[joslicx]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

1. I was using Canon Digital Camera since a year back. Had to gift it, so bought a Canon HD Handycam. The photos were looking good, but not many options and it lacked a flash. So it becomes useless in low light.

You dont need flash for low light. you need faster lens (lens speed is specified in a f-number. you will need a fast lens like f1.8 or something). Flash is a bad thing if you dont know how to use it properly (and most amateurs dont). bundled flash in cameras is certainly a very very bad thing. its practically useless. A proper flash would be a separate flashlight that you can manipulate to bounce off walls/cielings so that you dont blow up highlights in your pics.

2. My son is now grown and playful, so need to capture every movement of his. Some of those are captured using my S3, but it is not looking that effective for a print.

Wife wants to take a snap of my son and blow it up to the max and decorate the house. So the need for the DSLR is clear now.

Any DSLR would be good for this requirement.

3. If I buy a DSLR now, I wont be changing it or may be the lens atleast for the next couple of years. If at all I face any issues with it.
4. I am not that comfortable with lens, aperture, ISO lingo's but, will learn it once I get the DSLR.

End note, DSLR for me is to take personal photos and use it for printing. I have no idea of hanging the cam to my chest and search for birds or awesome moments elsewhere.

Sorry if my understanding of a DSLR is very lame.

Just buying a DSLR is not going to be of much. You'll have to invest time to learn the nuances of it, and also nuances of photography (at least the basics of exposure, metering, WB etc). Also you will need to buy prime lenses as your requirement seems to be photographing indoors. So be prepared to invest little more than what you have set as your budget.

If you absoutely want a DSLR I think you can go with D5100 + 35mm f1.8 to start with. This will mean investment of around $700.

If you still wish to restrict yourself to $500 budget and do not wish to get muddled up in DSLR world but are OK with an advanced P&S then I can recommend the Panasonic Lumix LX7. It has a fantastic Leica lens, very bright at both wide and tele ends (RX100 suffers at tele end) and is very nice camera indeed in your budget. Read its review here: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa...Lumix_DMC_LX7/
I think its better than Sony RX100.

Some advice:
1. Dont use flash, ever!
2. Dont buy DSLR if you really arent going to put in the efforts to learn photography. Only way to learn is by taking pics and then spending time on your computer screen to look at them. This is all time consuming. Many people buy DSLR thinking they will magically start taking great pics. Thats not true really. Its more about photographer and technique really.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by joslicx

If you absoutely want a DSLR I think you can go with D5100 + 35mm f1.8 to start with. This will mean investment of around $700.

For almost the same price, I would suggest the 3100, 35mm1.8G and the SB400 flash. I gifted this to my daughter when she got a baby girl two months ago, and some of her pictures of the baby are as good as those I have taken with my system that costs five times as much! Till now, all she used was a point and shoot for casual photos.

The SB400 is a fantastic little flash that takes natural looking pictures indoors in bounce mode, allowing for shutter speeds that are fast enough to freeze action.

PS: The swivel LCD of the 5100 is a gimmick, and something that can be broken accidentally when deployed. DSLR pics are best taken using the viewfinder anyway. The LCD is really meant for video, but DSLRs aren't good at video. And all you need to protect the LCD on the 3100 is Scratchgard.

[Sawyer]

Second thoughts, for the kind of pictures you want to take, the kit 18-55 VR zoom is a better fit than any prime, coupled to the SB400. Lightweight but decent optical quality for a zoom, and good enough for large prints. Half the price of the primes too, so very good value.

[aim120]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

D3100 - $399
D3200 - $569
D5100 - $519

Why is D3200 costlier than D5100? Believe, for a novice like me D3100 would suffice.

Alternatively, can some one point what I will miss with D3100 if I dont chose the other 2 ?

Since you do not have any lenses yet,you could also consider the Sony SLT-A37 with kit lens or A57 body only for $498 and both have the same sensor has in the D5100.
It has swivel and tilt screen,you also get full time high speed PDAF irrespective of whether you use the viewfinder or the read LCD.

With a DSLR like the nikon D5100 you will always have to use the OVF to get good fast PDAF speed,if you use the rear lcd it really really slows down AF since it uses CDAF.

[dre@ms]

Originally Posted by joslicx

Any DSLR would be good for this requirement.

All points taken.
When I am buying a DSLR or just having a thought of it, I am sure I will have to learn all the terminologies and how it is best used. Also will have to get to know the nuances in photography.So just for the sake of it will not invest 20-30K. But thanks for the cautious note.

