Camera Suggestions?

[Dayze]

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?

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

Here's an article that I think sums-up my sentiment, while it doesn't say "Use AP for Sports", it does go into a little detail about the power of DoF. I've taught a few people "to shoot" and beyond the very basics, DoF is the first really practical that moves people beyond taking mere snapshots, or using the camera's ridiculous shutter speeds to stop a fly's wings (more credit to the camera than the photog).

http://digital-photography-school.co...sure-lesson-1/

Then this:

http://www.digital-photo-secrets.com...tter-priority/

And it's just heir opinion, "Why aperture priority mode is clearly the winner"....




I've spent WAAAAAY enough time shooting kids playing on dusty baseball diamonds and becuase I coach I not only get a great view, I also sometimes have to hand-over the camera to a Mom (and sometimes a kid!!). And I always taught them how to get the puff of dust from the catcher's glove, but blur all the dumbass parents in the bleachers. The puff is timing, the blurring of the dumb parents is all 2.8. And they always say something along the lines of, "wow, that's sooooo cool? Same with wrestling, and other venues where you want to see the kid and not the goofy parent-fans...

Then, in my next "Yes, you can hold and shoot my camera.....please" lesson, we'd work on the ball on the bat. After explaining that you don't need to set the shutter speed to 1/1000 or 1/2000, they'd get that shooting at 2.8 (and lose the goofy parents from the shot!), and using an ISO north of 800 gets you the same thing. Then, just because they seem to like it, I'd teach them to play with the ISO to blur the ball off the bat.

Again, seemingly ass-backwards, but I've helped Canon and Nikon see a few bodies and always a 2.8 to go with it...

But hey, maybe it's my good looks and warm personality that keep the hot Moms wanting to hold my stuff...




My camera stuff!!!

Im not saying your way does work or that it's wrong. Going off my personal experience shooting sports for a daily newspaper, the way-better-than-me sports editor that came before me, and the myriad other photogs I worked with and around. They all went Tv because Av wouldn't guarantee them stopped action. And it's a lot easier to deal with exposure issues in post processing than fix motion blur.

Everything other than sports, I shoot Av or M. It's clearly the winner for everything else.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Im not saying your way does work or that it's wrong. Going off my personal experience shooting sports for a daily newspaper, the way-better-than-me sports editor that came before me, and the myriad other photogs I worked with and around. They all went Tv because Av wouldn't guarantee them stopped action. And it's a lot easier to deal with exposure issues in post processing than fix motion blur.

Everything other than sports, I shoot Av or M. It's clearly the winner for everything else.

Again, 2.8 plus the ISO setting is going to yield the fasted shutter speed the camera can offer. It's sort of forcing the limits, in reverse, but with more predictable outcomes in terms of picture quality. And if you're shooting in a lower-light situation, you can just set the Tv to 1/2000 and think the camera's going to find a aperture that'll work. It'll try, and i fyou have the ISO set to 800 or 1600 (ugh!!), it might find one that'll work. But I find that if you go into a night football game, you set the ISO to 800, set the Av to 2.8, and let the camera figure out the speed.

Will it always work, on every shot? No, but that same shot with Tv set will either error out because you have the shutter speed set to 1/1000, and it can't find an aperture that'll work, or it'll take it and it'll be just as wasted a shot because it'll be dark. Or you can spend the whole night shooting at 1/60 or 1/250 and know you won't often get an error at those snapshot speeds.

I guess it's pick your poison. I say shoot wide open and let the camera find the highest possible shutter speed.

Then again I'm Navy, not that I was a pilot, but I sure did know a few, and their crazy asses (on final approach to a carrier) use the aircraft's angle to adjust speed, and the throttle to adjust height. Kind of the opposite of what you'd expect.. Yeah, I'm like that...

[Fire Me Boy!]

I'm tired of arguing about this.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

I'm tired of arguing about this.

Ditto...

[kepp]

Hey! Hey! Put down the lenses and back away. I'm just going to try both methods and see what works best for me. After I do some testing, I'll declare a winner to the argument.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by kepp

Hey! Hey! Put down the lenses and back away. I'm just going to try both methods and see what works best for me. After I do some testing, I'll declare a winner to the argument.

I put all of my self-esteem in winning internet arguments, so please keep that in mind.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

Ditto...

Hmmmm.... Funny thing is I don't have any idea what you guys are talking about, well other than general terminology. My shooting is so different it's interesting how little know on daytime photography.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

I put all of my self-esteem in winning internet arguments, so please keep that in mind.

Well I cry when I hit bugs on the highway, so I'm obviously a more delicate flower!

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Hmmmm.... Funny thing is I don't have any idea what you guys are talking about, well other than general terminology. My shooting is so different it's interesting how little know on daytime photography.

