Camera Suggestions?
 

Ok;

so the wife and I are in the market for a camera. We previously had a Sony digital camera for about 10 years but the wife dropped it and now it won't hold any settings etc.

So, it's time for another one. I'm by no means a professional photographer; but I also don't want some little $100 POS either. I'd like to have one that I could 'grow' into if I wanted to so to speak.

I think My budget is about $400-$600. I was looking at the Nikon D3200 DSLR....though, admittedly, I'm not 100% what "DSLR" is.
I like the design of it; I've held a few like it and they're much easier to hold IMO.

Suggestions?

Canon Rebel TIs are awesome.

I have a 3100 I haven't gotten to use very much. IMHO, you still want a small P&S to carry around for "good but quick" shots. Stuff you want better than a cell phone pic, but don't want to lug the camera bag.

agree there.

for this more $ one, we want it for vacations, kids parties etc; photo opprotunistic type envrionments.

We bought this camera recently and love it. It seems like a really nice high end camera from the middle tier price range. It comes with the standard 18-55 mm lens. But Best Buy has a deal on Canon cameras where you can by another lens such as zoom one at half off. The best part was that the offer for the half off lens last two weeks so you don't have spend the extra money all at once.

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Canon+-+...&skuId=1980124

I've been researching that recently also. I'm pretty close to pulling the trigger on this deal - http://www.samsclub.com/sams/d3200-b...prod8540017.ip

From all the reviews I've read, the Nikon 3*00 series beat the comparable Canon Rebels across the board. And this deal gives you a extra lens (zoom).

I imagine you can't go wrong either way. We obviously were considering a Nikon as well but when we held it, it just didn't seem quite as comfortable. But that looks like a heck of a deal.

I have a Nikon D5000 and love it. I bought it for my international travels and have had excellent performance in Israel, France, Spain, and Peru.

When purchasing I was deciding between Nikon & Canon. Purchased both and tried them out for a week. I was happier with the Nikon picture quality and color.

Hmmmm.
sounds like I'd be in a good spot to choose to go with the Nikon.

I wasn't very happy with our Sony. Not very intuitive at all. Took lots of prep work just to get a shot. of course, that was 10 years ago so I'm sure things have evolved a bit.

For entry-level, it's tough to beat the Nikon D3200. When you go in the mid-high range, then the gap narrows between Nikon and Canon (more Coke vs Pepsi debate than anything).

The only real downside with the entry-level DSLR cameras is that if you end up using them a lot, you outgrow them pretty quickly.

Pocket camera that gives great images. Very popular with photographers.

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-DSC-RX100...330742&sr=1-15

You can't go wrong with a Nikon d3200 or Canon rebel t3i (or t4i), but they're bigger, more complex systems that you will want to purchase extra, more expensive lenses for. Very fun if you plan to go that route.

Yeah...I imagine for amateurs like us, there probably isn't much difference.

Does that body have an auto focus motor? I know the D3200 doesn't, so the lenses are more expensive because they have the motor built in.

A DSLR is a Digital Single-lens reflex camera. Meaning that what you see through the viewfinder is basically what you will see on the picture you take. Wikipedia will give you lots more information on this than you probably care to know.

I'm taking the plunge to a DSLR myself and am really excited for it. Just ordered a Nikon D7100 yesterday and can hardly wait for it to get here. I decided on a Nikon after reading reviews on dpreview.com. I highly recommend checking out their reviews. It's hard to find a more complete investigation and evaluation of a given camera anywhere.

Yeah I agree. And I don't see how there could be unless I got really specific and some settings were better on one over the other. Heck ours already has so many functions and settings that I have no idea how to use.

One thing I did read was that it has the setting to make the flowing water of a water fall look blurred like paint brush strokes. I want to try that out sometime.

The setting that does this:

http://stevenahill.com/wp-content/up.../waterfall.jpg

Either way you decide to go, you can buy a refurbished camera and lens direct from Canon or Nikon and save a few bucks.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs...10051_-1_29252

http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikon...oryID.43896400

Depends on what you want to do. DLSR will make you buy lenses, filters, etc ... if you want to spend money and want the learning curve Rebel is the way. Otherwise I'd recommend the new 'all inclusive' Panasonic or Canons that don't require lense but also produce high quality images.
If you like a particular kind, before you buy go to flickr and search images taken by that device and see how you like them.
Posted via Mobile Device

Find what you want above bidget, then head to keh.com and find one used in Ex or Ex+ condition.

OK

I'm a professional photographer.

What do you want to know?

