Camera Suggestions?

[Munson]

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

[Fritz88]

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

[Fire Me Boy!]

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

[houstonwhodat]

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.

[kepp]

Originally Posted by houstonwhodat

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?

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by kepp

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.

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

Originally Posted by prhom

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.

+1 on dpreview.com

[Macroach]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

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

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!

[houstonwhodat]

Originally Posted by kepp

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?

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.

[kepp]

Originally Posted by houstonwhodat

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.

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

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by kepp

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

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.

[houstonwhodat]

Originally Posted by kepp

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

NO

[mr. tegu]

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.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

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.

I think that last picture needs to be marked NSFW.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

I think that last picture needs to be marked NSFW.

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

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by houstonwhodat

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.

I've been shooting Canon 20D's for many years now, and love them. While I'd love to upgrade them, I refuse to chase technology for technology's sake. And used to shoot Canon lenses exclusively, but took a chance on a Sigma and have been really happy with it too.

The good news is I've been able to give any number of people, family (wife and boys), scouts, and about any kid or parent in the stands at sports events the opportunity to discover the joy of photography (beyond a P&S) and the beauty of what many of always knew as a motor-drive. I have on on my first A-1 and used more film than the law should allow! And I paid for it in the dark room. Sorta miss those days - you just had to be better it seems.

But alas, I love to give a kid a 20D with a grip and a 200 and let them just go have fun. Give it to a parent and they'll be amazed how how easy it can be. Show them the difference between what a zoom and prime produce, and they'll still get the zoom, but want the prime... And after years of trying to coach and shoot, it's been a welcome relief to let other people show their creative side. They thinks it's so difficult when they see you do it, then, after you let them try it and forward them their own results, you're helping them shop. Love it... And you don't have to get deep with them, depth of field, circles of confusion, front lighting, silhouetting, LOL "ASA," none of it - that comes later...

But you're right about Canon vs Nikon, who cares, just get one and enjoy. If you can tell the difference in the grind then you should be a Pro. I say go with the one that provides the most logical menu system (for you) and you'll be very happy... And today's grind and coatings are a lot different given the near demise of film, but both are awesome.