25. Canon's version of this is called Optical Image Stabilizer, Panasonic's is MegaOIS, and virtually every other camera and lens maker has a variety too.
Sony and Olympus have made a habit of building image stabilization right into the body of their DSLRs, simplifying lens design and reassuring users that all of their lenses will be stabilized. Ultimately, whichever system you choose, they all serve the purpose of reducing the deleterious effects of unintended motion and should be considered highly desirable in a camera purchase. If you're going after a shooter with a long telephoto zoom, optical IS should be the first thing you look for.
It was only a few years ago that video recording was considered a novelty in still cameras, but today HD video is a standard, and expected, feature. Still, there are pitfalls to beware, such as a selection of cameras that will lock the focus and zoom when video recording starts (e.g. the otherwise excellent Canon S95), significantly limiting your options. Reliable autofocus, in the cameras that are capable of it, remains a mirage. You'll do well to learn to love manual focus if you want your videos to be free of the irritating focus jumps that cameras do when they get confused as to what you're trying to film.
1080p HD video is fast becoming a standard feature in still cameras
Cameras with larger sensors make capturing video a harder process than with simple point-and-shoots, owing to their greater sensitivity, bulkier bodies, and typically mechanical zoom and focus mechanisms. They give you more to worry about, as lens operation noises are often picked up by the integrated microphone, however they also provide access to a range of cinematic effects that smaller cams cannot touch. Want to start your movie masterpiece with a gorgeously circular bokeh that gradually comes into focus on your leading man? You'll need something in the class of a Canon 60D with a wide-aperture lens to match.
All lenses have a point after which, if you get any closer to your subject, it won’t be in focus no matter how hard you try. Termed the minimum focusing distance (MFD), this is a specification that's usually printed on the lens itself. It's measured from the image sensor — not the front of the lens — to the subject, so it's usually a less severe limitation than you might first think. MFD is actually one of the few advantages of smaller-sensor cameras: cameraphones and point-and-shooters can get really close to the subject, whereas interchangeable-lens cameras usually need a minimum clearance of at least 25cm / 10 inches. Macro lenses are designed specifically with the goal of cutting that distance, some dropping it as low as 16cm (essentially allowing you to press the lens up against the thing you're shooting). The important thing to be wary of is that telephoto and long zoom lenses typically demand a long MFD, somewhere in the region of 45cm, meaning they're not as flexible as they might initially appear to be.
Like a big name actor that's too important to sit in the middle of the cast list but not so crucial as to headline the show, we're dedicating our last slot to the camera's white balance (WB). This is the function that everyone leaves on auto, which is why the majority of indoor pics on Facebook look yellow. In simple terms, cameras are a bit dumb. If you don't tell them that you're under incandescent lights (which cast a yellow hue), they won't account for it and will try to balance the colors before them based on their presets. All modern cameras have a WB preset for artificial lighting, but only the more professionally inclined ones give you granular control over white balance and easy access to tweaking it on the fly.
The best solution we've found for overcoming unnatural color tinging is to feed your camera a sample image. The majority of DSLRs now have the option to set WB by taking an image of something that you know is white under the particular lighting conditions you intend to shoot in. Thus, when the camera snaps a nice white sheet of paper under the lurid orange and violet lights of a trade show floor, it'll calibrate itself to know that white looks a little different at that spot.
Six major categories, each catering to a particular need
Among phones, the Nokia N8 has unmatched image quality. Unluckily for the N8, however, the central allure of cellphone photography isn't quality, it's convenience. The N8 is bulky thanks to its enlarged sensor and unwieldy to operate due to its Symbian OS, essentially reducing it to a point-and-shoot camera with a built-in 3G radio. What you really want from your phone is a camera with quick operation, reasonable image quality, and an effortless interface for uploading pictures to the web. That's the purpose of a cameraphone, after all: sharing pictures as quickly and as easily as possible.
Flickr's most popular camera, of any type, has been the iPhone 4 for a number of months now (though it looks likely to be succeeded by the iPhone 4S and its upgraded 8-megapixel sensor and five-element lens). Thanks to dedicated apps for image uploading and things like Twitter being plugged right into the gallery view, sending photos out to the web has never been easier. Android offers no fewer sharing options than iOS, and Microsoft's Windows Phone OS is similarly adept at serving the need for quick picture taking and sharing.
The limitations of cameraphones are numerous and generally well known. Firstly, you get no optical zoom option. Most phone cameras are set at wide focal lengths like 28mm or 35mm in order to capture large group shots and landscapes. There's also no optical image stabilization, which is a bigger issue when shooting video than stills. Additionally, although constantly improving, the miniature sensors in cameraphones continue to lag dedicated shooters in low-light performance and dynamic range.
Point-and-shoot (P&S) cameras are small, cheap, and easy to use. As the name implies, you’re meant to take it out of the box, point it at your subject, and shoot. These cameras’ manufacturers typically assume you’ll be shooting in Auto mode and won’t be worrying about things like aperture and shutter speed. That makes the camera easy to operate, but the flip side is that if you want more refined control, you'll have to dig around inside a stratified labyrinth of unhelpful menus. If you’re just learning how to use a camera, or don’t want to have to think about your photos, a point-and-shoot is a great option — their pocketability is just a bonus.
Picking a point-and-shoot presents you with a very wide range of features to choose from: some emphasize zoom, others promote manual controls, and still others offer extras like GPS or touchscreen functionality. Software sophistication is also growing, with litanies of automatic and creative modes, though we find the great majority of them to be mere gimmicks. Given the choice, you should always aim for the best sensor and lens, as nothing will give you quite as much satisfaction as sheer image quality, with added features being of secondary concern.
| Cameraphone | Quick Facts |
|---|---|
| Price range | Free - $299 (on contract) |
| Image quality | Great for web use |
| Ease of use | Couldn't be simpler |
| Portability | It's in your phone |
| Build quality | Typically good |
| Low-light perf. | Forget about it |
| Upgrade cycle | Constant |
For foolproof photography, pick one of these two options
| Point-and-shoot | Quick Facts |
|---|---|
| Price range | $99 - $599 |
| Image quality | Decent |
| Ease of use | Dead simple |
| Portability | Super pocket-friendly |
| Build quality | Unimpressive |
| Low-light perf. | You'll need the flash |
| Upgrade cycle | Every six months |
| Superzoom | Quick Facts |
|---|---|
| Price range | $299 - $499 |
| Image quality | Same as P&S |
| Ease of use | Keep those hands still |
| Portability | For purses, not pockets |
| Build quality | Better than P&S |
| Low-light perf. | Don't try it zoomed in |
| Upgrade cycle | Annual (but accelerating) |
| Mirrorless | Quick Facts |
|---|---|
| Price range | $399 - $1,349 |
| Image quality | Rivals DSLRs |
| Ease of use | Similar to P&S |
| Portability | Depends on lens |
| Build quality | High |
| Low-light perf. | Good |
| Upgrade cycle | Annual |
We’d wager that the most-wanted feature on a camera is more zoom — that’s how you get closer to the action on the field and closer to the details you really want to see in photos. Camera makers heard that, and have started building cameras that are basically point-and-shoots, but with huge zooms (some as high as 20x and 30x). There are tradeoffs, as always: superzooms tend to be expensive and are usually quite bulky, particularly when you consider that their sensors are rarely larger than your typical point-and-shoot snapper.
Exceptional versatility that comes at a price
Superzooms fall into the informal category of bridge cameras, which tend to look like shrunken-down DSLRs and aim to occupy (or "bridge") the gap between compacts and more professional equipment. Not every bridge camera has a stupidly long zoom, and we'd argue the whole effort of dressing up small-sensor cameras with pro features is delusive, but at least now you know what to call those hybrid-looking things in the store.
Ultimately, a superzoom sacrifices quite a lot to earn its title, however if you're pursuing the highest optical magnification of distant subjects, they're your best option outside of ridiculously large and expensive telephoto lenses on DSLRs. As we mentioned in the zoom section above, not all zoom is created equal. When you're shopping for a superzoom, check the millimeters on the wide and telephoto angles to see how close you'll really be able to get. For a more versatile camera, don't get anything with a wide angle higher than 28mm, but for the most zoom possible get the highest telephoto number you can find.