Canon/Nikon are about the same. Canon is a little faster for sports, Nikon has the best flash systems and colors to me.

* Buy only Nikon/Canon lenses. It's all about the glass.
* Don't buy anything with a plastic body


It all depends on what you want to do with your photos.

It's hard to get anything worth a damn for 400.00

Nikon D-800 with vertical grip is all you'll ever need.

Interesting, because my main use would be to take pictures of my daughters during their gymnastics events. However, for the entry level price range I'm looking at ($600 - $800'ish), it seems like Nikon shoots faster and has more AF points (which I've read is important for fast-moving pictures). Do you agree with that, or do you think the Canon entry level units are better for sports?

Indoors with subpar lighting you're either going to need to bump up to 3200 ISO or you're going to need a fast lens. Youll be able to stop the action with either cam.

I am not really a particularily skilled photographer but a nice camera can make anyone pretty decent. Here are a few we took with our Canon. My Peter Lik impression came out okay but I think we would have needed some type of wide lens to get the exact effect.

No - you need to buy AF-S lenses with it, but almost all of Nikon's lenses work with the camera and auto-focus.

+1 on dpreview.com

I shoot the NFL every year in drastic light conditions.

If you're gonna shoot sports you need something that can handle at least 8 frames per second.

And you also need something that does not have a lot of noise at high ISO's (2000-3200)

You need to be able to have a shutter speed of 1/1000 of a second shooting at 2.8 with no flash.

Canon shooters love their fast focus but when the lighting is dim they get more noise than the Nikon shooters do.

When you notice the photographers on the field, all white lenses are Canon and the blacks are Nikon.

You can't go wrong either way, but I love my Nikon. I get some amazing images and the resolution is crazy.

If you can't afford a real expensive body put all your money into lenses.

Don't buy a variable aperture, get a fixed aperture and try to always buy a lens that can open up to 2.8.

Your lenses are interchangeable with your different bodies so buy one brand and stick with it for life. I'm still using lenses I bought 20 years ago. The bodies are going to be obsolete in a year anyway, just like computers.

For anything photographic go to:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/

http://www.sportsshooter.com/

You'll never notice the difference in the speed.

My Nikon shoots 8 frames per second. My buddies Canon shoots 10 frames per second.

Both are plenty enough.

When I get done shooting a game I usually have almost 2000 images to sort through.

dpreview has some great info, for sure.

Personally, in your price range, I would look for a lightly used or refurbished Nikon D90. One thing that you might want to consider is whether or not you will want to use some of the older, classic Nikon lenses. The older Nikon lenses used a screw-drive AF mechanism which was driven by a motor in the camera. These are often designated AF or AF-D. The newer lenses are the AF-S type which use an integrated focusing mechanism in the lens itself. Some of my favorite lenses are still the older, heavier AF and AF-D lenses.

For example, for indoor/outdoor sports, you can get a nice 180mm f/2.8 for $400 or so on the used market. Built like a tank and fast. But it is in AF or AF-D only.

The old adage you will see many times is to spend the money on the glass, and not the body. So if you have a choice between a $200 lens and $500 body or a $500 lens and $200 body that suits your needs, go for the lens. Also lenses are like guns - if you get the right deal, you will not lose money since the good ones generally do not lose value.

Also look at B and H photo in New York if you decide to buy new. They are very reputable and have great prices.

I won't bore you with too many details, but the tl;dr is to consider how you may want to expand in the future and buy based on that. Good luck!

This review - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d3200 - says the D3200 shoots 4 frames per second. Would that be fast enough?

I love my Nikon D3100 and I'm wanting to get another lens for it. I only have the 18-55mm lens that came with it. I mostly shoot landscapes. Any suggestions?

I wouldn't buy one.

"I like to remember things my own way. How I remembered them, not necessarily the way they happened."

Four would be pushing it on the low end, but you could do it. You just wouldn't have as many usable shots.

I disagree with houstonwhodat's assertion that you need 8 fps or better. Maybe for NFL when people are moving extremely fast. But I shot college sports for years on 5 fps and had no shortage of good shots to use.

Are you wanting to blow these pics up to large sizes, or are you looking strictly at digital or smaller prints?

If you're not looking to blow something up, I'd look at a used high-end but older model, like a Canon 1D Mark II. Those are still outstanding cameras, but well within your price range.

houstonwhodat is absolutely correct about the lenses though. You could have the best body money can buy, but if you put cheap glass (or god forbid plastic) in front of it, it's just not going to matter. Photography is bending light, so you want a good piece of glass bending it. Everyone has their preferences; I prefer Canon glass to Nikon.

