Let's Talk Cameras

[McKBrew]

My wife takes lots of pictures. We have had several $200-300 digital cameras. Most are OK, but do not take decent pics in some indoor situations (gyms, skating rinks, etc....)

She wants something a bit fancier $500-700 price range perhaps with better indoor capabilities and possibly ability to change lenses. What is out there that fits the bill.

 

[bob1852]

IMO nothing in the $500-700 range will get you there...

I've been happy with my crappy point and shoot $200 digitals with more features than I'll ever use, and have spoken extensively with a semi-pro who says you need ~$1500 to get into the DSLR game....Canon D40 or better....

and beware of gray market deals on the internet...I almost fell to one of there scams awhile ago....

 

[jbanta]

the only thing in the $500-700 range that might get you there - is one that i own and i love. Pentax DSLR..

Our family is mainly Canon as that was all the previous and current cameras that my wife owns, however I shot on a Pentax 35mm SLR and had a full bag full of lenses that would be compatible with the DSLR. ( B&H has the K2000 with a 18-55 & 50-200mm for right now under $600 - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=610950&is=REG) They are a very reputible merchant in the photo industry.

One thing I would suggest you get with any DSLR - a decent flash for it. This will help you in those darker situations as well as help you with balancing out the light in normal situation.

Hope this helps some.

 

[Donner]

there are several cameras that will get you close. canon rebel line and several nikons will get you started, but a DSLR alone wont get it done entirely. A better flash will work for places where you can use the flash, but better lenses will do more for you than anything else. These are costly, though. Lenses that open to f2.8, especially the ones that are 2.8 through the zoom range run lots of $$. Lenses with IS are good, but they really don't help in low light if you are trying to stop action.

YOu can always upgrade the lens later, though. A DSLR will be more responsive and do more than a point and shoot any day.

 

[bad coffee]

Here's what I can offer:

Get a decent camera, and get GOOD lenses. If you take care of them, the lenses will be with you for the next few upgrades.

Are you going to use a DSLR to it's full extent? I had a 35mm Canon, and that's what I went for with my digital. I paid $1000 for a camera body, $1400 for two pro line lenses, and a bunch more stuff.

Mostly it sits in the bag because I don't need/want to haul around 10# of camera gear. Sure, when I'm in the mood to shoot, I grab it and go. But for day-to-day I really want a pro-p&s. Something like Canon SX20
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/643179-REG/Canon_3633B001_PowerShot_SX20_IS_Digital.html

Smaller and lighter than my 10# bag. Much cheaper as well.

And B&H is a great place to get your gear. Completely stand up, and great prices.

B

 

[dabort]

I would look to KEH.com for gently used gear. I have used KEH before to purchase lenses and cameras (both film and digital) and have never had any issues with them.

You can pick up last year's model on the cheap and then save your $$ for faster glass or a nice flash.

Shooting indoors (especially when it comes to gyms and rinks) can be tricky because the light is not always bright enough or even enough to really be useful. Look for a camera that handles higher ISOs well, buy faster glass (like the 50mm 1.8) or buy a powerful flash to bring your own light to the party.

Good luck.

 

[MeatyPortion]

I've got a Canon SD970 IS. It was about $320 and I love it.

 

[scrambledegg81]

I've had a Sony Cybershot 6MP for about 3 years now-haven't had a better camera since. You can probably find them on ebay/CL, etc. Just make sure you look for models with the Carl Zeiss lenses (clarity is leaps & bounds above most standard-issue lenses).

 

[wolfstar]

I do astrophotography...Pictures of nebulas and galaxies and such. Canon offers a better signal to noise ration in that regard. My wife uses the same camera I use (Canon Xt) for terrestrial shots. The Canon does much better when equipped with a better than stock lens. For my stuff, I use a William Optics SD 66 Semi Apo, or a Celstron C8 (both are astronomical telescopes) ...both of which have excellent optics. My wife uses the stock lenses, 18x55. I can get better contrast and dynamic range with my scopes, likely due to the better light gathering properties and better optical qualities than the stock lens. Get a decent lens and you will do well.

keep in mind, more megapixels does not always translate into a better photo. In my field, 8 MP has been found to be a good comprise between detail and workability of the actual file. Unless you have a really hot sh*t computer, more than 8 MP will get cumbersome when you are attempting processing the file..

realistically, most digital photos require a little massaging to really pop the eye...you will need a robust computer and robust editing software to get there....

