Can someone just tell me which camera to buy?

[SkaGoat]

Most camera AF systems can't autofocus with an aperture smaller than about 6.3.
Thus the camera needs to open the aperture between each burst shot to continuously AF.

It's f/5.6 with Canon. Basically the AF system relies on contrast to figure out if the subject is in focus, if the aperture is too small, there isn't enough light to achieve reliable AF. People will run into this mostly when using tele-converters or extensions tubes.

So basically what happens in a burst is it's opens the aperture to wide open, meters the scene, focuses the subjects, does math to determine where the subject will be when it opens the shutter (if set to continuous focus), pops up the mirror, closes the shutter, stops the lens down, opens the shutter, closes the shutter after either the metered amount of time, or the set amount of time (depending on settings), then drops the mirror, and repeats the process.

It's got to do math to meter the scene (if not in Manual), and also has to calculate where the subject has moved to, all of this in 1/8th of a second to achieve 8 fps.

 

[webshark3]

I love how the non-technical OP asks for an opinion on 3 cameras, of which they'll probably never use outside AUTO or with the kit lens.

and the ensuing, non-stop, technical debate and X brand has a billions lenses...

Honestly, I'd be right in the heat of the debate a few years ago. But two years ago I took nothing but a Canon s95 and last year a Sony RX100 as my only video/still camera. Actually, my SLR has sat on the shelf since I got the RX100. It's proved to be the extremely capable (and accessible for Disney with very little weight).

I used to agree that a SLR was a must. But now there's some great compacts that can match 90% of what my old Rebel could do.

 

[havoc315]

It's f/5.6 with Canon. Basically the AF system relies on contrast to figure out if the subject is in focus, if the aperture is too small, there isn't enough light to achieve reliable AF. People will run into this mostly when using tele-converters or extensions tubes.

So basically what happens in a burst is it's opens the aperture to wide open, meters the scene, focuses the subjects, does math to determine where the subject will be when it opens the shutter (if set to continuous focus), pops up the mirror, closes the shutter, stops the lens down, opens the shutter, closes the shutter after either the metered amount of time, or the set amount of time (depending on settings), then drops the mirror, and repeats the process.

It's got to do math to meter the scene (if not in Manual), and also has to calculate where the subject has moved to, all of this in 1/8th of a second to achieve 8 fps.

All correct. And the Sony dSLTs can shoot at a fast burst rate, without the expensive complexities of a camera like the 1DX, because it gets to skip 1 of those steps -- It doesn't need to raise and drop a mirror. By cutting out that step, it more easily achieves 8-12 fps.
A big reason the 1DX is so expensive, is the requirements to achieve high burst rates in the more traditional fashion.

 

[havoc315]

I love how the non-technical OP asks for an opinion on 3 cameras, of which they'll probably never use outside AUTO or with the kit lens.

and the ensuing, non-stop, technical debate and X brand has a billions lenses...

Honestly, I'd be right in the heat of the debate a few years ago. But two years ago I took nothing but a Canon s95 and last year a Sony RX100 as my only video/still camera. Actually, my SLR has sat on the shelf since I got the RX100. It's proved to be the extremely capable (and accessible for Disney with very little weight).

I used to agree that a SLR was a must. But now there's some great compacts that can match 90% of what my old Rebel could do.

I felt that way when I got my RX100 --- It could match or surpass 90% of what I used my 2006 dSLR model for.

But while the RX100 and others can match or surpass an old dSLR... a new dSLR can perform even better.

Just looking at ISO alone, my old camera really couldn't be used over ISO 800. The RX100 feels pretty good 1600-3200 and even passable at 6400. Meanwhile, my current newer full frame dSLR, is still great at 6400, acceptable at 12800, and can be passable even higher.

 

[webshark3]

I felt that way when I got my RX100 --- It could match or surpass 90% of what I used my 2006 dSLR model for.

But while the RX100 and others can match or surpass an old dSLR... a new dSLR can perform even better.

Just looking at ISO alone, my old camera really couldn't be used over ISO 800. The RX100 feels pretty good 1600-3200 and even passable at 6400. Meanwhile, my current newer full frame dSLR, is still great at 6400, acceptable at 12800, and can be passable even higher.

Agree with you there. I would love the higher ISO and full frame sensor in the Haunted mansion.

 

[photo_chick]

I think I've narrowed it down to 3. They are all in the price range I am comfortable with, but I feel like I am getting lost in the technical jargon that I don't yet understand.

I have no intentions of becoming a professional. I would just like to take nice shots of my kids playing soccer, at a dance recital, etc. and get some good travel pics. (I realize that lenses play into this as well.) Video capabilities are not a make or break for me. It's not something I would use often.

I don't want or need top of the line, but don't want to be wishing for more as I gain a bit of experience. I found a great book that I hope will help me to take less "amateur" looking photos, but I need some guidance as to what equipment to start out with.