Seriously?

Fire Me Boy and Simply Red both up and not a bite?

:huh:

We've met before, haven't we?

"Look, I know we've had our disagreements..."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A5kWE8EKJE...nard+nimoy.jpg

Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here now.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__...Hantrooper.png

No, not going to be blowing up the pictures...just normal use. So, by getting a used, higher-end model, I'd be losing some resolution, but gaining speed? And that should be fine because I would only need the increased resolution if I was going to be blowing up the photos?

Yes. The Canon 1D Mark II is an older body, but it's a rock star, IMO. It's about 8Mpx, so you're still getting images that are roughly 3264x2448. Shoots 8.5 fps, ISO extends to 3200. There is no built-in flash. If you want to use a flash, I'd buy one anyway - the built-in flashes suck.

http://www.keh.com/camera/Canon-Digi...990968260?r=FE

Ugh, so many armchair experts in here.

I would strongly suggest going with a "super-zoom" type camera instead of a DSLR. These offer amazing features and basically all manual controls you get with a DSLR without having to carry around an enormous bag and switching lenses all the time. Canon has a 80% market share for a very good reason, virtually every single product they make is superior to anything else on the market. Think about how competitive the camera market has become and for Canon to still have that kind of hold on the market only happens for very good reasons.

Also consider what your typical shooting environment will be and how many lens changes will be required. Unless it will become a major hobby for you later on, I don't see any reason as to why you would want to invest in a DSLR + glass (by far the biggest cost of any DSLR) at this point, it will just be more hassle than it's worth for you at the moment.

Save half your money and buy this:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSho...ef=pd_sim_p_56

/former finance manager for a major camera manufacturer for 4 years if that matters (not Canon)

He said he wanted something he could grow into. That's not a P&S, if you ask me. :shrug:

Canon T2 or T3 is tough to beat for the money.

NO

You only need 2 lenses to shoot just about everything in life with some exceptions for specialty stuff like macros.

Nikon 24-70mm 2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_2_8G.html

Nikon 70-200mm 2.8
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_2_8G.html

You'll be spending some cash for these lenses but you'll never buy another lens.

You can try to find one used at a reputable camera store.

Note; Don't forget if you're shooting digital and in DX mode not full frame then your lenses are magnified 1.5 times.

So a 200mm lens is really 300mm.

I can vouch for the Nikon D5200. It is outstanding! With a 18-200mm Nikon lens, it is by far the best DSLR I've ever owned.

I don't think he has $5K to spend on lenses, dude.

That's professional gear, similar to $3K full frame Nikon you recommended earlier. Although it's better to take photos when you have the best gear, I'm not sure he wants to drop $7K+ on a set up at this point.

houstonwhodat seems to think professionally covering the NFL is akin to shooting a little girl's gymnastics.

Thanks. Looks like I need to start saving a bit more cash to get those.

I think that last picture needs to be marked NSFW.

My old Nikon d-70 shoots 6 mega -pixels and the images are fantastic

I shoot around 12 mega pixels now and some of the Canons shoot 23 mega pixels.

You can't email anything that size and you'll spend your life in post production.

The high res cameras now are like the medium format film cameras of yesteryear.

You had me scared for a second that I added the wrong picture. LMAO

LMAOLMAO

maybe look into the mirrorless? like micro four thirds or the sony nex line?

http://www.amazon.com/camera-photo/dp/B0096W1OCG

No I don't.

You can get by with a D-70 if you have to.

Cameras now are investments like computers used to be.

If you're gonna spend all that money try to get something that you won't outgrow in a year.

Once he starts to get some amazing images he will get the bug and want better and better stuff.

I didn't suggest he buy a D-4x where the body ix 6k.

But he could get the same lenses that the pros use and come out with the same images.

The body of a camera is nothing more than a storage for images whether it is film or digital.

Of course now there is processing going on in the body too.

It all comes down to money in the end.

one piece at a time, one piece at a time.

A used D-90 body with a 24-70 mm 2.8 would be awesome.

Or go for the variable aperture 3.5-5.6 for like 250.00

I'm still shooting my Canon xT1, but I'd recommend anything in that line. Some people will tell you you have to go to the Mark series, but that's frankly bull. Like someone mentioned earlier, it's the glass. I've been a serious amateur (and now semi-pro) for many years and 90% of it is who's behind the eyepiece looking through what glass. The only thing I don't like about the current T series is that they use SD cards and my hands just don't fit those very well. With Canon coming out with their new T-5, look for the prices to drop on the t-3 and T-4s.

