Beginner SLR camera recommendation help

[KERdad06]

I have struggled with taking good photos for years now with various different point & shoot cameras. After being at two different sporting tournaments this weekend for my daughters, and seeing several people with nice cameras, I decided that I need to upgrade now.

One of the major struggles I have is with the sports. Many of the photos turn out blurry. I have seen people with cameras that seem to take several clicks in a matter of seconds, and wind up with great action shots.

Along with sports and action shots, I would like a camera that can (or have the capacity) to take good night shots such as fireworks also. And then the general nature shots, birthdays, etc.

I would like to keep the cost under $500-800 if possible. And also have the capability to add additional features in the future once I get better with the camera. With my daughters being 17,15, and 9, I don't want to miss any more of those important moments, they go by too fast.

Thanks in advance for the advice!

 

[havoc315]

The various entry level/mid level dSLRs can all serve you well. The Canon 4ti, the Nikon D3100/3200/5100.... The Sony A37/57.

For a consumer level dSLR, the Sony A57 does have a partial advantage for shooting sports --- It can shoot 12 frames per second. Much faster than any other dSLR in that price range. BUT, the fast shooting has some limitations. The other cameras are more like 4 or 5 frames per second, but with less limitations.
I use the slightly older model.. the Sony A55, and I love shooting my kids Tae Kwon Do with it, at 10 frames per second. Walk away with a couple hundred shots... usually easy to find a few really good shots.

 

[photo_chick]

I have struggled with taking good photos for years now with various different point & shoot cameras. After being at two different sporting tournaments this weekend for my daughters, and seeing several people with nice cameras, I decided that I need to upgrade now.

One of the major struggles I have is with the sports. Many of the photos turn out blurry. I have seen people with cameras that seem to take several clicks in a matter of seconds, and wind up with great action shots.

Along with sports and action shots, I would like a camera that can (or have the capacity) to take good night shots such as fireworks also. And then the general nature shots, birthdays, etc.

I would like to keep the cost under $500-800 if possible. And also have the capability to add additional features in the future once I get better with the camera. With my daughters being 17,15, and 9, I don't want to miss any more of those important moments, they go by too fast.

Thanks in advance for the advice!

Understand that everything you listed can be accomplished with many cameras, not just DSLR's. A basic understanding of photography can go a long way to getting all those types of shots.

Any DSLR out right now will do what you want. It's just a matter of looking at which one fits your budget, feels good in your hands and has the extra features you want. Also keep in mind lenses. If you do a lot of sports shooting, especially indoor sports, you're probably going to want more than just the kit lens.

 

[SplashMo]

The Nikon D5100 can be had online for $550 with the 18-55 kit lens. Overtime you coul sadd lenses. Sports will likely need a new lens after awhile.

 

[KERdad06]

Thanks for all of the information so far. From the research I have done on this board, as well as online in general, looks like the Nikon D5100 is very popular and has great reviews. Not that I'm stuck on this camera, but still open to any ideas.

What type of lens would I be looking for for the sporting activities? Some are indoor and some outdoors (basketball, volleyball, softball).

Also, what mm lens would be a good one to start? I'd be looking for something that would be good for across a ball field, basketball court, etc.

Thanks much, very much appreciated!

Chad

 

[photo_chick]

Thanks for all of the information so far. From the research I have done on this board, as well as online in general, looks like the Nikon D5100 is very popular and has great reviews. Not that I'm stuck on this camera, but still open to any ideas.

What type of lens would I be looking for for the sporting activities? Some are indoor and some outdoors (basketball, volleyball, softball).

Also, what mm lens would be a good one to start? I'd be looking for something that would be good for across a ball field, basketball court, etc.

Thanks much, very much appreciated!

Chad

Keep in mind that Canon has some great discounts right now until 2/2/13.

For sports I'd skip the temptation to go with the all in one lenses... an example is the the 18-200... many are going to be to be too slow on the telephoto end for sports in anything less than bright daylight.

