The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Help me buy a camera!
illirica
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Hi, guys,
I'm offering myself up for your collective wisdom - for my birthday this year I am getting myself a camera. My old one that I got about 7 years ago is dying a slow death, and I've decided to go ahead and replace it, since it wasn't that great in the first place.
Here are my details:
1. We cannot afford the excellent super awesome models. I love them and drool over them, but we are looking to spend more like $400-500.
2. A decent MANUAL focus is a must. This is the thing I hate about my current camera - using the manual focus is like trying to wire circuits with a sledgehammer. I've noticed that I don't always want to take a picture of what the auto-focus thinks I want a picture of, so I spend much time arguing with my current camera about actually wanting a picture of Thing A and not Thing B.
3. We are expecting a baby. Yay, baby! This is one of the major reasons for getting a camera now - I want to be able to take pictures of our baby. With a little one on the way, we are probably not going to be taking any long vacations to Europe in the near future (boo, Europe is awesome), so I want this camera to be good for more around-the-city shots - home, family, zoo, etc. I don't need a super-fancy panoramic option, and close-range is more important than long distance.
4. Size matters not. It doesn't have to be able to fit in my purse or pocket or anything, I'm happy to carry a camera case.
By my own research, I like this one but am not sure I want to spend quite that much if there is something just as good or almost as good for way less. If anyone has any experience with similar cameras that would be less expensive, that would be awesome - or if anyone has any experience with this one that can say whether or not it's worth the price tag, that would be awesome too.
Thanks, everyone!
I'm offering myself up for your collective wisdom - for my birthday this year I am getting myself a camera. My old one that I got about 7 years ago is dying a slow death, and I've decided to go ahead and replace it, since it wasn't that great in the first place.
Here are my details:
1. We cannot afford the excellent super awesome models. I love them and drool over them, but we are looking to spend more like $400-500.
2. A decent MANUAL focus is a must. This is the thing I hate about my current camera - using the manual focus is like trying to wire circuits with a sledgehammer. I've noticed that I don't always want to take a picture of what the auto-focus thinks I want a picture of, so I spend much time arguing with my current camera about actually wanting a picture of Thing A and not Thing B.
3. We are expecting a baby. Yay, baby! This is one of the major reasons for getting a camera now - I want to be able to take pictures of our baby. With a little one on the way, we are probably not going to be taking any long vacations to Europe in the near future (boo, Europe is awesome), so I want this camera to be good for more around-the-city shots - home, family, zoo, etc. I don't need a super-fancy panoramic option, and close-range is more important than long distance.
4. Size matters not. It doesn't have to be able to fit in my purse or pocket or anything, I'm happy to carry a camera case.
By my own research, I like this one but am not sure I want to spend quite that much if there is something just as good or almost as good for way less. If anyone has any experience with similar cameras that would be less expensive, that would be awesome - or if anyone has any experience with this one that can say whether or not it's worth the price tag, that would be awesome too.
Thanks, everyone!
illirica on
0
Posts
My parents have a Canon Powershot SX10IS that I was playing with last summer on vacation, and that's a pretty nice camera too, and a little less expensive than the Nikons I was looking at. The SX20IS that's out now is the updated version of the SX10IS, at about $370 it's a good low-end option even if not as nice as some of the others.
My opinion is that a lot of people who buy SLR cameras who aren't looking for particularly artistic shots do so when they're fed up with the limitations of point & shoot cameras. The big sensor in SLRs generally leads to higher quality photos and less noise, but increases bulk and cost. Having a range of lenses available is also good and bad -- good because the options are there to get specific lenses, bad because a) people stick with the kit lens and complain that the camera doesn't cover enough or b) those lenses are tempting!
Most people don't directly compare P&S and SLR cameras, though, because they're different camera systems. P&S cameras are pretty good nowadays with better noise control, better focusing, faster overall, etc. It sounds like your biggest decision is if you want to jump into a cheap SLR or an expensive P&S camera, though. There's a lot more to photography than manual focus, such as understanding aperture, shutter speed, and light, and if you really just want to stay in Auto mode and snap pictures, you're probably better off with something more like that Canon.
A good quickie test is to go through the user photos submitted on Amazon for the different cameras you're looking at. While small, the relatively low-res quality is a good benchmark. I have a D70 and my friend with a nice P&S wonders "why my facebook pictures look better." Same type of comparison. If you look through the Canon P&S pictures and think "these are good, I would be happy with my pictures looking like this, I cannot see the advantage to the Nikon SLR cameras," then you'll probably be very pleased with the Canon P&S.
I guess the question it settles down to is "Do I buy the SLR and plan to keep the same camera for a good long time, or do I buy the cheaper P&S and plan to replace it in a few years once the kids are old enough to travel?"
I'll keep thinking on it a bit, but thanks especially for all your help - you've really been pointing me towards the questions I need to be asking, which has helped me at least feel like I'm getting a good start on this. I'm probably going to go look in some stores in the next week and actually try to handle some of these cameras so I can get a feel for them rather than just the online stats.
