Let's Talk Cameras

[Cape Brewing]

ok cool... thanks for the help.

I've also been given the advice that the 3000 is easier for a "beginner" becuse it has a really easy navigation tool for settings that is a bit dummy-proof compared to the 5000.

Lastly... I was told that Nikon lenses are supposed to be really nice lenses and once she's ready to graduate to a more advanced camera (the 5000 or higher) she would just have to replace the body.

... to the point thats been made though... we're not talking huge money differences. I just don't want to get her over her head instantly or else the thing will sit in the box for three years unused and will then end up on EBay.

 

[Hotspur]

Oh, another point. Once you have camera, lens and memory card, the additional cost of playing around and figuring it out is a whopping zero, since you can fill the card, see what you did, and do it again without having to buy more film.

Also, protip for anyone giving cameras for the holidays: Open the box, charge the battery, and put it back in the box before wrapping it. Nothing sucks more than a camera without batteries.

 

[Beerrific]

Really? Hmmm...

Do you know what the big difference in between the two? The guy at the camera shop said the only differences betweent eh 3000 and 5000 is that the 5000 is about 12MM pixels while the 3000 is 10.2MM I think.

But... the way it was explained to me is that, unless you are blowing things up to poster-size (something my wife would never do), the difference between 10.2 and 12 isn't noticible at all.

... that and the 5000 has video... which I don't need.

Yeah, there are more MP on the D5000 but it also has a different sensor type. CCD vs. CMOS. Check out the differences, you might prefer one over the other.

I am looking to buy a D5000 for myself for Christmas. If I was in the OP shoes I would go for a Cannon or Nikon mid-level amateur (like the D5000 or D90), skip the kit lens, and go for a fast prime lens (like a 35mm f/1.8). I think that will help you get better results in the low-light, indoor settings where you are looking to action shots. Add a zoom lens later if you want.

Amazon has some pretty good prices on Nikons right now.

 

[dataz722]

I've also been given the advice that the 3000 is easier for a "beginner" becuse it has a really easy navigation tool for settings that is a bit dummy-proof compared to the 5000.

That is both yes and no. There are less buttons and knobs to deal with so atfirst you won't be nearly as overwhelmed but once you learn more about photography then changing setting will be much more complicated.

Lastly... I was told that Nikon lenses are supposed to be really nice lenses and once she's ready to graduate to a more advanced camera (the 5000 or higher) she would just have to replace the body.

Well yes and no again. Nikon does make the best lenses compared to anything that isn't oh my god expensive (yes compared to cannon nikon glass is superior ). The lens is also the most important part of the camers. The only problem though is that most kit lenses aren't that great so if you upgraded bodies you would probably want to upgrade lenses first. But if you got some more better lenses to use now you could also use them with a better body down the road too. (that probably made no sense at all, sorry)

 

[dataz722]

skip the kit lens, and go for a fast prime lens (like a 35mm f/1.8).

Personally I hate using prime lenses in anything other than protrait or product photography. Anyone beginner using that as their only lens would get pretty annoyed and aggravated pretty quickly and probably not use the camera at all.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Oh, another point. Once you have camera, lens and memory card, the additional cost of playing around and figuring it out is a whopping zero.

... but that's the problem... My SWMBO has the attention span of... something that doesn't have an atetntion span...

She won't play around and figure out what works and doesn't work. She will want to take it out of the box, point it at something, push the button and not wait three seconds for the picture to actually take and have nice pictures.

... and if she really enjoys it, she might take a class or something but reading a manual or figuring it out on her own?? Zero chance.

That's why I keep coming back to the 3000... I'm honestly not worried about the extra $200 or even getting the best possible pictures. Anything I get will be a big step above our little digital (I would hope) and my main concern is her using the thing.

Thanks for all of the advice though... this is really helpful.

 

[dataz722]

Then you really should get a higher end point and shoot.

 

[humann_brewing]

warning, I am a Canon fan, nikon fans beware.

I think the decision comes down to what will the camera be used for, how much of a photographer is she and how much automation does she want. If you are really trying to stay in the 500-700 range, you may or may not be able to get some things.

Most of my lenses cost twice as much as that range by themselves but in large part glass is a very important factor in a quality image. You could buy a 1DsMIII but then buy a crappy 28-90mm $100 lense and get crappy images. Conversly, you could buy a rebel xs and the 16-35mm L lense and be able to produce great images as well.

The camera and lense is only 2 factors, the person behind it is a huge factor too.

1 key thing to remember in the debate between Canon and nikon is that Canon has been producing Dslrs with a CMOS sensor since their first rebel and have refined it very well throughout the years. nikon has used ccd sensors since their conception of their dslr and only recently introduced CMOS censors, but only in their upper line models. What does that tell you? That is just one thing.

