Giving "Entry DSLR" buying advice

tcole1983

I have not used then latest Nikon 1 body but the older ones were not spectacular in my opinion. Maybe that has changed. I do however know the newest dslr bodies are good and the kit lenses sufficient. If someone was looking to buy a dslr I wouldn't turn them away even if they were shooting auto. I did buy my parents a p310 knowing they wouldn't appreciate a dslr or ever get the full benefits of one...but I couldn't take them using their Kodak p&s anymore. A huge advantage of the dslr even in auto is low light performance. Most p&s cameras fall out at really low iso. This is not however something like the a series or Fuji x...those are on another level and well...d7100 or one of those. That is another story.

WestEndBoy

I think about the lens that I want to buy. Since I will likely be using the lens for 20 years, I want a lens from a company that will be making lenses and cameras for the next 20 years.

So unfortunately, there are only two choices really. Canon and Nikon. Not Sony, Sigma, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and probably not even Leica. And Samsung, that is just a joke.

tcole1983

@WestEndBoy yeah pretty much...when it comes to a dslr system there are really only a couple of choices for the long term. Other forms of cameras that might not be a huge investment in lenses or other equipment it seems ok to buy those products, but when you invest thousands of dollars in lenses and flashes there really are only a couple of choices.

ThomasHorton

I think about the lens that I want to buy. Since I will likely be using the lens for 20 years, I want a lens from a company that will be making lenses and cameras for the next 20 years.

So unfortunately, there are only two choices really. Canon and Nikon. Not Sony, Sigma, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and probably not even Leica. And Samsung, that is just a joke.

Interesting how you can predict the future of these companies with such confidence. Got any lottery numbers you want to share? LoL

WestEndBoy

I have never bought a lottery ticket in my life. They are a poor risk.

Canon and Nikon are risks for sure. The others are long shots.

And I only assign about an 80% chance to Canon and Nikon (I assign less than 50% to the others).

Not sure I have the confidence you give me credit for ThomasHorten.

sevencrossing

I would guess the Brand names will be around in 10 years time
but like Landrover and Jaguar they may have different owners

sevencrossing

some revolutionary new technology comes along .

You mean the new Carl Zeiss f 1.4 12mm to 800mm macro zoom, That weighs and costs the same as a mid range kit lens

Ironheart

...and lets you adjust focus and depth of field after the fact.

I can already do this with my Lytro. Amazing tech.

sevencrossing

... something like an iPhone with computerized optics .

I suppose it could happen, but I don't think I am going to see an iPhone, producing images any were close to those I get with my D800 and a 80 -400. At least not in my life time

Bokeh_Hunter

I think about the lens that I want to buy. Since I will likely be using the lens for 20 years, I want a lens from a company that will be making lenses and cameras for the next 20 years.

So unfortunately, there are only two choices really. Canon and Nikon. Not Sony, Sigma, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and probably not even Leica. And Samsung, that is just a joke.

That statement is so far off base of any business reality that has to be a joke. It is also not representative of the world market at all and what brands are popular in the rest of the world. Canon, Sony, Pentax (Ricoh owned) are so big, they will always be around. Leica has been more successful in the last 5 years than it has in the last 25. They are a boutique brand and will always exist.

Actually it is Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic & Fuji are the ones that could be in trouble. Panasonic Corporate has drawn the line that their camera division has to be profitable within the next couple of years or they will get the ax. I'm sure they will sell off stuff to Olympus though. If Olympus buys it, it could give them a boost and have command over a nice niche that will last for years. They are the ones who are really in the best position for the future as people will want smaller interchangeable bodies with high IQ. M4/3rds is lined up well to handle that.

Hate to say it, but Nikon is really the question - if they can't pull profits out soon, they are going to fall by the wayside quickly. Same thing is happening to them as did with Pentax. Everyone let Pentax die almost into non-existence until it was so cheap someone bought them up. Nikon's brand recognition is strong, but no where near a Canon or Sony so any push to keep it isn't really there.

WestEndBoy

OK, we shall agree to disagree - well, at least I agree to disagree. I can't speak for you Bokeh Hunter.

And I did only assign an 80% chance to Nikon and Canon. Nothing is a sure thing. My view is partially informed on the installed "system base" and the advantage that provides.

Now if Fuji and Leica merged. I would put money on that. Great lenses paired with great cameras. Leica would benefit from auto-focus and Fuji's cameras. Fuji has the ability to build a camera that could truly exploit Leica lenses.

spraynpray

I think about the lens that I want to buy. Since I will likely be using the lens for 20 years, I want a lens from a company that will be making lenses and cameras for the next 20 years.

So unfortunately, there are only two choices really. Canon and Nikon. Not Sony, Sigma, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and probably not even Leica. And Samsung, that is just a joke.

Using a lens for 20 years? Really? If I bought a 24-70 next week and in a year Nikon FINALLY bought out a VRIII version, I'd buy it in a flash. Even if nothing changed so you could actually still plug that lens into a body and use it in 20 years, with the rate IQ in bodies is advancing, the performance would be an embarrassment. Really. That 20 years statement is a tad ridiculous.

Regarding the manufacturers you mention, I can't comment on all of them but since I bought an Olympus in '74, they have been around for almost 40 years which isn't bad going really. None of us know what is around the corner, even though we think and talk like we do.

PB_PM

Indeed, it someone asked me 15 years ago if Kodak would be a dead company by 2014, I would have laughed in their face. Never put too much trust into a brand name or system, time changes everything!

WestEndBoy

I think about the lens that I want to buy. Since I will likely be using the lens for 20 years, I want a lens from a company that will be making lenses and cameras for the next 20 years.

So unfortunately, there are only two choices really. Canon and Nikon. Not Sony, Sigma, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and probably not even Leica. And Samsung, that is just a joke.

Using a lens for 20 years? Really? If I bought a 24-70 next week and in a year Nikon FINALLY bought out a VRIII version, I'd buy it in a flash. Even if nothing changed so you could actually still plug that lens into a body and use it in 20 years, with the rate IQ in bodies is advancing, the performance would be an embarrassment. Really. That 20 years statement is a tad ridiculous.

Regarding the manufacturers you mention, I can't comment on all of them but since I bought an Olympus in '74, they have been around for almost 40 years which isn't bad going really. None of us know what is around the corner, even though we think and talk like we do.

Spraynpray, check the lenses in my signature. There is nothing that I bought because it was "cheaper" than the best. They were all the "best" for what I am using them for money no object. Five of the eight lenses have been in continuous production since 1980, 1983, 1884, 1990 and 1994. The 135 gives my 4 or 5 year old 85 a run for its money.

Now regarding who is going to be in business in 20 years, yes that is a huge speculation. But I am putting my money on Nikon and Canon.

spraynpray

@WestEndBoy: I think you are in a minority in your attitude to lens life at 20 years. So much changes - like coatings and autofocus for example. I quoted my personal attitude to lens life for comparison. I doubt many people pass 6-8 years.

Regarding Nikon and Canon, they may be called that, but they may also be different in every other way. Pretty sure Leica will still be around as people with serious money always want high-end toys.

I never look at signature strips BTW. Looking at 90% of them, I have trouble holding my lunch down....

WestEndBoy

Sure, lots changes. I definitely get that. I have spent money on the new lenses and will continue that. But using the 20 2.8 as an example, this was the only option until the 20 1.8 came out and it is still have the size.

Is the 1.8 better? Despite the extra size and weight, sure! But I still take great shots at f/8.0. At 2.8 I will use my 14-24 but have to lug it around.