Many entry level DSLR's come with the 18-55 mm lens. Many people pair that with a 55-250mm (or similar) lens. This is a good setup to cover your focal lengths but some find that it will be lacking for indoor sports.. the combination of low light and fast shutter speeds don't favor the entry level lenses. I personally have no problem getting the job done using entry level lenses in indoor sports situations but it takes a little know and experience how to pull those shots out of the camera sometimes. They're often not the types of shots that will come out well on auto with any camera. The other option for a telephoto zoom that's often recommended is a 70-200 f/2.8, no doubt someone will tell you it's essential for indoor or night sports and while I'll agree they make life easier I don't think the $1000+ price tag is worth it for a new photographer. Unless you just happen to have that kind of cash to drop on a lens.

 

[mikegood2]

Keep in mind that Canon has some great discounts right now until 2/2/13.

For sports I'd skip the temptation to go with the all in one lenses... an example is the the 18-200... many are going to be to be too slow on the telephoto end for sports in anything less than bright daylight.

Many entry level DSLR's come with the 18-55 mm lens. Many people pair that with a 55-250mm (or similar) lens. This is a good setup to cover your focal lengths but some find that it will be lacking for indoor sports.. the combination of low light and fast shutter speeds don't favor the entry level lenses. I personally have no problem getting the job done using entry level lenses in indoor sports situations but it takes a little know and experience how to pull those shots out of the camera sometimes. They're often not the types of shots that will come out well on auto with any camera. The other option for a telephoto zoom that's often recommended is a 70-200 f/2.8, no doubt someone will tell you it's essential for indoor or night sports and while I'll agree they make life easier I don't think the $1000+ price tag is worth it for a new photographer. Unless you just happen to have that kind of cash to drop on a lens.

Agree with everything above.

The first question I usually ask someone who's looking for a new dSlr camera is If they have any friends or family who have one? If you do you may want to purchase the same brand. They can be very useful in helping you understand how the camera works and if you're lucky you could maybe borrow a lens or two from them.

Another reality is sports photography is one of the more difficult and sadly more expensive types of photography. Like photochick stated above, a good lens can easily cost more than the camera.

I would look into an entry level DSLR with kit lens and add something like a 55-250mm. I'm not sure what kind of deals can be found on Nikons, but thru the end of the month(?) you can get a entry canon t3i or t4i with kit and get $150 instant savings on the 55-250mm lens (if purchased at the same time). You will definitely get better results out of this than you are out of you p&s. I think that combo would be a great point to start, get a feel for it and you can always add "better" lenses in the future.

I would also suggest picking up a monopod, which will help stabilize your shots. It might even help with your current camera.

Sent from my iPad mini using DISBoards

 

[caa1277]

I have struggled with taking good photos for years now with various different point & shoot cameras. After being at two different sporting tournaments this weekend for my daughters, and seeing several people with nice cameras, I decided that I need to upgrade now.

One of the major struggles I have is with the sports. Many of the photos turn out blurry. I have seen people with cameras that seem to take several clicks in a matter of seconds, and wind up with great action shots.

Along with sports and action shots, I would like a camera that can (or have the capacity) to take good night shots such as fireworks also. And then the general nature shots, birthdays, etc.

I would like to keep the cost under $500-800 if possible. And also have the capability to add additional features in the future once I get better with the camera. With my daughters being 17,15, and 9, I don't want to miss any more of those important moments, they go by too fast.

Thanks in advance for the advice!

These folks on here have a wealth of knowledge and have helped me out tremendously with my camera decision.

I am partial to Canon, one because its the brand of dslr's that I use at work and two because I believe that they are more user friendly and easier to use. That's just my opinion though. As some others have said, the best thing to do is to go to a local camera store and look at the various models in your price range and play with them and see how it feels to you.

I'm looking into getting my first personal dslr and have decided on the Canon T4i. The only thing that I haven't decided on yet is to get it with the 18-55mm lens or the 18-135mm lens. It's about a $210 difference, so I'm trying to research it and ask a ton of questions to learn if it's worth the extra $$ or not. I'm leaning toward the 18-135mm package.