 

[dataz722]

1 key thing to remember in the debate between Canon and nikon is that Canon has been producing Dslrs with a CMOS sensor since their first rebel and have refined it very well throughout the years. nikon has used ccd sensors since their conception of their dslr and only recently introduced CMOS censors, but only in their upper line models. What does that tell you? That is just one thing.

I knew there had to be a cannon fan boy around here somewhere.

As a diehard nikon guy I can admit that I really was considering going with cannon for the cmos but since Nikon released theirs it made my decision for me. From the reviews I have read cannon has tried to push theirs too far and it ended up making it worse and you can get better quality at almost all iso ranges with the Nikon. Cannon is still faster (fps) but that will probably be chaning soon too.

 

[Hotspur]

Well, the added cost of YOU figuring it out to explain is zero.

To be honest, if you leave the selector dial on green (full auto), remove the lens cap, press the button halfway, then finish the press, she'll find that it's already MUCH better than the point and shoot. There'll be no delay, the screen will be bigger and it will "feel" like a camera. This is for any of the consumer models. For the most part, once you set the camera up for resolution and whatnot, it's going to be point and click. I haven't changed much on my D80 in a while.

Okay, looked at Newegg product shots a bit. The D5000 has two additional buttons, and you can fold/swivel the LCD. That's about it for body differences.

Also, if you're taking photos of purple camo pants in low light, you're either too drunk, or not drunk enough. We'll let the peanut gallery decide that one after seeing the photos!

 

[A4J]

... but that's the problem... My SWMBO has the attention span of... something that doesn't have an atetntion span...

She won't play around and figure out what works and doesn't work. She will want to take it out of the box, point it at something, push the button and not wait three seconds for the picture to actually take and have nice pictures.

... and if she really enjoys it, she might take a class or something but reading a manual or figuring it out on her own?? Zero chance.

Then you really should get a higher end point and shoot.

You don't necessarily learn how to shoot with a DSLR by reading the manual. You'd have to either get a book, learn online or take a class.

A friend of mine bought a DSLR last year because it was the "in" thing to do. She learned it. She's having fun with it and she's taking more pictures that she did before. Her skill level is still that of a beginner, but at least she's having fun and I suppose that's the most important thing.

I wouldn't discount point-and-shoots. Browse flickr or pbase and browse by camera type. You'd be amazed at some of the great pictures taken with point-and-shoots. I love my Canon SD1100 IS - it fits in my pocket and takes great pics. [Actually, i forget which exact model I have - the SD1100 is my work camera].

 

[arch1tect]

I didn't read everything but dSLR are really starting to get cheaper and better. Either of the Nikon/Canon entry level line is good but I prefer Canon(I'm a wedding/portrait photography company owner). If you want something that has dSLR like features but in a Point and Shoot body the Canon G11 line is great and right in that price range.

 

[dataz722]

You don't necessarily learn how to shoot with a DSLR by reading the manual. You'd have to either get a book, learn online or take a class.

A friend of mine bought a DSLR last year because it was the "in" thing to do. She learned it. She's having fun with it and she's taking more pictures that she did before. Her skill level is still that of a beginner, but at least she's having fun and I suppose that's the most important thing.

I wouldn't discount point-and-shoots. Browse flickr or pbase and browse by camera type. You'd be amazed at some of the great pictures taken with point-and-shoots. I love my Canon SD1100 IS - it fits in my pocket and takes great pics. [Actually, i forget which exact model I have - the SD1100 is my work camera].

Some of the higher end p&s (don't know any of the models off the top of my head) are pretty versitile and you can still change all of exposure settings and learn about photography. Some of them you can even use a hotshoe flash with. Honestly, you will get just as good if not better pictures with the p&s than the dslr when they are both in auto mode.

 

[dataz722]

I didn't read everything but dSLR are really starting to get cheaper and better. Either of the Nikon/Canon entry level line is good but I prefer Canon(I'm a wedding/portrait photography company owner). If you want something that has dSLR like features but in a Point and Shoot body the Canon G11 line is great and right in that price range.

What part of jersey you from?

 

[trailblazer]

just get a cannon rebel eos xsi/xs with a warrenty and she should be good.

 

[dataz722]

warranty? Unless that warranty is coming from ritz/wolf camera it is a waste of money.

 

[Hotspur]

warranty? Unless that warranty is coming from ritz/wolf camera it is a waste of money.

This.

