DSLR Camera reccos
 

I've used a (jinx's) Sony a100, and my son has the a37.

I like them.... but.... I want to get my own camera now, and lens sharing is not really a concern. I'd like to be able to transfer files over wireless... I'd like video that has autofocus while filming.... I'd like the full sized sensor.... but I'd also like to get it all under $1000.

The Pentax got good reviews, but falls down on the video end, and the wireless.

anyone have an opinion? or even a good source of trustworthy reviews?

if I can't get all of the above, which want should I sacrifice?

and what about the mirrorless ones? are they legit?

can anyone talk me out of this one? it looks kind of too good to be true for $750

I was under the impression the only reason for a mirror is so you can see through the viewfinder, and has to jump out of the way to exposé the film, later the image sensor. So if you're looking at the subject on a screen you don't need a viewfinder or mirror.

Damn, there's a lot of interesting stuff at that link, like how to reset all the different browsers when they get corrupted with toolbars.

ugh. the more i read about them, the more difficult the choice becomes.

it seems like the mirrorless are not QUITE to where they are going to be the right choice.

I started looking at the sony a7... and slowly talking myself up in price.... BUT.... there's no internal stabilization, so the lenses will be BUKU.... i don't need that much camera.

now I look at that a6000, and suddenly, it's missing a lot of features. like no external microphone jack... ( really, do i need that??) and the sensor is APS-C (not full sized)


here's a really good review of the a6000... well.. a really involved one at least. linking it here, mainly so I can find it again later... as I'm sure I won't be able to read it all right now.

I just asked Spencer his opinion, and to ask his photography teacher what he would buy. For some reason, that makes me feel old.

This shit changes so fast I got nothing. But I wonder about wireless transfer. Sound gimmicky. These files are going to be so large. Especially video. Won't it take forever? It's not a cellphone camera with little files.

It shouldn't, the subject has become infinitely more complicated and understanding it more specialized. Would you be surprised if the teacher had Spencer ask you about cars?

bruce, I guess it's just the idea of looking to my kid for tech advice. I am used to being the authority in the family on that stuff.

glatt... I think it might be slow, but if it's going on in the background... or if I can bump them using NFC, and transfer.... might be gimmicky, but I seldom sit down at my big computer lately. maybe that will change..... I used to enjoy post production, with jinx's camera's pics, edited on my laptop ...of an evening....


reading about the Nikon D7100 now...

Dpreview.com

I forget the exact steps, but there is some way to search Flickr for all public pictures taken by a certain type of camera. That's been useful in the past for seeing samples. I concur that Dpreview was also a very useful site back in the day. May still be.

The thing I always looked for when looking at sample pictures was how it handled low light situations. If there is a lot of noise. With a full sized sensor, that will be less of a problem, but still something to consider.

Also, the purple fringe you can sometimes get around objects in bright light.

How do you know they haven't been altered in photoshop?

On Flickr? I guess you don't, but people are lazy so most wouldn't bother to photoshop, and if you look at a large enough sample from multiple users, you can learn a lot.