Because of its relative novelty, this category of camera still hasn't settled on a standard definition; some people call them EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens), others refer to them as ILC (Interchangeable Lens Camera). We prefer the term 'mirrorless' as it most aptly describes their relationship to DSLRs: these are large-sensor cameras, just like DSLRs, but without the pentaprism required for an optical viewfinder. In removing that big bulk from the body, cameras like Olympus' PEN and Panasonic's G series have brought the high quality of DSLRs into a form factor not much larger than pocket cameras. Those two companies were the ones that got this entire movement started with their Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system, but it is Sony that truly delivered on the promise of mirrorless cameras with its NEX range. Unlike MFT, which uses slightly smaller sensors than DSLR cameras, Sony's NEX line is built around APS-C-sized imagers, with the latest NEX-5N matching the image quality you can get from midrange DSLRs like the Canon 60D and Nikon D7000.
It's hard to overstate how good the NEX-5N is
Having interchangeable lenses makes these cameras significantly more flexible than fixed-lens point-and-shoots, although lens selection remains paltry compared to the mature DSLR market, which benefits from continued compatibility with older lenses originally designed for film cameras. The big disadvantages for the mirrorless category today are the high prices and the fact that you'll have to commit to a brand (you can't exchange Sony E-Mount lenses with Olympus PEN lenses, for example) before you truly know which will have the best lens ecosystem. We're huge fans of Sony's NEX-5N and consider it an easy leader in the category, but you'll do well to check out Samsung's NX200, which also comes with an APS-C-sized sensor. Other competitors in this space, like Nikon's 1 Series and the Pentax Q, simply lack the image quality to be worth investing your time and money into.
Mirrorless cameras are evolving at arguably the fastest pace of all camera types and are looking increasingly likely to supplant entry-level DSLRs for people looking for the best balance of quality, flexibility, and price. 2012 is set to keep the momentum going, as Nikon will inevitably seek to improve on its underwhelming 1 Series debut, while Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, and maybe even Canon continue to work toward ever smaller camera bodies and higher-quality sensors.
The biggest step up most photographers will ever make is from a point-and-shoot camera to a digital single-lens reflex camera, or DSLR. DSLRs are so named because of a mirror system, called a pentaprism, inside them that allows you to see through the lens with the camera's viewfinder, and then flips up and out of the way while taking a photo. The flipping action is the 'reflex' in their name. We've already touched on the manifold advantages of these cameras: their APS-C sensors offer the best price-to-performance ratio, they come with fast autofocus and true optical viewfinders, and if you buy a Nikon or Canon body, you get access to a cornucopia of lens choices. Manual controls are generally more accessible too, with dedicated dials (photographers love knobs and dials) and buttons for specific functions.
DSLRs run a huge price range, with speed, build quality, and video recording capabilities accounting for most of the differences. A DSLR typically has a much longer lifespan than a less expensive camera, both because of its higher build quality and the versatility derived from its interchangeable lenses. Unless you're a pro needing to upgrade to the best equipment as soon as it becomes available, you'll find a good DSLR will serve you extremely well for a long time.
You might prefer to pick your favorite lens system first, camera body second
When you choose a DSLR, you should choose not only the camera you need now but the camera you'll need years from now, since you won't be upgrading any time soon. Lens selection is also incredibly important — some might even argue that you should pick your lens first and then find a body that will fit it. Unlike almost any other segment of the technology market, lenses aren't sold with built-in obsolescence bundled in. Improvements in lens performance or size are constrained by the laws of physics, so keep in mind that when the time comes to upgrade, you'll probably just be looking for a fresh camera body and keeping your optical equipment unchanged.
Canon and Nikon's dominance in the DSLR category is undeniable, but a wide lens selection isn't the only benefit of choosing one of them. Today, you can walk into any camera store in the world and you'll find a replacement lens cap or battery or any other accessory for your DSLR if it's made by one of the two market leaders. It's the same sort of reassurance MacBook owners get from knowing that they've bought into an extremely well supported ecosystem.
Sony's SLT cameras can be considered part of this category, even though they do not strictly have the same SLR mechanics. The single-lens translucent technology introduced with the Alpha A55 keeps the mirror locked into place, but makes it partially transparent, so that most of the image filters through to the sensor behind the mirror, and some is reflected onto an AF sensor. The major benefit of this system is that you can use phase-detect autofocus (the faster kind) even while using the LCD to frame shots and during video recording, an advantage over all other types of cameras. SLT cameras are also compatible with Sony and Minolta's A-mount lenses, so there's a good selection of glass to choose from. On the downside, however, SLTs are no smaller than DSLRs and lack an optical viewfinder.
As we've been saying throughout this guide, bigger image sensors usually mean better pictures. That’s why those who want the best DSLR money can buy, opt for a full-frame model. The 35mm-film-matching full-frame sensor is much larger than APS-C, meaning that every pixel has a larger surface area and therefore absorbs more light and information. That, along with added processing muscle in the camera body, is how the Nikon D3s and Canon 1D Mark IV (APS-H sensor) can operate at silly ISO numbers like 51,200 without completely destroying the image they're trying to capture. Due to their typically enormous size and even more enormous price tag, however, full-frame DSLRs remain mostly the province of those who take photos for a living.
It's impossible not to be impressed by the speed and quality of full-frame cameras
It's hard to go wrong with a full-frame DSLR, but given the required outlay, it's worth doing your research. The differences between this top tier and midrange DSLRs are largely the same as those between the midrange and entry level: build quality leaps up (along with weight, unfortunately), more manual controls are added to the body, operation speed and continuous shooting are improved, and video capabilities are expanded. If you're a video pro, or looking to become one, Canon's options are hard to beat, but for pure image performance you might end up being swayed by Nikon. Another thing to remember is that compiling your collection of lenses will be more expensive with a full-frame camera, since bigger sensors require bigger lenses.
| DSLR | Quick Facts |
|---|---|
| Price range | $499 - $1,999 |
| Image quality | Excellent |
| Ease of use | Lots of buttons to figure out |
| Portability | You'll need two hands |
| Build quality | Great |
| Low-light perf. | Not night vision, but close |
| Upgrade cycle | Every 18 months |
| Full-frame | Quick Facts |
|---|---|
| Price range | $2,000 - infinity |
| Image quality | Unparalleled |
| Ease of use | Hard to learn |
| Portability | Get ready for a workout |
| Build quality | Stellar |
| Low-light perf. | It can see in the dark |
| Upgrade cycle | Two years or more |
This may all look like an overwhelming amount of information, but things become much simpler once you answer a few questions for yourself. Want simplicity above all else? Choose between a good cameraphone and a stylish point-and-shoot. If you're eager to get bigger and better images without sacrificing portability, take a look at mirrorless cameras. For the best image quality and speed, you'll be shopping in the DSLR aisle, though we don't advise jumping straight into full-frame territory. Whatever you do, be prepared to grow progressively more obsessed with light as you get deeper into photography. The intensity, diffusion, and temperature of light is often just as important as your choice of equipment.
Comments
This is a great post. Thanks for this.
ScottSmith - January 2, 2012
I just had a friend get into photography so I forwarded this to him. It’s like he read my mind! (Spooky)
DizWhiz - January 2, 2012
I just got a Canon T3i for Christmas and this article really helps a lot , I had some half way definitions but now I understand a lot more about Aperture, ISO, thanks, excellent article.
Palomosan - January 2, 2012
I own that camera. First thing I suggest to you is to buy a 50mm lens. Whether it be the f/1.8 (100, plastic though, cheap cons.) or f/1.4 (400, excellent). Now, you could get the f/1.2 one but that I think is 1.2k and it is really meant for the full frame cameras. Anyways, the kit lens with the T3i is okay but you won’t get any of those amazing shots that you see in magazines or even here. The 50mm is a prime lens, like how he described them above, so there is no zoom. If you want zoom, I would suggest buying a wide angle. I personally have the 15-85mm wide angle, which costs around 700 (about the same price the camera is).
I suggest moving off automatic right away and go into AV mode. This is “Aperture Value” and it is the best for getting started. Basically you just control the size of the aperture. I generally leave it at, when on my 50mm, f/2 – f/4. I suggest that you leave it higher than that, I just happen to love bokeh (the circle effect when it is out of focus).
Oh, no matter what lens you have you want to put lens filters on all of them. Just the UV ones work fine. The reason for this is because they are 10-30 dollars a piece while the lens are 400-2k a piece. It is much better to protect the lens with a cheap piece of glass than to have to pay hundreds to fix a broken lens.
Hoods are also important for stray light, I didn’t see him mention it. They are necessary but nifty. I have hoods for 2 of my lenses.
I think the last thing and most beneficial would be to make sure that you get a program to edit your photographs. I highly recommend lightroom over plain photoshop. Photoshop is really more for photo manipulation while lightroom is for actual photo enhancement. You can buy it for 150 not on sale and 80 on sale sometimes or if you are a student/teacher/non-profit you can get it for 80.
Hope that helps.
lukeemery - January 2, 2012
The Verge, YOU ROCK. Thanks, Vlad.