I worked at a Circuit City a loooong time ago, and their warranty was junk. The camera shop I worked at happened to be a Ritz, and their "Service Policy" is actually useful. Granted, it is pricey, but it covers everything except Fire/Theft/Loss, which should be covered via Homeowner's Insurance (you may have to register the serial number). Manufacturers and big box retailers will not service dropping or water damage, whereas Ritz/Wolf (same company) will.

Also, cheap Rebels are cheap for a reason. Hello plastic bayonet mount! I'll give someone crap for buying Canon, but the nicer ones are nice. The cheap ones are cheap. (Oh, and cross threading that plastic mount isn't a covered item, unless it's Ritz/Wolf )

 

[dataz722]

I worked at a Circuit City a loooong time ago, and their warranty was junk. The camera shop I worked at happened to be a Ritz, and their "Service Policy" is actually useful. Granted, it is pricey, but it covers everything except Fire/Theft/Loss, which should be covered via Homeowner's Insurance (you may have to register the serial number). Manufacturers and big box retailers will not service dropping or water damage, whereas Ritz/Wolf (same company) will.

The ritz warranty was the sole reason why I got the camera from them instead of saving about $150 buying it online. Well that and I had a friend working there that "gave me a deal". Their warranty is expensive as **** but it is worth it. It has already paid for itself with me when a friend picked up my bag that wasn't zipped and the camera and lens fell out and landed lens first on the ground. I took it and no pretty much no questions asked they had it repaired. It was probably $4-500 worth of repairs. To me though it is even worth it if you don't even use it. For me it is a mental thing, I wouldn't do nearly as much as I do with my equipment if I was deathly afraid of breaking it. Now I will take it to the beach, to parties, out in crowds at bars, and even attach it to the outside of a car doing 45 down the road. They also give you free sensor cleanings which is nice.

 

[humann_brewing]

I knew there had to be a cannon fan boy around here somewhere.

As a diehard nikon guy I can admit that I really was considering going with cannon for the cmos but since Nikon released theirs it made my decision for me. From the reviews I have read cannon has tried to push theirs too far and it ended up making it worse and you can get better quality at almost all iso ranges with the Nikon. Cannon is still faster (fps) but that will probably be chaning soon too.

I am not into the whole high ISO shooting to begin with. Most of my shooting is landscape and I want the shutter slowed down so a higher ISO is not a desire to begin with. On that note, I have seen some good things come from the new full frame sensors.

I am kinda disappointed in the 5d mII, I mean it is a good camera and everything but was expecting a bit more for that long of wait and wanted the 7d to be full frame. So I am still waiting for a full frame camera to replace my 40D, but I also have a 1v that make the wait not so hard. Holy crap though, the EOS-1D Mark IV is one beast if you are a action photographer.

 

[dataz722]

I do a lot of event and band photography so I deal with low light cramped spaces so I don't have much of a choice but ultra high iso even with a f1.8 lens. I really think that Cannon has really been letting their customers down a lot over the last year or so and have made a lot of mistakes. They have made a couple steps backwards and while they did have better tech than Nikon I think its about even now.

 

[arch1tect]

What part of jersey you from?

I'm in Northern Jersey.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Ok cool... thanks again for all of the advice and thanks for tolerating a 100% total noob on this topic.

And to the point of ME learning and telling HER... also zero chance. I am part American Indian (Narragansett Tribe) so I whole-heartedly beleive that pictures steal your soul... so I want to stay as far away from her camera as possible.

After having a Lagunitas 13 and a DFH Palo Santo Marron for lunch I can see all of my camera needs very clearly and they can be summed up as:

1) Has ZERO delay between when you push the damn button and the picture is taken
2) Can take the next picture instantly, without waiting 12 seconds

(on both points 1 & 2, for my wife's purpose, a delay of something crazy like 12/1000's of a second vs 8/1000's of a second is 100% irrelevant)

3) She can learn it VERY easily and just fiddle with it for a very short period of time and take much better pictures than her current little digital camera
4) That's it.
5) if it COMES with purple camo pants, all the better but not required.

 

[McKBrew]

Thanks for the responses.

 

[Orangevango]

I shoot a nikon D90 and love it dearly. It was only 1000 bucks with one lens. Great camera, such a step up in ease of use from my nikon n70 (film) and it uses the lenses I already had.

 

[superfluent]

I am somewhere between very serious amateur and semi-pro and shoot with a Nikon D700 and Nikkor pro grade glass. I often get the question "what camera to choose" from friends that wants to upgrade to a DSLR. As people here have pointed out, there's way to much focus on camera body performance -and especially megapixels. Under "normal" lighting contitions it's the lens, not the body or megapixels that is the limiting factor when it comes to IQ in terms of image sharpness and contrast.