In the end, it's your decision and like many things in life, our decisions are based on what we can afford. With your budget, you can get a very nice entry level dslr. Go to the stores and play with the cameras. You'll find the camera that will fit your needs.

By the way, nice name!

 

[havoc315]

Thanks for all of the information so far. From the research I have done on this board, as well as online in general, looks like the Nikon D5100 is very popular and has great reviews. Not that I'm stuck on this camera, but still open to any ideas.

What type of lens would I be looking for for the sporting activities? Some are indoor and some outdoors (basketball, volleyball, softball).

Also, what mm lens would be a good one to start? I'd be looking for something that would be good for across a ball field, basketball court, etc.

Thanks much, very much appreciated!

Chad

The d5100 is a great camera. In terms of pure image quality alone, it's the best of the bunch. Comparing it to the Sony I shoot with, the image quality is slightly better rated, but the burst shooting for sports is much slower (4fps vs 12fps)

Nothing wrong with starting with the included kit lens. It will do ok for most of your every day shots.

For sports, you want a telephoto zoom that goes to at least 200mm. For indoor sports, a "fast" lens is strongly preferred but such lenses get very expensive. ($1,000+)

An ideal lens for indoor sports would zoom to 200mm with a constant aperture of 2.8. I can't afford a lens like that, but I use an old used Minolta lens that zooms to 210mm with a constant f4 (1 stop slower but $150 vs $2000 ). Don't think Nikon has an equivalent lens but here is a link to Tom Bricker's Nikon lens reviews.


************************************camera-lens-buying-guide/

 

[havoc315]

These folks on here have a wealth of knowledge and have helped me out tremendously with my camera decision.

I am partial to Canon, one because its the brand of dslr's that I use at work and two because I believe that they are more user friendly and easier to use. That's just my opinion though. As some others have said, the best thing to do is to go to a local camera store and look at the various models in your price range and play with them and see how it feels to you.

I'm looking into getting my first personal dslr and have decided on the Canon T4i. The only thing that I haven't decided on yet is to get it with the 18-55mm lens or the 18-135mm lens. It's about a $210 difference, so I'm trying to research it and ask a ton of questions to learn if it's worth the extra $$ or not. I'm leaning toward the 18-135mm package.

In the end, it's your decision and like many things in life, our decisions are based on what we can afford. With your budget, you can get a very nice entry level dslr. Go to the stores and play with the cameras. You'll find the camera that will fit your needs.

By the way, nice name!

If you shoot a ton of video, the 18-135 is nice for the silent motor.
If getting more telephoto reach is your priority, then I'd consider getting the 18-55, and also buying the 55-250.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

<snip>Understand that everything you listed can be accomplished with many cameras, not just DSLR's. A basic understanding of photography can go a long way to getting all those types of shots.

<snip>

This is the best advice in this thread, and the one piece everybody either chooses to ignore, or simply chooses to believe that there's some sort of magic in a secret camera and if they search long enough, it will simply fall into their laps.

Understanding Exposure is worth its weight in gold to anyone truly wanting to understand how to take great photos. Until someone has spent time studying that book, everything else is just throwing good money at a bad problem.

Period.

 

[havoc315]

This is the best advice in this thread, and the one piece everybody either chooses to ignore, or simply chooses to believe that there's some sort of magic in a secret camera and if they search long enough, it will simply fall into their laps.

Understanding Exposure is worth its weight in gold to anyone truly wanting to understand how to take great photos. Until someone has spent time studying that book, everything else is just throwing good money at a bad problem.

Period.

Agree with this. As Photochick said, you don't *necessarily* need a dSLR. There are some capable Point&shoots, bridge cameras, and there are mirrorless cameras that can deliver dSLR quality.
But for the type of shooting you are seeking, a dSLR is the best bet, IF you are planning on taking a little time to really learn how to use it. Not saying you need to study towards a PhD in photography, but the recommended book is a great start.
Combine a bit of learning with the right gear, and you can get great results.