I’m only replying here because I want this comment to be heard. I consider myself quite the techie, but cameras and photography were always areas I pretty much neglected – the only thing I did know was that my 5mp Nexus One camera sucks terribly and it’s why I’m never satisfied with any of my photos, and hence I don’t even consider my “best camera” (the one that’s always on me) to be good enough… Pretty sad…
I love The Verge for these quality articles! I can honestly say that this is the first time I’ve read 15-some pages on technology that were all enlightening to me! I’m hoping this will get me motivated to get a little more serious with my picture taking because taking pictures everywhere is one of the most important things that came out of the mobile revolution.
Ariel Horwitz - January 2, 2012
I agree this is a great article that is very informative to those wishing to get well rounded information prior to purchasing a camera. I have historically cringed at articles written about photography on most tech sites because most of the writers of those articles don’t seem to be photographers at all. Darren over on Engadget has had some good photography articles on Engadget in the past, but whoever they have covering camera reviews really needs to learn more about photography.
Anyways, good job Vlad. Would love to have some more in depth stuff—studio lighting, macro work, etc.
Rick James - January 2, 2012
A 35mm prime lens will be an even more accurate choice. 35mm on APS-C is the equivalent of 50mm on standard APS. I do love my 35mm F/1.8 DX on the Nikon D3100…
olivier.parfait - January 3, 2012
I have a 50mm lens along with the kit lens for my A55 and do see myself wanting a little more scene in my shots sometimes and stick to the kit lens. The main thing with the 50 (especially for the Sony) is you can pick up old Minolta 50mm lenses for $100 and get so much light that you barely need to touch the flash indoors.
I forgot to bring my 50 on NYE and despite the improved ISO performance over my older a300, I really missed having f/1.8.
My next photography purchase will be a 35mm lens and possibly an 18-250 lens to replace the stock lens.
Steev182 - January 3, 2012
the 50mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lens for its price. The portrait you will shot will blow your mind.
MrLos - January 3, 2012
It really is. My favorite lens. My only gripe is that it crops a lot for close ups, but that is why you get a wide angle.
lukeemery - January 4, 2012
Thanks, already in the process, deciding which one I’ll get, probably two lenses, a Prime and better zoom less, both EF.
Palomosan - January 3, 2012
Highly recommend the 50mm. Macro is fun btw, but it really only works for macro. You can take portfolio shots with it, but the 50mm is better at it. Also, you can take landscape with it but so can the 50mm. I don’t know if you like macro, but a lot of people do, and my suggestion is 50mm first.
I love macro, but I went for the lens with more utility first because I had to try to get the run for my money.
lukeemery - January 4, 2012
Great post guys, I was in the market for a new camera with next to no knowledge.
abby.gnanendran - January 2, 2012
Great article, now i’m waiting for the guide on how to make enough money to afford a full-frame camera. Back to work Vlad!
Aaron Souppouris - January 2, 2012
After seeing a friends results with a D700 I would also love to see that guide as well. I thought my D300 + Tammy 17-50 was “tack sharp” then I saw their D700 + 24-70 and I was ready to toss my gear into the nearest lake!*
DizWhiz - January 2, 2012
It’s not the cam, it’s the lens.
The 24-70 f2.8 from nikon (i suppose thats the one you’re talking about) is just amazing. Whether on our D300 or D3S, the lens deliveres unmatched quality in this range.
Elysium - January 2, 2012
True the 24-70 will make what the sensor sees “sharper” but the larger sensor of the D700 captures more detail in general. Plus who doesn’t want a FF + useable ISO 6,400? (My D300 starts to look murky around 800)
DizWhiz - January 2, 2012
I’m using the D300 up to ISO 3’200 at concerts. Thats the limit in my opinion, and it’s already hurting the pics quite a bit (especially the colours). 800 is still great… lightroom does the rest :D
Of course, nothing can compete with a good FX sensor. Shooting with the D3s is a dream coming true. You can easily shoot with ISO 10k and still you get “usable” results. And while using ISO 3200 or similar, there’s almost no noise at all. It’s great advanced technology has become. It’s just a good feeling to know that your cam will always do the job, (almost) no matter how dark the setting is (especially at concerts and events, where people tend to create a “good atmosphere”. what a pain in the ass for all photographers :D)
Elysium - January 2, 2012
Not really. 12 MP of detail is 12 MP of detail. You may see some difference due to lower noise levels on the D700, so you MAY be able to make out more detail at ISO 6400 using a D700. The level of detail at ISO 3200 and below isn’t going to be much different between the two cameras except at 100% crop.
Besides, your point is difficult to prove because if you take a APS-C Nikon D300, and the full-frame D700, and put the same lens on the two cameras, you won’t get the subject framing. The D700 image will appear wider, and so will show less fine detail of the subject. The solution is to choose another lens, or to zoom in (if using a zoom lens) to compensate for this difference. However, then you’re not comparing apples to apples, since the lens used is different.
Nawknai - January 3, 2012
Though, the 24-70 equals to a 36-105mm which is a bit long for a ‘standard’ zoom for most people, rendering it useless (to them) on DX-format.
KiDKLMX - January 2, 2012
Yeah, it is a bit long, thats true. But I’m still using it quite a lot on my D300. It performs even better on a FX sensor, because afaik it was especially optimised to work with FX sensors.
Useless, not at all. Just not suitable for landscape photography (atleast if you aren’t into panoramas)
Elysium - January 2, 2012
I’very always wanted one for my portrait work.
DizWhiz - January 2, 2012
I mean useless as a standard zoom, a lot are gonna miss the wide-angles on day-to-day shooting
KiDKLMX - January 3, 2012
The D700 has a very low pixel count, it looks great at 100% on a computer display. Try printing something though – you will be surprised at how well the D300 holds up as long as the ISO isn’t cranked through the roof.
jforbes - January 2, 2012
are you using a tripod?
mex - January 3, 2012
Fantastic, thank you!
CCasper - January 2, 2012
I’m recommending all the comments praising this post. I just love The Verge for focusing on the content so much. Thank you!!!!
Ariel Horwitz - January 2, 2012
Loving all these camera posts. Starting with the Aperture one. Thanks a lot ive bee searching around for information like this lately because I want get into photography some more.
Good_ole_Pinocchio - January 2, 2012 via mobile
My New Years resolution is to finish reading this post by the end of 2012.
Gadginator - January 2, 2012
Brilliant!
Lockheed - January 2, 2012
You might also point out that ISO is pronounced “EYE-ESS-OH”. Lots of new DSLR owners say it as a word rather than as 3 letters, instantly marking them as amateurs.
MichaelY - January 2, 2012
I don’t think pronounciation is the thing that differentiates amateurs from pros…
Elysium - January 2, 2012
on the internet it is ;)
mex - January 3, 2012
lol I. S. O. , eye-so, who cares?
I usually just say eye-so btw, clearly im no pro.
mattmaber - January 3, 2012
Damn, obviously I’m an amateur, heartbreaking way to find out huh?
Last time I checked the main purpose of a language was to convey a message in a fashion that other people can understand you. Who cares if people say eye-so. You clearly now what they mean. I say eye-so all the time.
DaGetz - February 11, 2012
Like reading a magazine. Fantastic! Great article that’ll pass a good half hour on this train. Thanks!
requieminadream - January 2, 2012
Excellent post! I wish my parents were better at english, so I could have just showed them, instead of having to talk/teach them through so much stuff!
jfassbinder - January 2, 2012
translate.google.com
This is so well written that translate it would not be a problem. :)
JSconnected - January 2, 2012
Awesome article , this may as well be THE best written, explained and attractive article ive seen in a VERY, VERY long time.
I give you 5 * on this article.
JSconnected - January 2, 2012
Holy wow! This looks great. Content is king.
bjg - January 2, 2012
Correct me if I’m wrong, but shutter speed has absolutely no effect on depth of field.
jcm - January 2, 2012
What are you correcting?
Aaron Souppouris - January 2, 2012
the point where the article says that shutter speed can be a factor in depth of field. It has no bearing on DOF.
jcm - January 3, 2012
EDIT: I see they removed the claim that shutter speed affects DoF. Great article!
jcm - January 3, 2012
That’s correct. The only thing that affects DoF is the aperture.
Jazzwall - January 2, 2012
That’s wrong, the things affecting DoF are: focal length, aperture and focussing distance. The longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field; the higher the aperture (lower value), the shallower the depth of field; the shorter you’re focussing, the shallower the depth of field.