Originally Posted by Sawyer

For almost the same price, I would suggest the 3100, 35mm1.8G and the SB400 flash.
The SB400 is a fantastic little flash that takes natural looking pictures indoors in bounce mode, allowing for shutter speeds that are fast enough to freeze action.

PS: The swivel LCD of the 5100 is a gimmick, and something that can be broken accidentally when deployed. DSLR pics are best taken using the viewfinder anyway. The LCD is really meant for video, but DSLRs aren't good at video. And all you need to protect the LCD on the 3100 is Scratchgard.

I will look at the SB400, thanks. Well pointed out on the LCD. Will definitely consider.
But I have used both the fixed and articulated LCD's. Fixed on my Canon digicam and articulated on my Canon Handycam. If the only advantage for D5100 is the LCD when compared to D3100, I dont mind going for the D3100.

Originally Posted by Sawyer

Second thoughts, for the kind of pictures you want to take, the kit 18-55 VR zoom is a better fit than any prime, coupled to the SB400. Lightweight but decent optical quality for a zoom, and good enough for large prints. Half the price of the primes too, so very good value.

I am just being futureproof.

Originally Posted by aim120

With a DSLR like the nikon D5100 you will always have to use the OVF to get good fast PDAF speed,if you use the rear lcd it really really slows down AF since it uses CDAF.

Not sure what are these. So will better stick to the DSLR :(

[aim120]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

Not sure what are these. So will better stick to the DSLR :(

They are DSLR but with a fixed translucent mirror ,where as in a other DSLR the mirror moves each time you take a picture.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-alpha-slt-a57

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

I am just being futureproof.

(

For taking pictures of kids, and turning them into large prints, the 35 mm prime may need you to crop and print, to get rid of unnecessary stuff in the frame. In the 18-55 it will be quicker/easier to fill the frame, allowing for lesser cropping for large prints, and therefore better quality results.

But the zoom is best served with an flash for indoor pictures. My guess is that you can get a zoom+Sb400 for the price of a 35 or 50 1.8.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

Not sure what are these. So will better stick to the DSLR :(

He is referring Optical View Finder, Phase Detection AF and Contrast Detection AF. In traditional DSLRs, live view is not a very usable feature since it slows down the picture taking process. The picture taking will not be instant as soon as you press the shutter release. You'll miss the moment.

If you want to use live view through rear LCD (or EVF) and get instant clicks without any mirror slapping, with full time Phase detection AF, use Sony SLT cameras. I use SLT-A35.

Going one more step, you can get rid of the bulkiness and avoid even the translucent mirror, and STILL take advantage of Phase detection AF, if you use a mirrorless camera like Sony NEX 5R. It has Phase detection points built directly on the sensor itself!

DSLR is Obsolete Just my opinion..! Heard that Sony is going to abandon even the SLT line up and go the mirror-less way. Somewhat hurried road map, me thinks

[aim120]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Heard that Sony is going to abandon even the SLT line up and go the mirror-less way. Somewhat hurried road map, me thinks

The On sensor PDAF found in NEX5R , NEX6 cameras still can't match the much bigger dedicated PDAF module found in SLT.
I believe we are still some 4 to 5 years away from SLT or DSLR loosing there mirror completely.From the looks of it Sony would be the first company to do this since they have the most mature On-Sensor PDAF.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by dre@ms

I am just being futureproof.

Not sure what are these. So will better stick to the DSLR :(

You have to ascertain how big a print you need, calculate the minimum pixels required for a decent resolution. Normally you do not need more than 200 DPI for prints. So the pixels required are

. A4 ~ 8" x 11" = 1600x2200 ~ 4 MP
. A3 ~ 11" x 17" = 2200x3400 ~ 8 MP
. A2 ~ 17" x 22" = 3400x4400 ~ 15 MP

If you crop the image - a very normal case unless you can frame perfectly, the required MP will increase.

Of course if you want fine art prints the 300DPI is preferred and if you want posters (prints to be vied at a distance) then even 72DPI will do.

Once you decide what is the maximum print size and an average crop you arrive at the minimum Mega Pixels required. Choose the sensor accordingly.