 

[A4J]

DSLR's won't automatically result in better pics.

Seriously, the Canon SD series are great little cameras for ~$300. I can't say enough great things about these little buggers and they're fantastics in indoor/low-light situations. I've bought them for my mom and siblings.

If you're dead set on getting a DSLR, I suggest going out physically holding them in your hands. Get whatever feels comfortable. I've amassed a lot of Nikon lenses over the years and so I've stuck with Nikon by default, but you can't go wrong with Canon or Nikon. I have no recent experience with other brands, so i can't really comment on them.

If you're gonna buy online, buy from bhphotovideo.com or adorama.com. They have the best prices and if you find a camera cheaper anywhere else, chances are it's a scam.

 

[Domminigan]

I've got a Canon S1IS. My mom has a S2IS, and I've used a friend's S5IS. All share similar features to an extent, but they seem to get far better as the model line increases.
You can't change out the lenses, but they do make lens adapters, and I've got a wide angle and a telephoto(ish) lens for mine, along with an array of filters that I use pretty much all the time. There are several features that make me really love the camera (I'd still take a Canon or Nikon DSLR if I could afford it in a heartbeat though) It takes photos of poorly lit areas sans flash with pretty good results. With some fiddling, settings are adjustable, you can manually focus through foreground objects to something in the background. I can hand it to just about anyone and they can take a quick snapshot with it.
Mine doesn't start up very fast, and sometimes takes pictures exceedingly slowly, but the newer models work much faster, and better. My S1 also has the annoying habit of trying to use the flash all the time until I turn it off. The S2 and later cameras you pull the flash up if you want to use it, it doesn't just pop up on it's own.

 

[Homercidal]

I agree that you would be paying $800+ for a decent DSLR. I've heard good things about Canon and Nikon too. Getting real nice lenses is more important than getting a more expensive camera in most cases, especially for low-light and zoom conditions.

I have a friend who paid some good money on a nice DSLR and hardly ever takes it out. I seems so wrong to spend that kind of money not to use something, but the camera is much more of a pain to handle than the pocket camera his wife uses.

I use an Olympus point and shoot digital. It's a bit bigger than my wife's pocket camera, but has more features including a 10X optical zoom. I'd rather dig that thing out than use hers any day.

 

[dataz722]

DSLR's won't automatically result in better pics.

That is the most accurate thing anyone has said in here yet. Does your wife just want to take snapshots of the kids and vacations or does she want it for photography. There is a difference. If she would be learning about photography and no using the camera in auto mode then by all means you can get better pictures out of a DSLR because you have so much control over it. But, if it will just stay in auto mode or one of the scene modes then she would be better off with a p&s. I have a big nikon guy but I will admit that cannon makes some really good higher end p&s. If you do decide to go with a DSLR I would reccomend spending a little more money and getting the Nikon D90. Unlike all of Nikons lower models it has the auto focus motor in the body and therefor you can use any AF lens that Nikon has ever made. The D90 also has very good high ISO quality which means that it works better in lower light than anything else in its price range.

 

[Hotspur]

I'm a total Nikon fan for a number of reasons such as quality, platform stability and reliability. I used to work in a camera store, and have been doing black and white photography on and off for about fifteen years.

A DSLR is the right platform for what you want, not simply because it's a DSLR, but because of the ability to adapt to what you need. You can add one (or more!) flashes to light the subject correctly, and you can change the lens to suit the subject.

As noted above, the lens is the singular MOST important part of the camera. A lens for a DSLR is inherently much larger than a point and shoot, and will therefore let in a lot more light, allowing for faster shutter speeds and better quality images. Those tiny lenses on pocket cameras are absurd - in that it's like comparing a dog to a racehorse. There's a lot of selection for lenses, Nikon's "ED" glass is their better quality. Canon typically doesn't use "glass", but instead uses Crystal Fluoride (or used to), which tends to be lighter, but has a greater expansion/contraction rate in extreme temperature ranges. This is why you see Canons at sports events, and Nikons for outdoor. I think making the decision based on weight is silly, have you seen the tripods they use in football games?