KiDKLMX - January 2, 2012
And forgot sensor/film size! The bigger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field. I.E with a Hasselblad H4D-50 (Medium Format), you can get a very thin DoF with even an f/4 lens, while with a Nikon V1 (Nikon CX) and an f/2.8 it’s next to impossible to get the BOKEH effect everyone is clamoring for now-a-days.
KiDKLMX - January 2, 2012
Actually, in practical terms, focal length has little effect on DOF – pictures are (normally) of a subject and changing focal length implies a corresponding change in distance to the subject for the same magnification.
Another thing that does effect DOF is COC (circle of confusion) or how sharp the image must g to be considered in focus, and this varies based on the final magnification and viewing distance – quite unfocused pictures appear sharp on a camera’s back LCD, and very sharp pictures will appear fuzzy blown up to a poster viewed from a few inches away.
NetMage - January 2, 2012
Are you sure you’re not talking about sensor size here? If yes that makes sense. But, in my experience, a full-body portrait at 200mm f2.8 is going to have a lot more bokeh than a similarly cropped full-body portrait at 35mm f2.8, even though you’d be much closer to the subject with the 35mm.
TulseLuper - January 5, 2012
If you own a camera already, then aperture and focusing distance are what you need to change to alter the depth of field.
If you’re buying a camera, you can also buy a camera with a larger sensor.
Nawknai - January 3, 2012
This is an awesome article. Simple, easy to understand and very well written… I look forward to more awesome guides on the Verge,
Suhail - January 2, 2012
So awesome that I can’t believe it is for free to read…
Between_cz - January 2, 2012
Lets not give them any ideas…. ;)
handsome.rob - January 2, 2012
This is why i love this site. It’s the best tech site out there, imo! I prefer The Verge, more than any other site like this. Saying this as a German reader. :)
Glad to be here, dudes. Great post, great quality. As always.
Rebirth - January 2, 2012
Great article! Now write one about saving the money to buy one of these things! Also, just remember two things: Leica and Carl Zeiss. If your camera has one or both of these names on there, it’s gonna be good.
ctt1wbw - January 2, 2012
Yes, my theoretical M9 + cheap VL lens clearly beat a Canon 5D mII with L-glass because I have a red dot on my body! (Don’t be stupid, brand says nothing, rate everything on a per lens basis)
KiDKLMX - January 2, 2012
Don’t be stupid? Does Leica use a lens from those mail order catalogs or do they use Carl Zeiss lenses? Don’t be stupid.
ctt1wbw - January 2, 2012
You sir, have obviously not strayed on rangefinder forums. There are a LOT of stupid people buying a very expensive body and a crappy lens
KiDKLMX - January 3, 2012
Largely true, although the upper stratosphere of photography is not distinguished by the gear. It is distinguished by the artistry of the photographer. A $30,000 Hasselblad (or Leica or whatever) does not make one a good photographer and there are thousands of good photographers doing great work on a $3000 Canon or Nikon.
Luis_de_Camoes - January 2, 2012
You can even achieve wonderful results with a 150$ cam. The shots may not be perfect in a technical sense, but can be beautiful and inspiring nonetheless. That is one of the things thats so wonderful about photography.
Elysium - January 2, 2012
The most important thing is good technique. This is far more important than gear. Once you focus on gear, the important things are features that improve your technique, such as easy to use controls, fast operation, apertures and ISO performance for your shooting style.
The last thing to worry about is what label is on the gear. A Carl Zeiss cell phone camera is a novelty, a cheap DSLR with a plastic lens will be a much better tool for a serious photographer. A DSLR with a couple prime lenses will be much more flexible than a Leica with a single slow zoom lens that costs five times as much.
BarkOG - January 2, 2012
Wrong.
Nawknai - January 3, 2012
This is an incredible post. Thank you Vlad.
Josereyes - January 2, 2012
Awesome piece Vlad and David!
I’ve been getting more into photography lately, and this article was really helpful and informative! And great timing too, as I just ordered my first ever DSLR (Canon Rebel T2i)!
ericleamen - January 2, 2012
Simple thing I never got, when ISO performance rises with the sensor size; why do most MF cameras have very strong ISO issues? Is it because the technology is basically underdeveloped?
Great article btw.
KiDKLMX - January 2, 2012
And if so, get working Mamiya. I’m sure a lot of people want a digital 7!
KiDKLMX - January 2, 2012
And a digital Mamiya 7 would be my dream camera.
TulseLuper - January 2, 2012
Many medium format digital cameras/backs don’t even have an ISO option above 800. That’s because they’re most commonly used in situations where the photographer has near complete control over the lighting and rarely needs to go above ISO 400. No one picks a medium format camera for versatility, just damn good image quality. And it’s damn good. And so much fun to use. That said, I’ve met photographers who have $30,000 Hasselblads in their studio that remain untouched for 75% of their shoots while their 1Ds gets all the attention.
TulseLuper - January 2, 2012
No, it’s because people who want digital medium format cameras are most interested in detail, and will be using a tripod for what they’re shooting. This is even true for “people photos”, because fashion magazines will be shooting models in studios (or outdoor situations) where the light will be controlled, and a tripod will be used. Nobody buys a medium format camera just to take photos of their cat, or their own feet, so ISO isn’t really important unless you’re going for a certain photographic effect.
Nawknai - January 3, 2012
Can I get that Sonnar 1,8/24 for my Nex-5N, pleeeeease!?
Bahumbug - January 2, 2012
Huh, I never knew Sigma cameras had such tiny sensors. Odd.
S0lidsnake - January 2, 2012
This is really great and super helpful and feels like an up-to-date version of a great resource I’ve been working with:
Bill Dixon - January 2, 2012
Awesome. You should check out the book “The Camera” from the same Time Life series. It explains tough technical concepts really simply.
TulseLuper - January 2, 2012
Vlad and David are ON FIRE!!!!!
Ricardo Silva - January 2, 2012
Great article. I really enjoyed reading this post. Thanks
f.aust - January 2, 2012
OMG, this is so helpful. I wasn’t sure about how to pick the right camera (or cameras at all). Thanks so much :D
EA575 - January 2, 2012
Sony Nex 5N FTW.
If someone has no clue what to get, they can’t really go wrong by just getting a 5N with the 18-55 kit lens.
Jan Kritzinger - January 2, 2012
The kit lens (both the 18-55 and the 16mm) aren’t exactly great in low light conditions. In fact, they are dangerously close to sucking. Cranking ISO up (which the Nex-5N sensor handles exceptionally well anyway) isnt a solution to everyone.
But when light is good, the 18-55 does a good job nonetheless. What I dont like about my pancake 16mm is, that it shows a little too much distortion around the edges. Likely a tribute to its extremely compact design- Still, a decent lens for your pocket.
I cant wait to get my hands on the Zeiss Sonnar 1,8/24 – even if it costs (here in europe) as much as the 5N kit with both the 16mm and 18-55mm lens. :0
Bahumbug - January 4, 2012
Awesome post, thank you!
I’m just in the process of upgrading from a P&S to DSLR. It seems I have underestimated the impact of the lens, but I think Canon has a wide variety for their DSLR models.
But is it really true that the Sony NEX 5N comes close to the Canon EOS 60D in terms of image quality? I mean there’s still a huge price gap between both models, and the EVIL tech just seems to be very immature right now.
chabuya - January 2, 2012
Yes, the 5N is outstanding. The dpreview high-ISO tests actually show the 5N controls chroma noise better than the 60D. It’s a crazy camera.
Vlad Savov - January 2, 2012
But it has a high chance of being hacked and all of your credit card information stolen.
lukeemery - January 2, 2012
You’re supposed to put a SD card in the camera, not cram your CC into the slot!
Bahumbug - January 4, 2012
Price says nothing, the 550D, 600D, 60D and 7D all have the same processor and sensor and should have the same picture quality. They only differ in burst speed, buffer and al of that stuff. The NEX-5n has exactly the same sensor as the 7000D so it should be comparable to the 60D based on sensor.
KiDKLMX - January 2, 2012
Price says something. The 60D is a better camera than the 600D. It has a faster max shutter speed, a longer batter life, a larger viewfinder, shoots more frames per second, has a larger buffer.
Those differences, however, turn out to be edge cases for most photographers. If you need a shutter speed of 1/8000 (which the 60D has) then you are probably looking to shoot professional sports photography. For the average person, 1/4000 is plenty.
Luis_de_Camoes - January 2, 2012
Faster shutter speed is not even worth saying anything about for most people. The ones that need it will look for it, and the ones that don’t need it will often think it means the camera takes pictures faster.
The bottom line is that the 60D has a mediocre AF system that isn’t significantly better than the T3i, the same sensor, and it does shoot faster but the interface is a downgrade from the 50D, lacking helpful direct controls.