[vasudeva]

If your card can support international transactions, has enough spending limit, and are confident of paying online through credit cards. I suggest to consider buying online from B&H Photo Video, US or Adorama. I found their prices to be cheaper than amazon us or uk. The proof of the pudding is of course in the delivery. They deliver to India and apart from specialising in photo equipment, they also sell computer hardware. Even on these, their prices and freight (UPS worldwide) were cheaper than Amazon/

I recently ordered a Canon EF 85 mm 1.8+Canon lens hood+ Hoya filter and with freight got it for US$474 (roughly Rs. 25.8K). Got it in 9 days (Delhi) from ordering which is quite good enough. The same stuff in Delhi has a street price of around 34-35K. Amazon US was selling just the lens delivered to Delhi at 29K which is still cheaper than the 31-32K price in India. On a separate note, the Canon EF 85 mm 1.2 is for US$2200 (hugely expensive) and weighs 1 kg. Flipkart sells it for 1.61 lakh and is usually out of stock. Prices at Canon shops are not much different.

On an entirely different note, I find amazon to have a huge inventory but is not especially price competitive. Specialist online reputed retailers are often cheaper, and an increasingly large number deliver to India.

[Arunshek]

Originally Posted by vasudeva

If your card can support international transactions, has enough spending limit, and are confident of paying online through credit cards. I suggest to consider buying online from B&H Photo Video, US or Adorama. I found their prices to be cheaper than amazon us or uk. The proof of the pudding is of course in the delivery. They deliver to India and apart from specialising in photo equipment, they also sell computer hardware. Even on these, their prices and freight (UPS worldwide) were cheaper than Amazon/

I recently ordered a Canon EF 85 mm 1.8+Canon lens hood+ Hoya filter and with freight got it for US$474 (roughly Rs. 25.8K). Got it in 9 days (Delhi) from ordering which is quite good enough..

Hi Vasudeva, Thanks for the info. Can you please address my query.
Did you have to pay customs duty? I once planned to buy a DSLR from B&H & deliver it to Mumbai, as the price was very tempting even after including the freight charges. But my friends said that for such deliveries, I'll end up paying customs duty. So can you please clarify. If not, they for sure i'll end up with a lens by tonight

[vasudeva]

I paid US$474.85 all inclusive and that is it. There was a $50 off on the lens (sold at 369).

Canon India is ripping off Indian customers. A lens being quoted at $420 on Canon US site is being sold at 32-33K here.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consum...85mm_f_1_8_usm

You can anyway research and if your are planning on B&H or adorama, they are presently closed for passover and will ship only after 3-Apr.

Read this on B&H site (scroll down to `Customs and VAT')
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/Hel...ippingPolicies

On a different purchase from FramesDirect for a frame, I had to pay customs through credit card, but even then it came out cheaper than what it cost at say reputed stores in Delhi such as BonTon, GKB, Himalaya etc.

To give you a specific idea of the savings even with amazon, I checked the prices on Junglee. It directed me to amazon and based on delivery destination (Delhi), the total cost quoted was 28,960 on that day incl. freight and customs. In Delhi, the lens was at 32,000. So a savings of 10% or 3000. I am sure that the duty on photo equipment and accessories is in single digits.

My cost as 412 for the equipment and 63 for shipping.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by R2D2

I use Topaz & Photomatix Pro as well. Between Topaz and Nik you have one of the best plugins available for PS and LR.

+1. They have best plugin bundles that even I have used. I use Topaz quite extensively. I amtoo much into HDR and hence Photomatix is not used that extensively. But nevertheless its the best HDR plugin around.

I started to use Nik now. Its good. But I think they still need an integrated work flow manager, if they want their customers to use their multiple plugins within the same work flow. This is something which Topaz one up with their FX Lab.

[Sawyer]

Originally Posted by Aroy

You have to ascertain how big a print you need, calculate the minimum pixels required for a decent resolution. Normally you do not need more than 200 DPI for prints. So the pixels required are

. A4 ~ 8" x 11" = 1600x2200 ~ 4 MP
. A3 ~ 11" x 17" = 2200x3400 ~ 8 MP
. A2 ~ 17" x 22" = 3400x4400 ~ 15 MP

If you crop the image - a very normal case unless you can frame perfectly, the required MP will increase.

Of course if you want fine art prints the 300DPI is preferred and if you want posters (prints to be vied at a distance) then even 72DPI will do.

Once you decide what is the maximum print size and an average crop you arrive at the minimum Mega Pixels required. Choose the sensor accordingly.

Very useful to know, thanks.

A question - won't the MP determined as above also be influenced by sensor size? If so, what sensor size are the above calculations for?