Here's what I'm looking at. Thanks for any insight you can offer.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BW6LY2Y/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=AN1X63VFEFLKO

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JW1ZCII/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

http://www.qvc.com/webapp/wcs/store...gId=-1&catalogId=10151&UDC=TSV&MSG=TSV_BUNDLE

I'm waaay late to the party but since this has veered way off OP's original question it seems like a good time to bring it back.

OP... I'm a dance mom with about ten years experience shooting dance and about years 30 just learning about photography. Of the things you listed dance will be the toughest to shoot.

Before I go any further... are you going to take it off auto and invest in lenses beyond the kit? If not you might want to save the money and get a high end point and shoot with a wide aperture. It will give you better results shooting dance than an entry level DSLR with entry level kit and tele lenses.

Now... are you a backstage mom and does your dance studio provide reserved seating in the front for backstage moms? Our studio gives the first 4 rows for us. This means that at recital I don't need a long telephoto lens. I use a 28-105 f/4 and it serves me very well for our spring recital. At other events though a long lens does come in handy.

Also... how are the events you're wanting to shoot lit? I've found dance competitions (the few you can actually shoot at) are very well lit. Our spring recital with the dance studio is pretty well lit. The events at the fine arts academy where my daughter goes to school are not as well lit. At the brighter events my f/4 lenses are more than adequate. At the less well lighted events I find I really need another stop and I tend to rent an f/2.8 lens. My point here is that you can get by with an entry level lens at some events. Others not so much. It just depends on the situation.

Much has been said about image stabilization in this thread. To me it's a moot point for dance. Your dancer is moving. IS is not really going to help you out there. Other situations it is handy though. As far is in lens or in-body IS... in lens IS makes me nauseous so I have it turned off on my lenses most of the time unless I absolutely need it. So for me in body IS would have a big pro right there since the view finder is not affected.

The Canon 70-300 was mentioned. This is not a horrid lens. It's the Canon 75-300 that's the truly awful muddy elephant that leaves purple fringe on everything. They are two different lenses and the 70-300 costs twice as much as the 75-300.

As to the original question about which camera to buy... no one can answer that for you. You have to weigh the features you want with your budget then look at what fits in your hands. If you buy it based on what someone else tells you to then you're very likely to end up with the wrong camera for you.

 

[SkaGoat]

I'm waaay late to the party but since this has veered way off OP's original question it seems like a good time to bring it back.

OP... I'm a dance mom with about ten years experience shooting dance and about years 30 just learning about photography. Of the things you listed dance will be the toughest to shoot.

Before I go any further... are you going to take it off auto and invest in lenses beyond the kit? If not you might want to save the money and get a high end point and shoot with a wide aperture. It will give you better results shooting dance than an entry level DSLR with entry level kit and tele lenses.

Now... are you a backstage mom and does your dance studio provide reserved seating in the front for backstage moms? Our studio gives the first 4 rows for us. This means that at recital I don't need a long telephoto lens. I use a 28-105 f/4 and it serves me very well for our spring recital. At other events though a long lens does come in handy.

Also... how are the events you're wanting to shoot lit? I've found dance competitions (the few you can actually shoot at) are very well lit. Our spring recital with the dance studio is pretty well lit. The events at the fine arts academy where my daughter goes to school are not as well lit. At the brighter events my f/4 lenses are more than adequate. At the less well lighted events I find I really need another stop and I tend to rent an f/2.8 lens. My point here is that you can get by with an entry level lens at some events. Others not so much. It just depends on the situation.

Much has been said about image stabilization in this thread. To me it's a moot point for dance. Your dancer is moving. IS is not really going to help you out there. Other situations it is handy though. As far is in lens or in-body IS... in lens IS makes me nauseous so I have it turned off on my lenses most of the time unless I absolutely need it. So for me in body IS would have a big pro right there since the view finder is not affected.

The Canon 70-300 was mentioned. This is not a horrid lens. It's the Canon 75-300 that's the truly awful muddy elephant that leaves purple fringe on everything. They are two different lenses and the 70-300 costs twice as much as the 75-300.

As to the original question about which camera to buy... no one can answer that for you. You have to weigh the features you want with your budget then look at what fits in your hands. If you buy it based on what someone else tells you to then you're very likely to end up with the wrong camera for you.

Me? Take a thread off topic? Never....

I'm glad you chimed in, you are one of the people I know that has a lot of dance recital experience (I have none...)

I do have the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. It's great, sharp for the price. I've also read the 55-250mm IS STM is a good lens for the price as well.

 

[photo_chick]

Me? Take a thread off topic? Never....

I'm glad you chimed in, you are one of the people I know that has a lot of dance recital experience (I have none...)

I do have the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. It's great, sharp for the price. I've also read the 55-250mm IS STM is a good lens for the price as well.