It does a few more things, but it doesn’t have weather sealing, it doesn’t have a significantly better display, and while it is faster, it doesn’t have an AF system to take advantage of the speed. The biggest reason to get it is for the slightly bigger, more comfortable body. It also doesn’t have AF micro adjustment, which the 50D had.
The 60D offers a couple advantages over the Rebel, but it may as well be the T4i.
jforbes - January 2, 2012
So we agree, then.
Luis_de_Camoes - January 2, 2012
Except that it’s a glorified Rebel, and Canon convinced me to buy a 7D because the 60D is said glorified Rebel. It barely offers anything the T3i does not, for significantly more money.
jforbes - January 3, 2012
Yes. I own a T3i, largely for these reasons. However, just because I wasn’t willing to pay the extra money for those features doesn’t mean that they are worthless. Others could be very willing to pay for them.
Luis_de_Camoes - January 3, 2012
I was willing to pay for features – I paid for real features – maybe I’m just bitter because they made the 60D a piece of junk. :P
jforbes - January 3, 2012
The 60D is a piece of junk? Wow, you are bitter.
donthasslethehoff - January 3, 2012
I am sorry, but I do have to disagree with some of your points.
The AF system on the 60D is indeed much better than the one on the 500/550/600D with 9 cross-AF points. Weather sealing is only relevant when using sealed lenses, and only the top “L” lenses are sufficiently sealed, and they basically all cost more than the camera itself. The viewfinder on the smaller Canons is absolutely horrible, the one on the 60D is quite usable. And finally the AF micro-adjustment. I had my 7D for about 2 years now and I haven’t properly used that feature even once. It is only usable on primes, and even there the applied aperture has such a great effect on the focusing characteristics that it is not a reliable solution. If your lens mis-focuses get it calibrated for free during the warranty period.
vroomfondel - January 3, 2012
I’m just bitter about the 60D – I wanted it to be for me, but it wasn’t. Don’t mind me. (I bought a 7D and would have preferred to spend less – the 7D is overkill in many regards for me) – but I use AF adjustment and much prefer the viewfinder, amongst other things :P
jforbes - January 3, 2012
Don’t worry about it, you should hear me ranting everytime Canon releases a lens, that is not an affordable 30-35mm 1.4. Not pretty, I tells you…
vroomfondel - January 4, 2012
ILC tech is not “immature”. They’re using the same tech that exists in their DSLR lines, and their compact camera lines. It’s just different/better packaging.
Also, the Sony NEX series may produce the best image quality (and possibly the new releases for the Samsung NX series, or at least the RAW files), from the smallest physical camera it’s a trick anyway. Their lenses are MASSIVE!!! The limiting factor may be the distance between the camera sensor, and the rear of the lens. On a Sony, this is very short.
Samsung uses an APS-C sensor in their NX ILC/EVIL line, and yet they can produce multiple small lenses.
I used to be a Nikon user, and currently use an Fuji X100. Personally, if I were to switch to a ILC “system” camera, I’d probably go with Samsung because of their large sensor, small lenses, and small-ish cameras. My second choice would be Micro-4/3 (Panasonic or Olympus) for the same reasons.
Nawknai - January 3, 2012
I too thought Samsung might be on to something, but the picture quality isn’t there. I’m not a pixel peeper, and even I can tell the colors don’t pop like they do on a m4/3 Olympus.
How’s the X100? I’ve heard it’s just a fantastic camera.
donthasslethehoff - January 3, 2012
The X100 is one of the best cameras I have ever owned. The only thing I dislike is the focus because contrast-detect focus method is ALWAYS bad in low light. Also, I believe all ILCs use this method except the Nikon V1 and J1, so it’s not like Sony, Olympus, etc, have nailed it.
And Samsung’s image quality is there in the RAW files. It’s just that their JPEG processing is crap. Same with Sony and Panasonic. This is why Nikon can use a Sony sensor and produce better images than a Sony DSLR.
Look, if you’re after colours that “pop”, just increase the colour saturation in the camera settings. That’s all Sony cameras are doing differently than Samsung.. Nikon uses primarily Sony sensors, as does Pentax. Nikon colours are muted in comparison, but the ONLY point of difference is the in-camera processing. It’s not a reflection of who is using a better sensor. ;-)
Nawknai - January 3, 2012
i can’t believe how comprehensive this article is. i love you guys at the verge. this is just as informative as anything i’ve read on dedicated photography sites.
curby92 - January 2, 2012
Stunning article guys really well written Vlad, it’s nice to see the site covering such a breadth of tech, keep up the great work.
wraithien - January 2, 2012
Always wanted to know a little more about photography, and this really helped. Thanks!
Robe1kenobe - January 2, 2012
This is just what I was looking for, been doing a lot of research on camera’s. There needs to be a way that if you Google something like this, the Verge will be the top result.
Techarted - January 2, 2012
This has been most informative and shall prove useful. Thank you Mr. Savov & Mr. Pierce.
@yveslune83 - January 2, 2012
I don’t Know how you sustain these types of posts or how you keep them updated (Story stream), but you guys have had an excellent start!
Titan078 - January 2, 2012
It’s easy once you start treating sleep and social interaction as optional.
Vlad Savov - January 2, 2012
May I request a similar guide for buying a video camera? I need one for a family function I will be attending in a month or so, and was wondering if You had any recommendations?
ryzvonusef - January 3, 2012
If you have the money, many, many, many people are using the DSLRs discussed in this article as video cameras. This includes (as far as I can tell) all of the video done on The Verge.
The reason is that although still expensive, to get a lens of a quality equal to the kit lens on many of these DSLRs for a video camera would cost north of $8000. You can get some great glass for the DSLRs for much less than that.
Luis_de_Camoes - January 3, 2012
“aperture is another of these dead simple settings that tend to upset young children with their obtuse nomenclature.” HAHA!!!
This is great for camera n00bs, thank you.
kaitlinduffy - January 2, 2012
I’m gonna go ahead and say “Great Job!” followed by a shutter click sound.
joel.gautraud - January 2, 2012
Brilliant piece. Please explain F numbers in more detail. Those are still elusive to me
P.Girish - January 2, 2012
Nobody can explain how, or why, they haven’t come up with a better system to explain what the setting does.
I know how f-numbers work. I just recognise how difficult it is for non-techy people to grasp. The “physics” of it has nothing to do with the practical information it’s trying to tell you, and yet the naming convention is all about the physics aspect of it.
Nawknai - January 3, 2012
Very nice post indeed, clear and easy outlined for those of us who are new to optics :)
davidoldenburger - January 2, 2012
Awesome work Vlad.
r@fael - January 2, 2012
What a great article for dummies and pros alike!
Jabman. - January 2, 2012
Crazy good piece!
Matt Macari - January 2, 2012
Great article the Verge is my favorite tech site and this just reinforces that belief. Thorough and professional. Really hoping to get a micro 4/3 before too long.
Terb83 - January 2, 2012
I agree that the NEX 5n is a nice pocket camera, but when you’re talking mirrorless you have to give the Panasonic G series cameras (specifically the Lumix GH2) a bit more love. The GH2 is a great stills camera, and its (manual adjustment friendly) video quality stands up to cameras that are vastly more expensive. The micro 4/3 sensor is very close in size and behavior to traditional 35mm movie cameras, and its lens mount allows you to adapt nearly any lens you find to the camera. This is not the case with the Sony NEX, where your only options are Sony’s proprietary lenses. Plus the GH2 has a vibrant community of users, and a camera hack that sends its video quality into quadruple overdrive.
Sam Mallery - January 2, 2012
I agree with the GH2 love. It’s a great camera all around, especially with the hack.
I do need to correct the statement about the NEX lenses though, as it can be adapted to use almost any lens you want as well. All you lose is auto focus. For instance, I have an old 50mm f/1.4 Minolta, and a newer 35mm f/1.4 Voigtlander that are in constant use on my 5N. In fact I vastly prefer them to the available Sony lenses so far.
M1schiev0us - January 2, 2012
Sony NEX camera line:
1. Has small camera bodies.
2. Massive lenses.
3. No pancake lenses to keep the total package small (except the almost useless 16 mm f/2.8).
The micro-4/3 line definitely needs some love.
Actually, so does the Samsung NX line. The image quality of the JPEGs sucks, but their RAW files up there with Sony’s NEX series (but perhaps slightly worse?). Also, Samsung has a MUCH better lens lineup.
Nawknai - January 3, 2012
If you’re looking at Sony only glass then sure, while still smaller than a regular DSLR, the lenses are HUGE compared to MFT.