 

[traylorc]

This is the best advice in this thread, and the one piece everybody either chooses to ignore, or simply chooses to believe that there's some sort of magic in a secret camera and if they search long enough, it will simply fall into their laps.

Understanding Exposure is worth its weight in gold to anyone truly wanting to understand how to take great photos. Until someone has spent time studying that book, everything else is just throwing good money at a bad problem.

Period.

I wholeheartedly agree with Wilsonflyer. Bottom line is that if you do not have a basic understanding of photography, if you do not have a basic understanding of how changing aperture, shutter speed, ISO will impact your shots, then upgrading to a SLR will not improve your photography. I recommend reading Understanding Exposure.

To the OP....don't fall into the trap of believing a more expensive camera will solve your all of your photography problems. That's one of the biggest myths that ranks up there with Big Foot sightings and alien abductions. Take the time to improve your knowledge about basic photography and your shots will improve. You don't want to upgrade to a SLR only to find yourself still taking blurry pictures with a more expensive camera.

Good luck!

 

[photo_chick]

This is the best advice in this thread, and the one piece everybody either chooses to ignore, or simply chooses to believe that there's some sort of magic in a secret camera and if they search long enough, it will simply fall into their laps.

Understanding Exposure is worth its weight in gold to anyone truly wanting to understand how to take great photos. Until someone has spent time studying that book, everything else is just throwing good money at a bad problem.

Period.

Amen.

Most of y'all already know I'm a huge advocate for education in photography. Honestly it's because I see all these image that people take that could be really great shots... if only they'd learned just a little bit about how their camera works.

Understanding Exposure is a great book. And once you really get the relationship between shutter speed, ISO and aperture and learn how they each affect the image you'll know how to get the shots you want with any camera. Even models that only have auto modes... you'll understand how to push those modes to do what you want. Having a handle on that relationship will also tell you what lenses will benefit you the most with an interchangeable lens camera. It's basic knowledge when it comes to photography and it can make such a huge difference in the images you end up with. And many people never take the time to learn it.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Another reality is sports photography is one of the more difficult and sadly more expensive types of photography. Like photochick stated above, a good lens can easily cost more than the camera.

There is a lot of truth in this statement. Being a motorsports photographer (and other sports a little less), we shoot in some of the more difficult lighting conditions. Photography is all about controlling the light and with sports we don't control the light. Indoor auditoriums are famous for bad lighting conditions. This is one cause of the expense because of the need for fast lenses. As long as you have reasonable expectations and a camera with usable high ISO, you can use a slow consumer zoom to obtain reasonable results that may require some post processing. You will need some photography knowledge to obtain these results. I, like the other posters, would recommend Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson as a must read. While knowledge is very important, there is always an equipment component. If one of your requirements is sports, then I would recommend looking at cameras that have high usable ISO. In the APS-C realm, the cameras with the Sony 16mp sensor (Nikon D5100, D7000, Pentax K-30, K5 series, and some of the Sony's (I am not familar with their model #'s) have had great reviews. There is a new Sony 24mp sensor that until the introduction of the Nikon D5200 had (to my knowledge) only been in the Sony SLT cameras. The downside to the Sony is that they are not true DSLR's using a translucent mirror technology which slightly hurts the low light capabilities of the camera. I have not seen a full review of the 24mp sensor in a DSLR (Nikon D5200). I know very little about the Canon line of sensors in their APS-C cameras. I will leave that to the Canon shooters. Until I see a real world APS-C DSLR 24mp review, for sports, I would recommend a camera with the 16 mp sensor, Nikon D5100/7000, Pentax K30/K5. Canon shooters, please weigh in!

 

[DSLRuser]

The problem is not your equipment, the camera. the problem is you, the photographer.

Any DSLR has the ability to take the action shots you describe. But you the phtographer have to set the camera up correctly.

Youtube is your freind. Search and learn what these 3 things mean and how the affect your shots.

ISO = (film or ccd light sesativity)
Aperture = (how much light gets in the camera)
Shutter speed = (how long the film or ccd see the light)

all 3 of these affect each other. RTFM (read the freaking manual) and know how to make these adjustments on you camera. Then learn when and how to make the adjustments.