I know very, very few photographers that have that kind of gear. Unless he's getting into it professionally, no one needs to spend that kind of money. And it'd be silly to spend that for him. He could spend $1,000 on body and lens and have a camera that would well past his needs for the next 15 years.

I just spent $300 of a 50mm fixed f/1.8 Canon lens, and I've been thrilled with it. No, at f/2.8 it's not as sharp on their L-series, but I don't shoot at f/2.8 that often. At f/4.0 it's one of the sharpest lenses I've used, including some of the L-series.

yup

Whatever works for you.

I shoot professionally so I can only speak of what I know.

Hell a major wire or sports agency won't even talk to a photographer unless they have certain equipment.

That's why I have to have it.

You can get by with a lot less.

Because when the guy said "I think My budget is about $400-$600" what he meant was I want a rig that is great for a pro photographer that will get the attention of major wire agencies.

Jesus christ professional photographers are the biggest douche bags.

LMAO

:spock:

Those poor wire guys work for peanuts. No wonder why he takes photos of the cheerleaders while the real guys shoot the game.

Jesus! I come back to this thread and a ton of useful information! ...a CP first?:D

Lots of great info to digest. Espectially on the DSLR route.
I'm very new, but i'm sort of an artsy guy. I could see it being a fun hobby to get very creative with.

so, with the DSLR (sp?) cameras, you need the camera + a lens right out of the gate?

Yup their base design makes it so you have interchangeable lenses.

:hmmm:

Most DSLR cams come body only or with a kit lens. It's something to use, but it's usually the cheapest lens they make.

I shoot everything at the game.

Sorry you're so jealous and have a pathetic life.

Get a kit.

Won't be the best lens but will be very useable.

You can add to it later.

A decent kit will cost you between 500 and 1000 though.

My life is just fine. I actually make money doing commercial work at the games while you wire guys fall over yourselves for peanuts and make sad bastard posts on Sports Shooter. I see your type all the time.

I'm getting mine as a kit, but they sell just the camera. I don't know enough about the lenses to try buying them separately. I also wasn't going to spend a ton on both a camera and lens right out of the gate. Seems like the kit is a better deal as well.

Like you, I'm thinking it could be a lot of fun. I've always wanted a nice camera to learn photography, but never ponied up for it till now. I wanted a camera that was better than my skills were so I could grow into it.

Basically where I'm at

I'd rather shoot my old D50 than the D3100. I swear the 3100 hates me. It's getting replaced soon. Very soon.

I hate to make the switch to Canon because of the glass swapping involved, but I'm almost to the point I'm ready to do it.

Canons nifty fifty lens has great glass in it for $100. For what I'm doing I keep shrinking mm lens. The 24mm L f1.4 lens was still narrow so went to a Samyang 14 mm f2.8

Canon is ahead of Nikon right now may change later on but the 5D mkIII is a hell of a camera.

With the needed glass swap the MKIII is well out of my range.

Understood I have a couple 5D mkII's about the same camera at $1500. I was shooting tonight my Canon with Nikon glass. Had a Nikon 180mm AIS ED lens to shoot the moon with. It makes it a manual focus of course but you can use your Nikon glass on a Canon body.

With the release of the D600 and D7100, you might be able to catch a good deal on a used D7000 body. It's much more enjoyable to shoot than the D3100, and you don't have to worry about swapping glass.

Right now, I wouldn't say that Canon or Nikon is ahead of the other. The D800 and 5D MkIII are both very nice at their point, and either would be a good choice if you're heavily-invested in a system. With that being said, one isn't enough better than the other to justify switching systems.

I watched a great video or two on Youtube where they compare the D3200 and it's Canon counterpart; taking pictures and videos of the same thing on 2 different tri-pods and comparing side-by-side.

a few others were good showing the pros and cons of each.
on the one side by side video, it looked like the Cannon had better picture..but the D3200 had executed some features better.

From what I gather, it's probably a wash either way for a Noob; both had pros and cons, but as a Noob I doubt I would notice either.

I know it is above your range, but it is an excellent kit for a great price:

http://www.adorama.com/INKD5200L3.html?EmailPrice=T

I bought one for the Mrs...she loves it. The photos taken with this camera are excellent. I used it to photograph a wedding...the images I took were better than the professional photographer's pix. :D

NOTE: you should also consider acquiring photo-editing and processing software for your computer. Aperture for the Mac is good and simple; Lightroom (Adobe) for Mac or PC is also a good choice, though a bit more complex.

:hmmm:
never thought of that. good idea.