However, like I mentioned above, if you’re willing to use adapters and lose Auto Focus (I personally prefer the experience of Manual Focus myself, but that’s a purely subjective thing) there is a huge catalog of other glass that can be used with the system. The Voigtlander 35mm I use is about .5" longer than the Sony 16mm pancake and is easily pocketable in a jacket. You need to be aware of how large the adapter is though of course as some of the adapters are pretty big themselves. The Leica M mount and Olympus PEN-F mount tend to be the smallest adapters on an NEX
I do agree on the Samsung NX 100 though. If that had been out when I bought my 5N it would have made me think twice.
M1schiev0us - January 4, 2012
Er, I meant the NX 200, but I’m sure you’ve figured that out!
PS – I’m new here, is there an edit button I’m just too blind to see?
M1schiev0us - January 4, 2012
Your article includes the Canon 1D Mark IV in the section on Full Frame bodies but it is in actuality a APS-H frame; close but not quite full frame.
reiggin - January 2, 2012
I have to say I am not really that in to photography, mainly because I can’t afford it, but this article is great!
It’s another one of those things that makes “The Verge” head-and-shoulders above similar sites. Keep ’em coming
Distractedfocus - January 2, 2012
Yeah, photography is really expensive. :S
I was just looking for a zoom lens (100+) and I was hoping to get this one 100-200mm and it is 614 just for the lens. Ouch!
lukeemery - January 2, 2012
Photography is as expensive or cheap as you allow it to be. Learn to use what you have, it’ll pay off ;)
jforbes - January 2, 2012
I didn’t see it mentioned but it is also important to get a class 10 SD card to take photographs and nothing really below that, especially if you are using a DSLR. The classes merely mean how fast they are able to be written to or read from.
Also, if using a DSLR, you want to be shooting in RAW format. If you aren’t shooting in RAW format, you are missing out on a lot of the benefit of having a DSLR.
lukeemery - January 2, 2012
How does the Olympus Pen (e-pl1) stack up?
sp1d3r - January 2, 2012
I’ve got an epl2, and love it’s portability with the Panny 20mm lens. Great combo for low light, landscape and general sharpness. The reason to go with Oly would be it’s portability vis a vis the larger bodied/lensed 5n.
donthasslethehoff - January 2, 2012
Thank you so much for this article.
I’ve been looking for a new camera since the start of last year but keep getting too weighed down by the jargon. This has helped immensely!
Sailesh - January 2, 2012
My only quibble with this article is your idea of upgrade cycles for the various types of digital camera. Unless you’re really hammering your camera, or have money to burn, those suggestions seem way too short for me.
Alan Ralph - January 2, 2012
I think the upgrade cycle refers to the time between camera releases, not how much time you’ll have it.
TulseLuper - January 2, 2012
Buying a DSLR means you only have to really worry about upgrading your camera, lenses last decades.
lukeemery - January 2, 2012
That’s correct. It’s a guide number to give you an idea, by reference to the last released model in the category, of how long you’ll have to wait until the next refresh.
Vlad Savov - January 2, 2012
Another really really great article. You can see how much work that was!
Anyway, this is great for showing to friends.
robbx - January 2, 2012
Thanks Verge! I’m upgrading from a point and shoot camera soon and a guide like this is exactly what I needed! You guys are awesome!
Adriel Mingo - January 2, 2012
Check out Sony’s A65 as well. If you don’t yet have lenses, Sony appears to have leapfrogged both Nikon and Canon. I’m a Canon shooter and Sony would be the way I’d go if I didn’t have lenses.
donthasslethehoff - January 2, 2012
Awesome stuff! Exactly what I needed!
s0mojo - January 2, 2012
This is why I love The Verge. Cheers guys, very helpful
henrycsbc - January 2, 2012
for a topic that explains shutter speed and ISO and suddenly says “focal lengths: e.g. 24mm, 50mm, 80mm, 100mm, and 200mm” without giving any hint about “focal length” is a little weird. for a starter, I knew what is shutter speed and ISO, but still have no clue about focal length…! :(
Mahatasin - January 2, 2012
Check this Vimeo video out. It explains the effect of focal length pretty well. The series it’s a part of is really instructive for newer photographers as well.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3fxjddu
M1schiev0us - January 2, 2012
Thanks. Though it is explained in context of video, I’m guessing its same in context of the still imaging.
Mahatasin - January 4, 2012
VLAD you DON! What a post
Adhibanator - January 2, 2012
Engadget did a feature like this recently. The verge kicked their butts, majorly. All those iso comparisons etc. are just incredible stuff.
Blackacex2 - January 2, 2012
Outstanding article, Vlad!
Cutting through the marketing BS and putting all the useful information right at out doorstep.
I can’t thank you enough.
Tikigawd - January 2, 2012
Excellent article! Making the complex easier to understand and digest.
One question for you, Vlad – why didn’t you go into more detail in how the new Sony DSLR’s offer up phase detection AF, making them imminently better for shooting moving objects with stills as well as clobbering both Nikon and Canon for video capture?
This is a HUGE difference between otherwise competitive cameras, not to mention Sony’s other features. Guessing you were probably limited on words in the article, but thought it a worthwhile point to raise.
donthasslethehoff - January 2, 2012
Every single one of Canon and Nikon’s digital SLRs have phase detect AF. Every single one of Olympus’s, Sony’s, Pentax’s do too. So I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
jforbes - January 2, 2012
No, they have contrast detection. Phase detection more accurately tracks subject movement. Contrast detection isn’t so great at that.
donthasslethehoff - January 3, 2012
Youre wrong. I could explain how they work but am on my phone. Here are some links.
h
ttp://www.nikon.com/about/technology/core/software/caf/
jforbes - January 3, 2012
http://www.canon.com/bctv/faq/aft.html
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/how-autofocus-often-works
jforbes - January 3, 2012
You are both right and wrong. The SLTs split the light with a translucent mirror to the phase AF sensor and grab the image for the EVF straight from the sensor. Canikons can’t do that, so as soon as the mirror is flipped up, phase AF is gone. So it is true, that Canon and Nikon only have contrast AF, but only in Live View.
In regular OVF mode Canikon do have phase AF, and arguably a more sophisticated one than anything Sony has on offer at the moment. But still. I have great respect for Sony’s innovation in that market, if only they had some lenses I am interested in.
vroomfondel - January 4, 2012
I am a photography student and I just wanted to say that this should be the introductory manuel for anyone who is interested/ already involved in Photography
westonp - January 2, 2012
what camera was used for this post?
marnuc - January 2, 2012
It doesn’t matter what camera was used for this post.
jforbes - January 2, 2012
This is a decent post – better than I expected.
1) I would shoot the aperture examples at the same exposure level (different shutter speeds) to more clearly demonstrate the difference in depth of field. Make another section that demonstrates adjusting the exposure level by changing different settings.
2) It looks like the exposure is somewhat different on the ISO examples, which is somewhat misleading.
2) I would go a little bit more in to the effects of larger sensors on depth of field and usability in certain situations. There are cases where more depth of field is desired, and it can be easier to shoot a good P&S with IS in low light than it can be to shoot an SLR handheld when more depth of field is desired. There are cases where a narrow DOF is desirable, and where it is not, and a lot of new photographers need to understand that it can make their photography more interesting – but they also need to understand that focusing becomes legitimately more difficult when working with less depth of field.
3) 1/6th of a second for running water? Come on, get an NDF and tripod and show 10’ instead.
Keep up the good work
jforbes - January 2, 2012
Aaand, this article does not seem to differentiate between phase detect and contrast detect AF – they would also be worth delving in to a little bit.
jforbes - January 2, 2012
Great article!
And there is one thing that I cannot understand…
What is the ‘true resolution’ of an image sensor? For example, my Canon Ixus 105 has a resolution of 12 megapixels but has a true resolution of 9.8 megapixels(I read about it on Snapsort.com but couldn’t understand it properly)
Bharat Justa - January 2, 2012 via mobile
That ‘true resolution’ stuff ties in to the part in the article about lens quality. The quality of the lens determines how sharply it can bundle light on your sensor. In your case, the lens simply cannot bundle light sharp enough to hit individual pixels and will therefore be constrained to hit a group of them. This brings the effective pixelcount down to 9.6. This means that your pictures will look razor sharp up to 9.6 mp on your screen, but zoom in any more and they start getting blurry, even though your focus was spot on. 9.6 is still alot though for a point and shoot ;)
Maul - January 3, 2012
It’s about time the Samsung Galaxy S II got some props for being a great smartphone camera.
Joe Caiati - January 2, 2012
It’s good, but others are better. Probably mainly due to software processing, auto white balance being off and so on.
darwiniandude - January 5, 2012 via mobile
Everything you need to know about buying a camera.