I'm sure there's an Icon on the little twisty knob on the left-hand side for that....

LOL, I actually think you're right. I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I really recommend anybody jumping into it and wanting to take more than snapshots checkout a few books on lighting. The subject can range from natural lighting, to flash photography (daytime too!!!), to strobes, to various temperatures of indoor lighting. It's reading that's well worth anybody's time.

It's the next step after understanding DoF and before digging into circles-of-confusion and why/how digital sensors differ from film.

Wait, there's a setting for that....

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

I'm sure there's an Icon on the little twisty knob on the left-hand side for that....

LOL, I actually think you're right. I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I really recommend anybody jumping into it and wanting to take more than snapshots checkout a few books on lighting. The subject can range from natural lighting, to flash photography (daytime too!!!), to strobes, to various temperatures of indoor lighting. It's reading that's well worth anybody's time.

It's the next step after understanding DoF and before digging into circles-of-confusion and why/how digital sensors differ from film.

Wait, there's a setting for that....

Hey throw me a link if you can to read on said subject. I would like to learn how to do something other than the green A during daytime shots

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

Hey throw me a link if you can to read on said subject. I would like to learn how to do something other than the green A during daytime shots

Print it at work (they can afford the paper and ink/toner!!!), but it's a good (long) read and covers a LOT..

http://212.50.14.233/Knowledge/Photo...%20Edition.pdf

It doesn't tough on the circles of confusion, but you can get that here... It's science man, and we all love us some science...

http://www.photokonnexion.com/?page_id=4373

[kepp]

So I tried a few different settings at practice over the weekend.

First I tried Tv mode at 1/1000 and auto ISO and, as I expected, the shots were underexposed because the max auto ISO is 1600. In fact, Tv mode warned me that the shots were underexposed even at 1/1000 & 3200. When I raised the ISO to H1 (6400), the shots started to look washed out. I'll keep playing around with it, but Tv mode isn't being kind to me so far.

I also tried Av mode at f/2.8 and auto ISO. The fastest shutter speed I got from that was 1/400. When I bumped the ISO up to 3200 I was getting closer to 1/1000...usually 1/640 or 1/800. So far, this is getting me the best looking photos. But again, I'll keep messing with it.

I also tried out some different ISO adjustment modes...specifically the mode for fluorescent lighting. It didn't seem to make much difference to my untrained eye.

One last thing, I found a setting for "high ISO noise reduction" mode, but I didn't find it until after I had taken my shots. I'm going to try setting that to "Strong" and try Tv mode at the higher ISOs again. But I don't know how much difference that will make.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by kepp

So I tried a few different settings at practice over the weekend.



First I tried Tv mode at 1/1000 and auto ISO and, as I expected, the shots were underexposed because the max auto ISO is 1600. In fact, Tv mode warned me that the shots were underexposed even at 1/1000 & 3200. When I raised the ISO to H1 (6400), the shots started to look washed out. I'll keep playing around with it, but Tv mode isn't being kind to me so far.



I also tried Av mode at f/2.8 and auto ISO. The fastest shutter speed I got from that was 1/400. When I bumped the ISO up to 3200 I was getting closer to 1/1000...usually 1/640 or 1/800. So far, this is getting me the best looking photos. But again, I'll keep messing with it.



I also tried out some different ISO adjustment modes...specifically the mode for fluorescent lighting. It didn't seem to make much difference to my untrained eye.



One last thing, I found a setting for "high ISO noise reduction" mode, but I didn't find it until after I had taken my shots. I'm going to try setting that to "Strong" and try Tv mode at the higher ISOs again. But I don't know how much difference that will make.

I mentioned 1600 was going to be too low ISO, and you could manually bump up to 3200 or 6400. The higher the ISO - whether going TV or Av - will have more noise. The lower ISO will be cleaner, no matter your mode.

[Fire Me Boy!]

Question about yalls' experiences with telephotos. Shooting on a Canon 6D. I have a (cheap) Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 (version 1, no IS). Looking to replace with a better lens with ideally lower f-stop, without sacrificing much length. I might be willing to keep the aperture range with more length and better optics. Just looking for experiences with:

• Tamron SP 70-200MM F/2.8
• Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
• Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L
• Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (old version)

Anyone shot with any of these?

[kepp]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Question about yalls' experiences with telephotos. Shooting on a Canon 6D. I have a (cheap) Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6 (version 1, no IS). Looking to replace with a better lens with ideally lower f-stop, without sacrificing much length. I might be willing to keep the aperture range with more length and better optics. Just looking for experiences with:

• Tamron SP 70-200MM F/2.8
• Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
• Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L
• Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (old version)

Anyone shot with any of these?

I have the Sigma, but I'm a complete amateur so I don't know how much help I'd be. But even with my lack of experience, I've had some good pictures with it.