Remember the "jack of all trades, master of none"? That applies here, too. A 28-200 lens sounds convenient, and may be acceptable for general use, but you'll get less distortion and better quality with a set of lenses, such as 18-35, 28-70 (or 28-105, which I don't think is made anymore), 70-200, and fixed focal lengths beyond that. There's other options too, like fisheye, macro and portrait lenses. You'll probably find that you stick with one lens most of the time. I don't do much that needs telephoto, so I have a 28-105, and a macro lens, and am perfectly happy 98% of the time. Based on what you described in the OP, the standard pairing of 28-70 and 70-200 would be better for you.

I keep using film focal lengths because I always forget the digital ranges, but a DSLR has an inherent 1.4 or 1.5 multiplier unless you buy a REALLY expensive one. So, the digitals come with an 18-55, which is about the same as the 28-70. It also means you get "free" zoom (good for you!) and have to work/pay more for wide angle (bad for me).

TL;DR version: Buy a Nikon D5000 kit with two lenses at B&H/Adorama/Newegg/Best Buy. D3000 kit may be ok, but the 5000 is a bit more feature rich on the camera side. You don't need a D300, despite how shiny it is. (And trust me, it's VERY shiny.)

edit: Oh yeah, find somewhere to take classes on Photography with regards to composition, aperture/shutter balancing and technique, regardless of camera purchase.

 

[dataz722]

The only thing is that everything Hotspur just said is completely invalid unless you are willing to really take an interest in and learn about photography. If you do then the options and ability is just about endless. The best, most simplified book I have found for learn the basics of light and exposure is understand exposure(here). Maybe you should get that book and take a look at it and see if this is something you would want to really take an interest in.

or 28-105, which I don't think is made anymore

its 18-105 now

 

[dataz722]

And not to hijack but:

hotspur, what are you shooting with now?

 

[mitch171]

As stated DSLR won't make your picture better, however you may be able to use better techniques with a more advanced camera. The larger lens opening helps in lower light situations so that alone may make some difference. Gyms are tough because of the type of lights they use. You almost always have to either change the white balance, use a tungston setting, or make changes through software.

Anyway with DSLR's the cost is in the lens. You can get a decent body for the price range you are looking at but a good lens will cost ~$400-$600. I have a Nikon D80 (now replaces with D90). Trying looking for used equipment. I would say get the best lens you can afford and go with whatever body you can find cheap imho.

 

[dataz722]

Anyway with DSLR's the cost is in the lens. You can get a decent body for the price range you are looking at but a good lens will cost ~$400-$600. I have a Nikon D80 (now replaces with D90). Trying looking for used equipment. I would say get the best lens you can afford and go with whatever body you can find cheap imho.

I don't know of any lens that I would consider good for 400-600. You are looking at around 1000+ for anything that is f5.6 or less. The only expection is the 50mm 1.8d. That is right around $100 and is a phenominal lens but since it is a fixed focus it has very little versatility.

 

[Hotspur]

And not to hijack but:

hotspur, what are you shooting with now?

I have a pair of N80s and a D80, mostly I use the 28-105, and I have a 105 f/2.8 Macro. I used to use Velvia 50 and 100 in the N80s. Working at the camera shop somewhat killed my interest in doing a lot of photography, as has moving out of black and white. I had a CoolScan 4000 that I use to image the slides, a 16x multisample scan gives about a 122mb file that's 2000x3000 pixels. I've had a 20x30 print made (at Lightworks, the local pro imaging shop) and it was flawless.

Also, Bogen/Manfrotto aluminum tripod and 3 way head. That thing will also invert and function horizontally. Completely amazing.

 

[dataz722]

Also, Bogen/Manfrotto aluminum tripod and 3 way head. That thing will also invert and function horizontally. Completely amazing.

Once I finish getting all of my lighting setup a good tripod is my next purchase. The good ones are just so damn expensive.