1) Does it say Nikon or Canon on it?
2) What are your friends using? IF you have friends that are mixed, go with the one that is the best photographer or most into it… then, you can borrow their lenses. It really is that simple.
To learn, pick up Bryan Peterson’s book, Understanding Exposure. That is all there is to it. Learn what he says, and you can pick up a camera, and know the basics of taking any picture you want. Experience will teach you a lot more.
Here are some of my shots: www.flickr.com/ryfter
Rifter - January 2, 2012
great article :-)
sgs2 doesn’t have a camera button does it? I find a camera button that’s good a lot more enjoyable to use than a touchscreen only phone camera.
paul menard - January 2, 2012
great writing, really, top notch
gustavomds - January 2, 2012
This is a post i think i’ll constantly check out
great work!
AndrewYZ - January 3, 2012
As someone who works in a camera store, I just have to say: I wish I had a hard copy of this article to hand out to each customer as they walk in the door. Would really save me a lot of trouble ;-)
DavenMathies - January 3, 2012
I’d just like to parrot what everyone has said so far. Great article, sufficiently simplified to not scare away non-enthusiasts and it touches all the most relevant points. If I had to complain, I would suggest elaborating on the difference between phase and contrast AF and its relevance towards predictive AF and the application in action photography.
But nevertheless, I will shamelessly steal this article and forward it to anyone interested in buying a camera. Great job Vlad!
vroomfondel - January 3, 2012
Great Post Vlad. If you’re thinking of doing a follow-up article, I would definitely give a brief talk about memory cards and their speed ratings. Of course, a great bag review would be nice as well.
PremierePrimo - January 3, 2012
I noticed that camcorders were missing from the article. It looks like they really are a dying breed now, which is a shame because half a decade ago, I was drooling over camcorders. I still personally believe that camcorders (with a strap) have better ergonomics than a point-and-shoot, and even some DSLRs, so it really pains me to see that form factor going away…
wizfactor - January 3, 2012
They still exist, but like point-and-shoot cameras aren’t really all that sexy anymore. The thing is it’s no sweat for Nikon, for example, to put out a Nikon 1 series camcorder, same internals, but in your more comfortable form factor, and I’d expect more 4/3 or APS-C-based camcorders in the next couple of years, too. So on the large-sensor front, there are things to look forward too.
Captain Megaton - January 3, 2012
Maybe so, but camcorders became a lot less desirable when point-and-shoots began offering 1080p recording. That was what kept camcorders a must-buy (aside from its underrated form factor). While camcorders are more comfy to hold (thanks to that side-strap) it’s quite bulky, and the all-aroundness and compactness of point-and-shoot cameras win the crown more often. Would you still buy a camcorder in this day and age?
wizfactor - January 3, 2012
Definitely a passing grade: the article sets out to comprehensively explain the basics, and separate the important stuff from the less important. There are a couple of nit-picks, but overall it’s quite excellent.
The sentiment “it’s about the lenses, stupid” cannot be stated often enough. Most people overinvest in their dSLR and under-invest in their glass.
Captain Megaton - January 3, 2012
Thanks for a very informative and interesting article.
When you’ve chosen your camera, get out there and take pictures – as many as you can and as often as you can!
travelbore - January 3, 2012
Fantastic! Thank you Vlad!! :)
r v i - January 3, 2012
So I get that for good image quality, you need a mirrorless or DSLR, but I really don’t care enough about good images to learn how to use one. I just want to take better pictures than my Galaxy S smartphone can. Not to mention the absurdly short battery life of an Android smartphone.
So which point-and-shoot has the least bad low light performance and the fastest autofocus? Any suggestions? Bonus points for a shock/water/dust-proof camera body, as I intend to take it backpacking quite a bit.
WilliamF - January 3, 2012
Also, if 1 megapixel is enough for Facebook photos, why does my Galaxy S have a 5 MP sensor? I’d much rather have a 1 MP sensor with better low light capability. Same for most of the point-and-shoots I’ve looked at. Why do they crap 16 MP worth of pixels into a tiny little sensor? That just makes each one a noisy little piece of crap.
WilliamF - January 3, 2012
It’s optics. Look at the size of the lens (the glass at the end, not so much the length of it) on an SLR in comparison to the lens on your Galaxy S. The Verge seemed to really like the Canon S95 (I think) as a great Point and Shoot, but the price it commands would probably get you into the budget for a micro 4/3rds or mirror less camera (I’ll discount an SLR as you are looking to backpack and need things smaller)
Steev182 - January 3, 2012
I was looking at the Canon S95. It’s $330 on Amazon right now. That does get me the lower-end ILC cameras. I didn’t notice that before because the only ILC I looked at was the Sony NEX-5, which is $515. It does, however, get me a NEX-3 with a 18-55 lens or an Olympus PEN E-PL1 with a 14-42 lens.
Are those enough better than the S95 that I should learn how to use one?
WilliamF - January 3, 2012
It’s a social network. For photons.
Elliot George - January 3, 2012
After I learned some things about photography, I decided to upgrade my point and shoot (with super zoom) to a DSLR or a M43. I tried out E-PL2 and NEX and to me its just improved compact camera with more lenses. After weeks of browsing for the perfect camera I ended up with Fuji X100. This camera improved my photos, my style and I’m really confident in what I shoot these days. Im not making any money with photography, so I dont really need a DSLR. If you are thinking of getting m43 camera, try X100 first.
jaan - January 3, 2012
My X100 is my favourite camera, lovely thing .
Fujis new camera next year looks equally or MORE incredible
mattmaber - January 4, 2012
But seriouly, this guide is incredible! Thanks to you, Vlad, I bought a fixed lens to get better photos in the dark!
patbits - January 3, 2012
Don’t forget.. Don’t buy at Christmas! :)
graffitiVisuals - January 3, 2012
Great article! I wish I had read this when I was educating myself on photography basics. Since then, I’ve found myself in love with my NEX-3 (chosen to avoid a metal chassis – these get very cold to the hands in winter). I’m sharing this article with my dad, and hopefully this can finally get him to appreciate and properly use his DSLR!
PopcornPenguin - January 3, 2012
Those of us with the means to buy such cameras aren’t THAT old yet are we?!
Tams - January 3, 2012
I love the white balance lens cap I have from PhotoJoJo.com. It’s really easy to quickly snap a reference image and set a custom white balance. Makes a huge change for images.
I’m not sure how to make that not sound like an ad. I really love the lens cap. Totally worth $50.
zipzoomerooer - January 3, 2012
that was probably the most poorly written article i have seen to date on the verge. what did you do write this on the toilet in a plane about to land? you state your intentions in the intro and then ignore them in a vomit-fest of inaccuracies and personal opinions, most of which detract from the real decisions people have to make when purchasing a new camera.
I certainly hope that the Verge is better than this crap and suggest that whatever QA processes exist (i am assuming none) should be reconsidered.
Not accurate, not consistent, not helpful…fail.
Cheezr - January 3, 2012
Disagree. While there are some small inaccuracies I think the article does a fantastic job of explaining, simply, why someone shopping for a camera should choose one type over another. Another tech site would have 12 pages (for more ad views) each with a different camera on, and two paragraphs on each camera consisting of reworded press release info and a 7.5 star rating.
This article goes a long way to help people know what various settings actually do, without scaring novices.
darwiniandude - January 5, 2012 via mobile
I’ve always tried learning more about cameras, but reading on wikipedia sucked lol. Thanks for the post!
sspeedy23 - January 3, 2012
The sensor size “chart” renders as a funny small size on my work Windows 7 laptop. The images are undersized by 50%. I haven’t yet viewed this on my home iMac. Anyone else have this experience?
BobS67 - January 3, 2012
they’re still small.
gabe e - January 3, 2012
As someone who takes his photography hobby very seriously and has spent much time in various education avenues of photography, these articles usually piss me off. This however, is not one of those. This article is written very well and accurately explains the terminology and what is important to the beginners. I would just add one thing that the quality of your pictures is not determined by the quality of your kit. I’ve seen many people spend a LOT of money on camera gear to take shitty pictures. Focus on lighting on composition to really make your gear shine whether it’s a $150 P&S or a $2500 prosumer level camera.
hudsmack - January 3, 2012
I totally agree with this, especially about lighting. Nearly every “bad” photo friends show me is caused by not taking a few moments to get better lighting.
BobS67 - January 3, 2012
Great writing; this has established The Verge as my go-to tech-site.
ucdortbes - January 3, 2012
This is useful, but I’d love to see a how-to guide and filming with a DSLR. That seems to be gathering alot of steam amongst pro’s as well as amateurs and it’d be great to debunk some myths about the merits of DSLR filmmaking over using dedicated film cameras and vice versa. I bet i’m not the only one?
