I think reviewers will get their samples soon, but it will not be available to the consumer till 2014. Linus has hinted this before.
Doubt that reviewers will get samples that much quicker. Especially since a couple manufacturers don't even have plans to design coolers for 2013 or don't have enough stock from AMD.
Wait for an aftermarket R9-290 (non-X). You have until Christmas which gives the manufacturers plenty of time to release one. Most likely it will be a little more than $400 but will beat the crap out of the 780.
Asus wont get one out until 2014.
According to TTL, Asus doesn't have a DCII cooler penciled in for 2013.
It may take time, past Christmas.
Compacts usually have zoom lenses with far greater range than any SLR lens (or at least usably good SLR lens). The SLR lenses you would need to match the zoom capabilities of lens you usually find on a compact would set you back tens of thousands of dollars.
As for megapixels, 10 is enough to print a picture the size of the jumbo ads you see on the streets. More important is the physical size of the sensor, and you can afford to choose only from a handful: APS-C on entry level DSLRs (still expensive), four thirds on high end compacts and mirrorless cameras, and those tiny things you find in compacts sold at Kwik-E-Mart (and mobile phones and webcams).
If the OP had only $500 for the next few years, then yes, compacts are a great way to go.
Problem is, noise performance and IQ aren't great on many compacts. They are really easy to use and great to start in photography, but you can stick with a D3200 body for at least a few years. Upgrade your lenses and when you want, just upgrade the body.
It's up to the OP. Compacts are great for the features, but DSLRs are great for better quality images.
Found this compact for USD 200, normally USD 300. http://www.bestbuy.c...amera&cp=1&lp=2
I don't know how many megapixels are considered good or not, but this seemed good.
Megapixels don't mean you're getting a better image. It's just that you don't see pixels under you zoom in enough. Also, sensors with more megapixels may result in more noise in the pictures. If you want to go into photography, get a DSLR or a camera that has a lens mount. That way you get more focal lengths and it's not that rubbish digital zoom. D3200 and the stock kit lens isn't a bad option for a beginner. Or as mentioned before, an older body with the kit lens and a 50mm prime F1.8 (the nifty fifty or plastic fantastic).
It doesn't really matter what brand but i think i would prefer canon just because my previous camera was a Nikon D3000 and my friend had a canon t2i and we both got ours at roughly the same time for roughly the same price. After using mine for a while i just asked if i could see his to try it out and i was amazed by how much better it was then mine. I know the canon is still more expensive then my previous nikon but i just seem to have more respect and loyalty for canon.
Better? How so?
Nikon and Canon are pretty neck and neck. Nikon have high MP sensors, which could be useful if you plan to blow up your images to maybe a big poster. I'd consider both brands. One camera doesn't affect how well the others are. Read all the reviews on the bodies that you're getting. Note that the brand you choose, will probably be the one you stay with. Most photographers who own 2 or more lens for Canon mounts, will stay with them, since the hassle to go to Nikon and then getting new lenses isn't anyone's cup of tea.
Yes, you would save a couple hundred dollars. B&H has the 6D with a $140 bundle (free) for $1999. You could get a used 5D MK II for $1500~ for decent condition. On the topic of 7D vs 6D. I'd rather get the 70D if you're on a budget. The 7D is not a full frame, IIRC. It's right now 6D vs 5D MK II vs 70D. A new 70D runs around $1299, a used 5D MK II is around $1499, and a new 6D is around $1999. 70D has a great autofocusing system, really nice if you're doing sports photography.
Also, why aren't we looking at some Nikon bodies?
The OP doesn't say that he owns any Canon lenses, only ones that he could get.
There are plenty who have replaced their 5D MK II with a 6D and were perfectly happy. The 5D MK II required a F/2.8 or greater in order for the cross-type AF to work. The 6D only needs a F/5.6 lens. Not much of an advantage for those with high end lens. 6D has better low light performance in ISO and focusing. Both are full frame.
Why not 5D Mk II and 24-70? 24-70 is just a bit more expensive than 24-105 + 50 1,4, but 24-105 is not really a great lens anyway, while 24-70 is awesome and if you get a used 5D it would be cheaper than your combo.
Full frame is full frame after all.
Or the 6D. It's ISO performance is much better, and other than the fact that the 5D Mark II can do a shutter of 1/8000, and that it takes CF cards, the 6D wins in all the other aspects.
0
Doubt that reviewers will get samples that much quicker. Especially since a couple manufacturers don't even have plans to design coolers for 2013 or don't have enough stock from AMD.
0
Asus wont get one out until 2014.
According to TTL, Asus doesn't have a DCII cooler penciled in for 2013.
It may take time, past Christmas.
0
Hey, true...
0
Crap... External blu ray is so expensive.
0
0
0
If the OP had only $500 for the next few years, then yes, compacts are a great way to go.
Problem is, noise performance and IQ aren't great on many compacts. They are really easy to use and great to start in photography, but you can stick with a D3200 body for at least a few years. Upgrade your lenses and when you want, just upgrade the body.
It's up to the OP. Compacts are great for the features, but DSLRs are great for better quality images.
0
Megapixels don't mean you're getting a better image. It's just that you don't see pixels under you zoom in enough. Also, sensors with more megapixels may result in more noise in the pictures. If you want to go into photography, get a DSLR or a camera that has a lens mount. That way you get more focal lengths and it's not that rubbish digital zoom. D3200 and the stock kit lens isn't a bad option for a beginner. Or as mentioned before, an older body with the kit lens and a 50mm prime F1.8 (the nifty fifty or plastic fantastic).
0
0
0
0
Better? How so?
Nikon and Canon are pretty neck and neck. Nikon have high MP sensors, which could be useful if you plan to blow up your images to maybe a big poster. I'd consider both brands. One camera doesn't affect how well the others are. Read all the reviews on the bodies that you're getting. Note that the brand you choose, will probably be the one you stay with. Most photographers who own 2 or more lens for Canon mounts, will stay with them, since the hassle to go to Nikon and then getting new lenses isn't anyone's cup of tea.
0
Also, why aren't we looking at some Nikon bodies?
The OP doesn't say that he owns any Canon lenses, only ones that he could get.
0
0
Or the 6D. It's ISO performance is much better, and other than the fact that the 5D Mark II can do a shutter of 1/8000, and that it takes CF cards, the 6D wins in all the other aspects.