 

[Cape Brewing]

hmmm... interesting stuff.

My wife really wants a camera for xmas and I'm leaning towards the Nikon D3000 as an "entry level" camera for her. It doesn't do video but we have a nice HD video camera that we love. The camera is running about $500 right now.

any reviews? The ones online are all pretty good but I never trust those reviews.

 

[dataz722]

If you are insistant on a dslr then I would say spend a little bit more and get the D5000. It is much better for not much more money.

 

[Bobby_M]

A buddy of mine who takes some of the best pics I've seen highly recommends a D5000 kit for about $700. My understanding however, says that indoor photo quality is much more about lighting/flash than anything the camera is going to do for you.

IOW, if the budget is $700, spend $400 on the camera and $300 on an off-camera flash.

 

[dataz722]

IOW, if the budget is $700, spend $400 on the camera and $300 on an off-camera flash.

The only problem with getting lighting is unless you are using a hotshoe flash on the camera then it is very difficult to use it in an informal setting for snapshots. Plus to do anything decent off camera will cost much more than $300. Low light the best thing you could do is get a get a lens with a big apperture and/or a camera that can handle high iso really well. I am pretty sure that the D5000 is pretty good with high iso. I know the D90 is very good in that aspect and the 5000 uses the same sensor.

 

[Cape Brewing]

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.

 

[Cape Brewing]

Ok... let's use a real world example... if I'm trying to take a picture of purple camo pants in low light...

 

[dataz722]

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, thats true about the MP unless you are blowing things up or doing a lot of extensive editing anything over 8 is pointless. I don't remember the difference off the top of my head and when I was reading about the 3000 it was pre release so they may have changed some stuff before they actually released it. I'll go double check right now.

Ok... let's use a real world example... if I'm trying to take a picture of purple camo pants in low light...

They are probably around some guys ankles that is behind you though, right? Just want to make sure I can reccomend the right stuff for you.

 

[A4J]

Maybe it's just me, but the learning curve is a bit steep once you start adding in flashes and off-camera flashes. I have a couple of Alien Bees studio flashes which to me were easier to learn compared to the on-camera flashes.

For someone wanting to get started with DSLR's, I'd say start off with the camera body, a 50mm lens, and the kit lens. Learn the fundamentals first before moving on to a scene requiring flash. BTW, the pop-up is worthless but I suppose it'll do in a pinch.

 

[dataz722]

I'll go double check right now.

Ok, I just wanted to make sure first that they didn't change it before release but the 3000 uses a ccd sensor which is pretty old technology. The D5000 actually uses the exact same cmos sensor that is used in some of the higher end bodies. The cmos will typically last longer and has more acurate colors.

BTW, the pop-up is worthless but I suppose it'll do in a pinch.

And don't bother spending money on any of the diffusers that are advertised to be used with the pop-up flash. They take a weak flash and make it even weaker and don't even serve there original intended purpose very well.

 

[Hotspur]

The D5000 is $680 with the one lens at Newegg right now. Also, the "you won't notice until poster size" is BS. I used it a lot to sell cameras, but if you're detail oriented, you'll notice at 8x10, and if you're fussy, you'll notice at 5x7. Storage space is dirt cheap. I remember when a 1gig flash card was $1500. Now a 4gig is $14. FOURTEEN DOLLARS. I have a two gig card for my D80, and I have it store Raw and high quality jpg and I still get about 120 shots per card. Five rolls of pro film would cost me about $50 and they're single use. Get the highest resolution your budget can handle, and get a reasonable memory card, two if you're going on vacation.

Regarding the D90 vs D5000 - the D90 is more "prosumer" level, and was last year's model. The D5000 is high end consumer, and the current model. Prosumer is a terrible marketing idea that suits virtually no one. The original N90 was the same way, and it had the same confused response from consumers.

The Nikon flash system isn't that hard to learn and is very scalar. I don't use one since I do the majority of my stuff as macro or landscapes, very few people shots. Now, the Marco Ring Flash, that's spiffy. The pop-up flash is good for 3-10 feet, and if you're using a flash within three feet, back up, it'll wash out too much.