Help Austinlee Get a New Camera!
 

So little help here; What options do i have for above "point n shoot" but below professional setup which is too bulky for me to carry around and want to use.

You mean like a dslr?

What do you want to shoot?

I'd recommend a Canon G12 ($400)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ist&sku=734743

or Canon G1x ($700)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...X_Digital.html

People love the Fuji X series.

EDIT: Here is a fantastic review. http://www.minimallyminimal.com/?page=2&tag=Fuji%20X100

For compact prosumer I recommend the Panasonic LX7 (or older LX5 on sale) due to its wider-angle-than-usual, ultra-bright lens (24-90mm, F2.0-3.3).

Compact cameras have disadvantage in terms of noise and DOF control, and a bright lens reduces that problem.

My camera's lens is F2.8-4.8 and it is very restrictive since the sensor is so small. I think a brightness like F2.0-3.3 would make a huge difference. And 24mm wide angle adds even more versatility.

I shoot houses mostly, being a Realtor. That's the most important thing. I usually like to have a wide angle. My last two models have been 28mm wide angles.

In my spare time I like to walk around towns and cities and take urban shots.

Sounds pretty good. Lighting is very important for my house photography. I really liked my last Panasonic Lumix too. Great camera. This current one I have is a bulk Costco thing that is not as good.

I would get a dslr and a wide angle lens like a 10-20mm sigma. Nice for realty, you can get really wide shots indoors and full house shots without having to stand in the middle of the street. Good for city shots too. But the better picture quality would be appreciated by your customers and probably pay for itself quickly.

I would agree, diskojoe. Austin, ever thought of getting something similar to my camera? Nikon D5100 with a the Sigma 10-20mm lens... Awesome setup, though admittedly a lot more expensive than something like a Lumix.

Aaron (Glowrock)

I bought the Olympus XZ-1 for the reasons you cited. I haven't given it a rigorous test yet, but the great majority of reviews are very good, and it fits in my pocket so as not to be a burden or attract attention.

B&H has it for $369. I'm not scared off by the 10 megapixels, because the among the photos that have sold well and have gotten lots of favorable comments at arts fests are ones I shot with a Nikon D70 (6 megapixels).

I normally suggest people look at point and shoots, they're mostly great and the small size is a huge convenience. DSLRs are for people with specific purposes in mind. Real estate shooting could be a reason to get a DSLR because you need wider angles than P&S can give and low noise, high ISO would be very helpful for interior shots.

Correction to my earlier post: Panasonic LX7 has a F1.4-2.3 lens. It's the older LX5 that has F2.0-3.3. For interior real estate photos you probably should consider 20mm wide angle or better though, to exaggerate the interior space and stuff. You don't really need an SLR for that thoguh, especially if size is a concern.

I recommend Olympus E-P3 combined with the 9-18mm (18-36mm equivalent) F4.0-5.6 lens, for $1400. Ultra wide angle reasonable priced and compact (though not pocketable).

There's also Panasonic GX1 with the 7-14mm F4.0, for $2000, but it's bulkier than the Olympus, though still far more compact than any SLR/lens combo.

There are even smaller (and cheaper) bodies that you can substitute from both systems, E-PL3 from Olympus and GF5 from Panasonic, with less external controls and more menu-based operation, which I don't like. But that's personal preference.

Both Samsung and Sony have similar lineup of interchangable lens compacts, but the lens are huge, almost as large SLR lens, it is kind of pointless.

I would recommend:

1) Panasonic Lumix DMC GF3: Here

It comes with a 14-42mm lens which should be plenty wide for you.

You could get a GF2 or GF1 for less if you don't want the newer model.

Or

2) Sony Nex-3: Here

It comes with a standard 18-55mm lens which is also wide enough.

If you're going to spend more than $400+ then it would make a lot more sense to just go for a DSLR since you'll be getting a lot more quality for your money. The only disadvantage with using a micro four-thirds camera instead of a DSLR is it doesn't have as much shallow depth of field, which isn't a problem if you're not planning on doing portraits.

Here's a LINK to a Flickr group so you can get a look at what a Micro Four-Thirds camera can do...

He could get an entry level dslr and a wide angle for not much more then his budget. I know you can get old sony a200's like my old camera for about 200-300 and then a wide angle lens for about another $500. Plus it could be wrote off as a business expense if he uses it for his realty business. I highly recommend the sigma glass. Great quality for the price.

What is the advantage of getting a dlsr?

choices, choices...

^ DSLR's generally produce better images than point and shoots. You can usually affect manual control over most if not all of the settings, which may or may not be a benefit depending on whether the you want to learn how to do so. Interchangeable/specialized lenses allow you to tackle any photographic situation ... in your case an ultra wide angle would be a good choice, but if you ever decide to get into, say, birding, you could get a telephoto for that.

DSLRs are bigger and more expensive.

^ Manual controls and interchangeable lenses aren't unique to SLRs.

The real advantage of SLRs is speed.

Correct, but they are not present on all, or even most PaS and EVF cameras, and when they are they are usually extremely limited.

They rock and if used right you can pull mad numbers from hot chicks at the club and get free drinks too.

But seriously, A DSLR will give you much higher quality and better control then a point and click as Bulliver advised. This is how we all take these amazing photos you see.

Does this work for ugly guys too? i mean, a friend who isn't me asked that question. Just curious.