DSLR Suggestions

[cmk]

Now that the kids are here, I'm thinking about picking up a more sophisticated camera.  I have some basic experience with a 35mm SLR from when I was younger and always have been interested, but never seemed to have the time to go too far with it as a hobby.

Figured that I'd pick up a basic DSLR kit, assuming that is not a bad way to go.  I'll probably want to pick up a telephoto lens with more reach sooner rather than later.  Canon or Nikon?  Do I remember correctly that lenses for one are appreciably more because some portion of the electronics is contained in the lens rather than the body?

Any recommendations on minimum specs to look for or other advice?  Was thinking of spending $500 to $1,000 to start.  Alternatively, anyone looking to upgrade?

[cmk]

What about this?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/730200-REG/Nikon_9798_D3100_Digital_SLR_Camera.html

[marka]

Howdy,

I've not been following the market as closely as I had been, so I have just some general comments.

Nikon vs. Canon seems to be religious as much as anything else these days.  Used to be that Canon was better for noise at higher iso (i.e. lower light), but I think Nikon has switched sensor technologies for at least some of their cameras and that's changed.

The general rule of thumb is to spend the money on lenses, and not on bodies.  I agree with that to a point, but only to a point.  A body you "get along with" is worth something when you're trying to grab a shot that's dynamic.  Hold the cameras in your hands and see which one you like better.

"Off brands" in terms of bodies are arguably a better value, but also come with reduced lens support.  Lens makers make lenses for canon / nikon first and everyone else second.

Speaking of non-brand name lenses... I've had good luck with both Tamron and Sigma lenses for my Canon Rebel XT (which is now so outdated I expect people just about throw them away).  Read the reviews and such, but for me on a budget, Sigma and Tamron give me more lens for my dollar.

Finally, $500 to $1k puts you in the budget DSLR category.  In that range, I'd look at the canon and nikon "intro" bodies and try to pickup something with a 17-70-ish focal range, and a good flash.  A flash is about nine billion times more useful than a fast lens and is cheaper to boot.

And the obligatory... Are you sure you want a DSLR?  The higher end P&S cameras tend to be quite a bit cheaper, quite a bit more convenient, and are quite a bit better overall value.  All of this at the expense of "you can't stick on a good different lens."  That drawback does matter, but frankly it really only matters when the lenses you're going to throw at it cost $500+ (and sometimes a hell of a lot +) each.  If you envision yourself having consumer / entry level grade 18-ish to 300mm-ish lenses... Consider a superzoom.  I've found the superzoom's I've used to have controls more setup for the P&S crowd vs. the "No really, I get what the fuck aperture preferred means and why I want to use it" crowd as well.  That may or may not matter to you.

Anyway, in the time I've been writing this, Ethan has probably already written something better.  :-)

Mark

[autoxrs]

Nikon, Marteen would recommend that as well.  I've been very pleased with my D50 which is the every day abuse it and forget it camera.  I bought mine used on EBay for $550 shipped and came with 4 extra batteries, two lenses (18-55 and 55-200), lens filters and more.  I've owned a D70 before as well, and was thoroughly impressed with that.  Have played around with the D60 and D90 as well.  The D3100 is their latest entry level, if you can go with the D90.  

My opinion:
I haven't played with the latest point and shoots.  But the old ones just weren't "quick" to focus and refocus.  With kids you want that speed.  Maybe the latest crop of point and shoots have gotten better. 

[cmk]

We currently have a Canon PowerShot SD1000 pocket P&S (7.1MP) that's about two years old.  It's good, and I like the fact that we are more likely to have the pocket camera with us most of the time, but I sometimes feel like the ultimate quality of the shots is lacking and I figured that it was because you are limited by the lens on a P&S. 

Plus, as Sean pointed out, I get annoyed that the P&S cameras aren't quick enough at times. 

Any good P&S recommendations?  As interesting as I find photography, I'm unlikely to get completely immersed in the details and equipment due to a lack of time, so simple is always good.

[cmk]

So, continuing this discussion with myself, the current version of what we have is this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675613-REG/Canon_4180B001_PowerShot_SD1400_IS_Digital.html

Other options in P&S units include:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675601-REG/Canon_4246B001_PowerShot_SX210_IS_Digital.html#specifications
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729875-REG/Canon_4345B001_PowerShot_SX130_IS_Digital.html

The technology changes so fast, I'm not against this.  Sure costs a lot less, and simple but functional is good.

[cmk]

And, the more I think about this, the more I'm realizing that the single thing that annoys me most is the delay between when I push the shutter button and when the camera takes a picture.  I assume that issue does not exist on a modern DSLR, right?

[marka]

Howdy,

You can convince a DSLR to have shutter delay, but my experience is that very generally speaking... Yes, a DSLR will have less delay.

I think typically why this happens is in challenging conditions... I.e. indoor shots without enough light for it to meter well, scenes that have focusing issues, etc.  And the P&S cameras tend to have weaker metering / focusing abilities, so it shows up more.

A DSLR user is also more likely to know to just tell the camera to use the proper focusing point and ignore the rest, which reduces the work the camera has to do to autofocus.  But this can be done on the higher end P&S's cameras as well (but probably not as easily as with a DSLR).

I would imagine that P&S cameras that are good at "no, take the fucking picture now!" exist though.  You might read some of the reviews at www.dpreview.com.