Seriously...tons of easy to grasp info on youtube for beginers

Photography is 85% phtographer and 15% camera.

 

[havoc315]

If one of your requirements is sports, then I would recommend looking at cameras that have high usable ISO. In the APS-C realm, the cameras with the Sony 16mp sensor (Nikon D5100, D7000, Pentax K-30, K5 series, and some of the Sony's (I am not familar with their model #'s) have had great reviews. There is a new Sony 24mp sensor that until the introduction of the Nikon D5200 had (to my knowledge) only been in the Sony SLT cameras. The downside to the Sony is that they are not true DSLR's using a translucent mirror technology which slightly hurts the low light capabilities of the camera. I have not seen a full review of the 24mp sensor in a DSLR (Nikon D5200). I know very little about the Canon line of sensors in their APS-C cameras. I will leave that to the Canon shooters. Until I see a real world APS-C DSLR 24mp review, for sports, I would recommend a camera with the 16 mp sensor, Nikon D5100/7000, Pentax K30/K5. Canon shooters, please weigh in!

Between first hand experience and DXOmark ratings...
I can say that the Sony SLT does have some pros and cons. They do use the same sensors as the Nikons. They have higher ISO availability than some of the Nikons, but it's isn't necessarily the most use-able. The translucent mirror in the SLTs does hurt noise performance slightly.
For me, noise starts to be a problem above 1600. At 1600, you see a bit, but it really isn't bad. I know Nikons can go higher without noise. DXO scores indicate the SLTs start to have noise around 800, while the comparable Nikons are more in the 1000-1200 range.
Canons aren't quite as good for noise performance as either the Sony or the Nikon.

I agree, that if you aren't going to invest in a very expensive lens, then you will need a camera with good ISO capability.

I'll leave the Pentax to gianna'spapa, as I'm less familiar with the brand.
I can say that the Nikon can be great for indoor sports, due to the useable ISO.
Sony SLTs can be good for the burst shooting modes.

 

[mikegood2]

Like others have stated a basic understanding of lighting, exposure and your camera can make a huge impact on the quality of your photos. As you increase your understanding the you will find that your ratio of good versus bad photos will also increase.

After that the best advice for shooting sports is shoot, shoot and shoot. If you end up buying a DSLR than take advantage if your burst mode. SD cards are dirt cheap now and with a little looking you can get them under a buck a gigabyte, but buy class 10 named brands (SanDisk, Lexar, Kingston, Transcend).

Also, if you seeing someone else's good shots your likely not seeing their bad shots. When I shoot, and I'm sure many others posting here are the same way, I only like to show my good shots. When I import my photos I would say 1/4 to 1/2 might get thrown away (blurry, out of focus, duplicates, subject out of frame, etc.). As far as "great shots" are considered, if you get one 10% of your shots you are doing very good.

Sent from my iPad mini using DISBoards

 

[DSLRuser]

. When I import my photos I would say 1/4 to 1/2 might get thrown away (blurry, out of focus, duplicates, subject out of frame, etc.). As far as "great shots" are considered, if you get one 10% of your shots you are doing very good.

LOL. I can't bring myself to delete my crap photos. I keep tellingmyself, "some day i will need an underexposed picture of my feet"...or some other random test shot.

 

[mikegood2]

LOL. I can't bring myself to delete my crap photos. I keep tellingmyself, "some day i will need an underexposed picture of my feet"...or some other random test shot.

It's OK to delete your underexposed picture of your feet, you won't need it, but someday you may need an out of focus underexposed picture of your feet, To be serious though, it's much easier to throw away some photos is you have better shots similar to it!

The reality is that when you look at photos that most people who take photography more seriously on Facebook or flicker tend to be their good or better shots. We don't usually see the ones that didn't make the cut, and their are a lot more of those. I think too often people see those shots and think most photos that person shoots are that quality.

Sent from my iPad mini using DISBoards