In my opinion, a lot of typical landscape travel shots don't see significant benefit from SLR cameras, mostly because there's ample light and P&S cameras have excellent depth of field. I personally think that SLRs are really great for taking pictures of things, where your subject is important and you want to isolate it from the background. The speed is also a significant factor, and a lot of guides online emphasize that a cheap SLR is better for kid photography than most P&S cameras because they turn on, focus, and take the picture very, very quickly. So you usually end up with more natural shots because you get to take pictures immediately, rather than wait for the camera to start up, illuminate the LCD, figure out the focus, and then fire 3 flashes to reduce red-eye, meter, and actually illuminate the scene.
I have a lot of friends on facebook who are starting families and I do feel kind of bad that I can see how their pictures would be a lot better if they had a better camera. But a lot of people don't really realize that there's a different option out there. Sort of like trying to sell someone a brand new computer when they only use the internet for Facebook ;D For most people they treat their digital P&S cameras just like the old film P&S cameras -- they take a few snapshots and that's that.
I mention all this because of your paragraph above about how the SLR would have been the option for you and you love taking pictures in general makes me think that you'd be happier just getting an SLR now and having it available for the kid shots.
After all, a lot of the pictures of your kid are going to be indoors with relatively low light, and the cheap 50mm f/1.8 (both Canon and Nikon sell this lens for very little money, it's a very low-cost design) will give you very sharp pictures indoors with relatively low ISO settings.
If money is a big factor you might also be interested in a Pentax or Sony DSLR. They typically don't have as wide a variety of lenses, but I get the feeling you're not looking to buy professional-level lenses either
The Photo thread in the Artists Corner section just got rebooted so there's not a whole lot of photos and gear talk, and the old one is 100 pages which is pretty big, but you might want to spend some time on dpreview.com. There's a lot of discussion related to people in your exact situation.
Why does the P&S interest me eventhough I've a DSLR? Effective 24-76mm zoom, f1.8-2.4 image stabilized, hotshoe, screen pulls out and swivels (I never thought I'd want this, but on my DLSR I can only get down to about 30" off the ground, and since the kid is my primary subject I often want to go lower) no optical VF though. Sensor, though a bit larger then typically found on P&S, is still smaller then on a DSLR. No doubt Canon and Nikon will put out an updated model that directly competes, but for my kind of shooting this samsung is in the lead.
If you want to go DSLR+kit lens, Canon and Nikon have a few options for you, and the Pentax K-X looks promising. Don't be surprised if after a few months with the kit lens you feel the need to drop serious money on a lens. This one would probably put me off upgrading the camera body for years, but it won't mount on my camera.
1. Most of your photos will be taken inside.
2. Most of your photos will be portraits.
As inside rarely has enough light (despite appearing that it does) and knowing that on-camera flash is the devil and must never be used (outside of a few special situations) you desperately need a lens that will collect lots of light and a camera capable of being very sensitive to light.
Enter no entry-level DSLR+kit lens combo.
So we're going to have to stretch our dollars if they're to buy what you need. Buy used. KEH is the place to buy used camera gear in the states. They are extremely conservative with their ratings, have a very good warranty/replacement policy should the gear you get be no good and are overall a standup company that no one has ever complained about ever. You will save buckets of money and be able to buy a better camera for less over buying new.
Buy a Rebel XTi. At $350 this is a brilliant little camera for the price. Entry level Nikons lack an AF motor and despite your distaste for AF (which I am 99% certain is due to you not knowing how to use it) once you figure it out it is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread. With no AF motor your Nikon won't AF with most any older lenses that are either a fantastic value or have no "has AF on a shitty Nikon" equivalent. It does high ISO acceptably well and will autofocus with every Canon autofocus lens.
Buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II. It's fast, it's cheap and it's 100x sharper than any kit lens at equivalent apertures. This is THE cheap portrait lens and you must own it if you own a camera capable of mounting it. One caveat is that it's built like it came in a cereal box, but just don't go dropping it and it'll be fine.
Pentax/Sony/Fuji/Sigma/Samsung/Leica/Panasonic all make very interesting cameras that are excellent at what they're good at. However, none of them are good at everything the way a Canon or Nikon system is. Until you've shot for a good amount of time, have selected a niche that you like and know enough to be able to look over the bodies, lenses and accessories available from a system and go, "Yes, this will suit my needs just fine," you shouldn't buy into that system. It is quite impossible to buy a Canon system and down the line go "Damn, they don't have that lens or obscure accessory or camera capable of some ridiculous heroic I need."
I agree with everything DM says (and he's more familiar with the Canon side of things than myself, since I'm on the Nikon side and have an old D70) but wanted to draw attention to this. On-camera flash is almost always bad -- but a speedlight (aka external flash unit) can transform your photography. I have a speedlight with a diffuser on it and despite being relatively new to "upscale" photography, it truly changed how I can take pictures. It's not the sort of thing you need immediately, of course, but should certainly be something you keep in the back of your mind.
http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Digital-Camera-14-42mm-3-5-5-6/dp/B0015ASYJ8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1271920828&sr=1-1