I know some 'real photographers' seem to rave about the Canon S90 and the new S95 (I think that's the model name).  I guarantee that a 1/4 second shutter delay wouldn't be acceptable to them...  Never held one though.

Mark

[Foz]

I don't know a lot of the differences between the dslr's out there... but we just picked up a Nikon D90, and we absolutely love it.

I've played with my brothers d5000 and my father in law's d50, and while they are both good, this D90 is great.  Part of why we went with the D90 is the amount of lens that it works with.  I'm able to use some of my dad's 20 year lenses, from when he had a 35mm N90

I spent two days walking around Schenley with it and took over 500 pictures.  The delay is next to nothing, in fact you can set it to take multiple shots.  It will keep taking pictures as long as you're holding the shutter down.

Don't know if it's any help, but we're really digging it.

[cmk]

How many MP am I going to want?  Is 10+ enough?

[marka]

Howdy,

How many MP am I going to want?  Is 10+ enough?

More than.  Any camera that you'll be interested in will have enough MP.  Ignore this statistic completely.

Mark

[roundel]

Howdy,

How many MP am I going to want?  Is 10+ enough?

More than.  Any camera that you'll be interested in will have enough MP.  Ignore this statistic completely.

Mark

Yeah, 5mp is enough.   

Pay more attention to "optical zoom" if you are looking at a consumer, or prosumer grade camera.

I'm a big fan of the Canon family of cameras that is now the SX20 IS ...  Read about this class of camera here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q110superzoomgroup/

And see if that won't meet your short term needs.  The nice thing about them is they do everything pretty well, and even double as the more portable "vacation" camera when you do get into larger bigger gear - so you still like having one even if you do get more serious later.  They also do video - well - so it really is a swiss army knife of an addition to the diaper bag that doesn't break the bank.

YMMV.

[roundel]

Alternatively, anyone looking to upgrade?

Oh; and yes.  a 7D is in my future...

[alhpittsburgh]

Compare cameras here:  http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sidebyside.asp   

Buy and sell used cameras here:  http://www.keh.com/ 

[cmk]

Thanks for the input, guys. 

I picked up a mint used Nikon D60 body with a new Nikon 18-55mm lens with image stabilization today.  Should arrive in a day or two.  My dad has a D40, which he's pleased with and I've read good things about, so I figured that he and I might be able to share lenses on occasion.

I need to check with my dad to see what lenses he has.  What telephoto(s) are you guys using for motorsports?  I'm wondering how much lens I'm going to want for that type of stuff.

[marka]

Howdy,

I use a Sigma 100-300 f/4 that I really like.  I think they make a Nikon mount version as well.

I think Ethan typically uses a 70-200 f/2.8.  Pretty sure Nikon has a version of that lens as well that is very well regarded.

Mark

[cmk]

Thanks, Mark.

One more lens question... I need a short, wide angle lens that I can use to get wider photos of rooms that we work in.  Any suggestions on specs for something like that?


Edit:
Did some research.  Nikon has a 10-24:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/619515-GREY/Nikon_2181_10_24mm_f_3_5_4_5G_ED_AF_S.html

Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina all have something similar at half the cost, but they are still a bit pricey.  I may not need to go quite this wide, though, I imagine.

Edit, part deux:
I'll check out the 18-55 when it gets here to see if this is suitably wide.  If not I'll start looking around more.

[cmk]

Talked to my dad.  He has this Nikon 70-300.  http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-300-vr.htm (available at $430 refurbished).

Nikon also has a well regarded 55-200 available for very little money... $150.  http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55-200mm-vr.htm

[marka]

Howdy,

One more lens question... I need a short, wide angle lens that I can use to get wider photos of rooms that we work in.  Any suggestions on specs for something like that?


Edit:
Did some research.  Nikon has a 10-24:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/619515-GREY/Nikon_2181_10_24mm_f_3_5_4_5G_ED_AF_S.html

Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina all have something similar at half the cost, but they are still a bit pricey.  I may not need to go quite this wide, though, I imagine.

Edit, part deux:
I'll check out the 18-55 when it gets here to see if this is suitably wide.  If not I'll start looking around more.

For sure check out the 18-55 and see if that's good enough.  It might be.  But if I were doing much of this, I'd look really hard at the Tamron 10-24 (http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_10-24_3p5-5p6_n15/page4.asp).

For the XX-200 lenses, it kinda depends on what you're using it for.  If you're doing motorsports, you're going to want very good / fast autofocus and most of the cheaper lenses aren't going to get it done.  When I was looking, the 100-300 f/4 Sigma was the cheapest "real lens" option.

That said, prior to having that I was using a 70-300 Tamron and getting ok results, so its not all about the lens.

One technical thing the cheapie didn't have was a non-rotating front element, which meant I couldn't (effectively) use a polarizer.  Polarizer's are awesome for motorsports, because they'll eliminate the glare on the windshield and let you see the driver.

Mark

[marka]

Howdy,

One more thing... The non-OEM lens don't hold their value as well as the Nikon / Cannon lenses.  I.e. if you're going to but a lens "for now and upgrade later", the Nikon lens will probably be a little easier to sell.

That changes a little if you're comparing a pro non-OEM lens (i.e. 17-55 f/2.8 Tamron) to a consumer OEM (that 18-55) lens, but class for class, I think it holds true pretty well.

Mark