Maul - January 3, 2012
Agreed, and the jellycam problem needs to be specifically addresses on a camera-by-camera basis. For example, on my Sony HX9V, shooting at 1080p30 (AVCHD) produces lots of jellycam, but shooting at 1080p60 is completely smooth, a huge difference.
BobS67 - January 3, 2012
Yes! And line skipping too! Try shooting a woollen sweater with a 7D and the alias will make you weep.
Maul - January 3, 2012
what a well written and informative article.
I picked up a micro 4/3s – panasonic gf-3 with a 20mm pancake lens and am extremely happy.
gabe e - January 3, 2012
Easily the best article I’ve read on buying a camera. You actually explain how stuff works and why it’s important. One thing that’s missing — should I buy the Nikon D7000 or Canon D7? Seriously
Derek Boggs - January 3, 2012
Really can’t go wrong with either of them. Pure image quality goes to the D7000, feature-wise the 7D is hard to beat. Check both Nikon’s and Canon’s lens lineup and decide on that basis.
vroomfondel - January 4, 2012
try them, see which you prefer
mattmaber - January 4, 2012
Pentax K-5
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/676%7C0/(brand)/Pentax/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/619%7C0/(brand3)/Canon
JeremytheIndian - January 5, 2012
This article is tight: I tweeted a url to this! The Verge sets the new bar for every other tech news site ever! These kind of Articles along with a great coverage of tech news in general combine to create the best of both, actually the best of it all. If you want the inside scoop on something in Tech News, the Verge has you covered.
drumsmack - January 4, 2012
Excellent, excellent post!
Thanks for writing this.
mattesque - January 4, 2012
I’m by no means a photography expert, but I think this article is just GREAT. Thank you!
Only thing I’m missing is a comment on HDR
nullpointer - January 4, 2012
Lens covers: Good or Bad?
Is it just protection vs quality?
Fordy - January 4, 2012
Wow, just got a Canon EOS Revel T3 for my birthday, and this definitely helped me understand all this DSLR terminology a bit more. Thanks!
arkon - January 4, 2012
Pentax K-x is the lead photo in the DSLR section but not even a mention of them in the DSLR write up. How could you not mention the Pentax K-r or K-5? They kill the competition in low light performance and build quality, DxO mark rating as well. Want lenses to choose from? Even the newest Pentax DSLR’s are compatible with K-mount lenses from 1975 and in body stabilization means any lens was IS… My beloved Pentax always gets overlooked :(
JeremytheIndian - January 5, 2012
Very helpful article. I’ve only recently started learning and though I’m a complete newbie, I really love it. My little sister got me into it after giving me her old camera. It’d probably be better if I master it first before moving on to new cameras with more advanced features. bookmarked for future reference
solstice - January 5, 2012
This article is gorgeous. Writing, style and layout are all top notch. Congratulations.
Cory Williams - January 5, 2012
This is wrong. You get the same focal length, regardless of the sensor size. Field of view is what is changing.
Worded correctly it would be phrased something like this:
With a full-frame camera, a 24mm lens gives you exactly a full frame lens’ intended field of view, whereas with smaller sensors, you’re subject to a crop factor that tends to turn everything into a slightly more zoomed-in version of itself (i.e. if the sensor is 1.5 times smaller field of view than full-frame, as with Nikon’s popular DX format, you get 1.5 times the field of view; with a 24mm lens, that’d mean an equivalent focal length of 36mm would be needed to achieve the same field of view on a full frame sensor).
Overall good introductory article.
steven.swigart - January 5, 2012
Great article, Vlad!
strawe - January 5, 2012
1/25 is not even one stop. Great article tho.
ftz - January 6, 2012
So the N8 sucks because it’s “bulky”, and doesn’t have “dedicated apps to upload the images”? Are you completely out of your minds?
First of all, what bulkiness is this that is so terrible that gets in the way of a user taking and sharing pictures? Is it the same that prevents someone to eg. carry a DSLR in their pockets? I doubt it. The N8 is not as thin as, say, the N9, but it is portable enough. It is a mobile phone. It succeeds in fitting people’s pockets and hands. The extra millimeters thick does not get in the way of its users who carry it, take pictures and share them on-line. It doesn’t make it a worse camera. Not at all.
Regarding sharing, you can very easily share pictures simultaneously to Twitter and Facebook, from the image gallery and from the image shown after you take a picture. That showed up with “Nokia Social”, I think, but it’s there. There are many other image sharing apps, including Gravity, also very easy. I use the two methods a lot, and I don’t see any significant obstacles. I know, I am a crazy Linux coder, I live with all sorts of small obstacles I create for myself. But taking and sharing pictures with my N8 is definitely a freeway.
What is the reason for these blatant lies you people seem to enjoy spreading so much? I am sorry, I don’t mean to be rude, but I find this simply unbearable. I can respect if you tell me the N8 it too big for your own tiny hands, and that you may think the Nokia font is so grotesque that it hurts your Helvetica eyes, so because of that you can only handle using the Iphone. I respect personal preferences. But you can’t come here and spread crazy lies about the N8 like that.
The N8 takes great pictures, and you can share them very easily, with only a few touches. We can argue that some people may prefer some small details in which the process differs in eg. Ios. But that’s what it’s going to be: small details, preferences. For example, you may prefer the Ios keyboard instead of N8’s Swype. But you can’t go on with this crazy defamation campaign, disqualifying the N8 like this, as “unfit” to make users happy in the operation of taking pictures and sharing them. It’s simply unbelievable.
dividebyzero - January 6, 2012
Please, do analyse the first paragraph in the “cameraphone” section. It starts with a few sentences about the N8, describing it as “unlucky”, “bulky”, “unwieldy” etc. Then comes the sentence: “What you really want…”
“N8 is crap. What you really want… (is something other than N8).”
It is preaching directly to the reader, pretty much as in a debate speech, trying to make the case against the N8, and convincing the reader to look for alternative products. And that based on completely vacuous arguments. Based on a crazy “excessive bulkiness”, and on supposed difficulties in performing the necessary operations with the device because of imaginary design flaws of the program interfaces.
We can show objectively that the N8 is portable and easy enough to use. There is no hopeless “bulkyness” in it. And to share pictures you just need a few touches to the screen. Just touch the standard “share” icon that is sitting right there. It is simple, it is portable and it is wiedly. It can’t be easier, unless you use some program that automatically uploads the image as soon as you take it.
But who cares? Your business here is not talking about technology and presenting and comparing different devices, etc. You simply hate Nokia, you hate the N8, you want everybody to use Apple, and maybe Android. Because that is the model for the world that the editors of this paper have in their minds. Everything is “explained” so this can come out as a conclusion: “buy an Iphone”. It’s the message underlying every sentence, every paragraph.
The same thing from the “winner takes it all” from the other article. It’s the old Highlander hypothesis that “there can be only one”. And because of that, because everything must justify this idea taken a priori, so anything else must be bad.
But think about this, dear reader: “What you really want” is someone telling you what to think?
Geez, next thing you know The Verge will be saying that you need a tripod to take pictures with the N8, and that you need to take it to the film store to develop the pictures…
dividebyzero - January 6, 2012
great post….. i wish this post came earlier
hadi.irwein - January 7, 2012
Great post thank you. I still think the Sony Nex series are awkward to hold given the light body weight and large lens sizes. Panasonic GX1 – here I come.
cfine - January 7, 2012
What an amazing article!
Great job guys..
Sorr - January 7, 2012
Thanks Vlad! Perfect timing, as I’ve finally gotten fed up with camera-phones and point-and-shoots.
Ian E Yarborough - January 11, 2012
Any comments on the Canon G-series? What category would that one fit into?
Sarahdiva - January 18, 2012 via mobile
Hi! I’ve been wanting to buy a camera (DSLR) but don’t know which one to buy.. Can u suggest a good one and a bit affordable for a starter? Want to make photography a hubby.. Thanks…
click13 - February 11, 2012 via mobile
Canon 1100D or Nikon D3100.
Those are starters imo. Search comparisons on them. If you other cameras being compared to the two, read on but that two seems to be the best ‘Starter DSLRs’.
Masterdebater* - February 12, 2012
Thanks.. I’ll check dem out..
click13 - February 12, 2012 via mobile
This needs to be stickied or something.
Can you guys add a ‘Save Article’ feature here?
Masterdebater* - February 12, 2012
I usually use a reply/comment to book mark it on my profile…. just like this post.
the rotten mandarin orange - March 12, 2012
You must log in with your Verge account to post a comment.
If you do not yet have a Verge account, please sign up for one!