Looking to . . . Upgrade

[bluejay2807]

I currently own a csc (panasonic G2) and a bridge (fujifilm s2980) and now i want a decent dslr

I mainly shoot landscapes and some action shots but would like to add wildlife and marco soon

For the panasonic i own the lenses are . . . Shall we say silly priced (for the basic kit lens its the same as i paid for the body) and micro 4/3rds doesnt seem to be overly popular (only panasonic and olympus make lenses for them) and there isnt a whole lot of choice/range for them

Im awaiting the 3rd party adapter for it so i can try my canon lens (75-300mm) on it but ive been looking at a canon 100d - anyone have experience with this camera?

Thanks in advance

 

[pingu666]

if your not that bothered about a flappy mirror then a sigma dp1 or 3 (you would need to merge pics in photoshop for most landscape stuff as its 75mm equivilent) would be good, they do suck at sports and are slow, but the iq is only bettered by £1500+ gear.

a 40quid raynox can do great macro and you can stick it on nearly everything...
and id suggest going to shops and trying various cameras and seeing what suits you, i guess focusing on canon as you got a lens already

 

[ACW]

What's your budget?

For action, the better (more expensive) the lens (generally) the better the results will be, due to autofocus speed, maximum aperture etc.

For landscapes, budget isn't quite as important as expensive autofocus and 'fast glass' isn't essential.

 

[ACW]

Camera body wise:

I have a camera that is fairly good for fast moving stuff (Canon 7D) and also has the ability to take good landscape shots.

I have a camera which is excellent for landscape shots (Canon 5DII) but completely sucks for anything that moves faster than a steamroller.

No direct experience with the 100d I'm afraid. The point I'm trying to make is if you get a camera that's good at action stuff, your landscape shots will still be ok. But if you get a camera combo geared towards landscapes, the action side of things may suffer.

This is of course unless you want to shell out huge amounts of money on cameras like the 5D3 or 1DX that can do everything excellently.

I had a second hand 50D before my current set up and was happy with it, it had good build quality and performed well.

 

[woof woof]

For the panasonic i own the lenses are . . . Shall we say silly priced (for the basic kit lens its the same as i paid for the body) and micro 4/3rds doesnt seem to be overly popular (only panasonic and olympus make lenses for them) and there isnt a whole lot of choice/range for them

If MFT isn't for you I can understand you moving on but please don't be too hard on the format as IMVHO the lens choice is actually quite good and the quality of the lenses stands comparison with similarly priced and even more expensive DSLR lenses. For example I don't think I'd be using a Canon 75-300mm, a rather pedestrian and mediocre lens at best, instead of any MFT lens I own. Plus of course you can fit just about any lens to a MFT camera via an adapter... I have great fun with old manual primes which are rerasonably or even very cheaply priced. You could for example pick up a 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 135mm f3.5 plus an adapter for under £100, if you are happy to focus manually.

If you don't mind me saying, your comments lead me to belive that you need to both research and think carefully about the choices and costs of the various systems. For example the Sigma DP's as mentioned above are fixed lens cameras which although having a loyal following also have their fair share of quirks and may not be for everyone and a 5DII and even a two lens set up is going to have you reaching deeply into your pockets if you think that a Panasonic kit lens is expensive

If forced into DSLR's with a gun to my head I think that instead of a 100D I'd go for a higher spec used body and used lenses. If you want to keep clear of ebay there are lots of dealers selling used kit, like this one...

http://www.ffordes.com/category/Digital_Cameras/Digital_SLRs/Canon

 

[pingu666]

oh they have there quirks, but for landscape stuff, or low iso fast focus not needed, then they are a powerhouse, and you need a d800, a7r or maybe a leica to match its detail resolving power

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

I would second the recommendation to look at a used higher spec Dslr over a new entry level.

With regards to which brand that's up to you and your hands. Try and find somewhere where you can handle a couple of different manufacturers to get a feel for size and weight etc. I used to have a Canon 350d and found it too small in my hands. Also don't forgot to try the menus and settings controls too
.
If budget is an issue then you could always look at second hand lenses too because for "fast" lenses (low continuous f numbers) you can be looking at upwards of £1000 new. If you're thinking secondhand then it makes a little more sense to look at either Canon or Nikon as they have been around longer and therefore have more users. (Although others are catching up)