First thing to consider is this: If you don't bring the camera there will be no pictures. A DSLR will not fit in you pocket. It's a project in itself to bring it to location. If you're not willing to go the extra mile to bring this huge chunk of platics, glass and metal with you you're better of with using your phone or whatever.

Once you start the transition from "point-n-shooter" to photographer you'll learn how a very narrow depth-of-field setting will "isolate" the subject from the backround as in portrait photograpy, and how a wide depth-of-field will create a "narrative", busy image, how to capture motion with long shutter speeds and how to freeze time with short shutter speeds, how to distort perspective with different focal lenghts etc. You can do that with entry level DSLRs and decent glass but once you understand the mechanics behind it all, a more advanced DSLR will provide you with a more convinient user interface and more expensive glass will provide a wider range of options.

So, my advice is to get an entry level DSLR body and spend a little more on decent glass (=no "kit-lense"). If you get "hooked" you can upgrade the body to one that let you control the image parameters more easilly and keep the glass you've invested in.



H

 

[StunnedMonkey]

To pile on...don';t get a DSLR unless you're actually serious about photography. I chuckle when I see people taking snapshots with their Rebel, never changing the kit lens and never taking it out of auto mode. What a waste.

Taking action shots in low light indoors is basically impossible for less than a couple of grand. Sure you can pick up a 50 mm 1.7 lens for a couple of hundred, but unless you're on the floor with the players it's useless. The cost of a 200 mm f2.8 lens is going to dwarf the cost of the camera itself. In fact, think of the camera body as a razor handle. The real cost is the lenses.

I've dabbled in photograpy on and off over the years. I actually have a small wet darkroom in the basement, though it's been some time since I've used it, what with digital taking over. But if anyone thinks homebrewing is an expensive hobby, wait until they take up photography. Talk about a gadget-lovers dreamworld.

 

[Hotspur]

To pile on...don';t get a DSLR unless you're actually serious about photography. I chuckle when I see people taking snapshots with their Rebel, never changing the kit lens and never taking it out of auto mode. What a waste.

Sort of. Given the same composition skill, you should get better quality photos in auto mode with a DSLR and the kit lens, simply by virtue of a large physical lens, and even the entry level Canon and Nikon lenses are pretty good. Granted, you'll get a lot MORE by using specific lenses of pro quality, but that's not to say you get bad or inadequate photos with the kit lenses and auto. I stopped metering my photos a long time ago, and simply pick where in the frame I want the camera to meter, simply because it balances a lot better and faster than I ever could.

 

[McCall St. Brewer]

Hi McKBrew. I've read all the responses to your post and you've gotten some excellent advice. Here's my take on this.

If in fact your wife is serious about taking better pictures in difficult environments, such as gymnasiums, pools, etc., and she is willing to take the time and effort to learn more about photography and her camera gear, the only way to go is with a dslr.

What others have said is true, and that is that the only way a dslr will give her consistently better results than a $100 point and shoot is if she takes a little time to learn to use it. Once she does that, the capabilities of a dslr will amaze her.

What kind of dslr to buy and how much to spend? Actually, I think the the second part is more important than the first. All the major makers, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax and Sony, have excellent products. Photography buffs are happy to spend all their time arguing about which brand is best. They all are capable of taking excellent pictures, though.

So, how much to spend is the question. Here is where I think you need to figure out how serious your wife is. If you're not sure, it's probably best to start with an entry level dslr, such as a Nikon D3000, Canon Rebel, or Olympus E-620. Those come with a "kit" lens, and often you can also get a really good deal on one with both the normal "kit" zoom, plus the telephoto zoom she will want for taking pictures in gymnasiums. You can usually expect to spend around $700-800 by going this route.

If she finds that she really likes using dslr's, she will likely soon find that she wants better lenses. The "kit" lenses that come with the camera are usually pretty sharp lenses, but they are also "slow." That means they don't let a lot of light into the camera. Faster lenses, that let more light in, are what she will want, but they cost a lot. A good, fast telephoto zoom? Probably around $900 or so.

If you think she's serious right from the start, then you are looking at spending around $900-1000 up front for something like a Nikon D90, Canon 50D or Olympus E-30, plus another $1,500 or so for a couple of faster lenses.

Good luck! I hope she finds something she likes.

 

[Orangevango]

My favorite lens is a 50mm f1.8-f22 fixed lens. It is super fast, and super sharp. Low light pictures are easy. Sure I cant zoom in, but I can crop the photo if need be, and the d90 is so sharp i can blow the pictures up huge without getting graininess, so cropping is not a big deal.

The best part is, it cost 150 bucks. Great buy.