Yeah. I've never derailed a thread. Ever.

Thank to my DD I have shot a lot of dance. Between her school and studio performances it seems like we're at an event every weekend most of the school year. It's given me many opportunities to learn what works and what doesn't.

 

[amomma23]

...And this is why I still have no idea what camera I want/need.

I've literally lost sleep over reading reviews, watching youtube videos, reading actual books and even making the trek to "play" with as many as I could find in real life. The best part, none of my original 3 are currently in the running.

I've got a better handle on what I want compared to what's available in my budget. I'm trying not to play the Disney trip game. You know for just a little more $$ we could add this and then for just a little more $$ we could stay here. I'm seriously considering Nikon D3300, Nikon D7000, and Pentax K-50. At this point, I think I just need to pick one and go with it. I would very much like to start reading about taking great pictures instead of reading about what equipment to buy.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

...And this is why I still have no idea what camera I want/need.

I've literally lost sleep over reading reviews, watching youtube videos, reading actual books and even making the trek to "play" with as many as I could find in real life. The best part, none of my original 3 are currently in the running.

I've got a better handle on what I want compared to what's available in my budget. I'm trying not to play the Disney trip game. You know for just a little more $$ we could add this and then for just a little more $$ we could stay here. I'm seriously considering Nikon D3300, Nikon D7000, and Pentax K-50. At this point, I think I just need to pick one and go with it. I would very much like to start reading about taking great pictures instead of reading about what equipment to buy.

All 3 are capable of doing what you mentioned in your first post. I know that I had all kinds of worries when I bought my first Sony DSLR back in 2008 - the reviews and other comments really would make a person think they had just made the utmost worst decision ever. But - I just used it, loved it and haven't been sorry at all for going with it. Still shooting Sony and haven't felt I've missed a thing - quite the opposite actually.

 

[havoc315]

...And this is why I still have no idea what camera I want/need.

I've literally lost sleep over reading reviews, watching youtube videos, reading actual books and even making the trek to "play" with as many as I could find in real life. The best part, none of my original 3 are currently in the running.

I've got a better handle on what I want compared to what's available in my budget. I'm trying not to play the Disney trip game. You know for just a little more $$ we could add this and then for just a little more $$ we could stay here. I'm seriously considering Nikon D3300, Nikon D7000, and Pentax K-50. At this point, I think I just need to pick one and go with it. I would very much like to start reading about taking great pictures instead of reading about what equipment to buy.

All great cameras. If you see yourself as mostly using your dSLR as an amateur point and shooter, then I might go with the d3300. If you see yourself really diving in and advancing in photography, then I'd go with the Pentax or d7000.

 

[photo_chick]

...And this is why I still have no idea what camera I want/need.

I've literally lost sleep over reading reviews, watching youtube videos, reading actual books and even making the trek to "play" with as many as I could find in real life. The best part, none of my original 3 are currently in the running.

I've got a better handle on what I want compared to what's available in my budget. I'm trying not to play the Disney trip game. You know for just a little more $$ we could add this and then for just a little more $$ we could stay here. I'm seriously considering Nikon D3300, Nikon D7000, and Pentax K-50. At this point, I think I just need to pick one and go with it. I would very much like to start reading about taking great pictures instead of reading about what equipment to buy.

Any DLSR on the market can get the shots you want with the right lens and knowledge. Just pick the one that fits best in your hands if you really have no idea which to go with.

 

[mom2rtk]

Any DLSR on the market can get the shots you want with the right lens and knowledge. Just pick the one that fits best in your hands if you really have no idea which to go with.

Just pick one and don't look back!

 

[havoc315]

Any DLSR on the market can get the shots you want with the right lens and knowledge. Just pick the one that fits best in your hands if you really have no idea which to go with.

Not totally that simple. Of course, I agree that with the right knowledge, you can get any shot with any recent dSLR..

But the D3300 has some disadvantages in terms of long-term photography development compared to the other cameras, that might not be apparent to a layperson just holding the camera in their hand... but might lead to a regrettable decision a year or 2 later if their photography knowledge has really advanced.

-THe D3300 lacks auto-exposure bracketing. For me personally, that would stop me from buying the camera. Without auto bracketing, it really complicates doing HDR. (Forget about ever doing it handheld.. and it will take much longer as you need to manually make the changes while on a tripod).
-The D7000 and I believe the Pentax both have dual control dials. This is not critical for most users, and I *could* live without it... but it is definitely a plus when shooting fully manually, as it allows quick adjustments to both shutter speed and aperture. I find it much more cumbersome with one dial. A total newbie might ask, "who the heck really needs that second dial?" But if your photography advances, it's nice to have.
-The D7000 has an in-camera focus motor, the D3300 doesn't. This is probably a non-issue for most newer photographers, who will likely only buy newer lenses with in-lens motors. But if you want to venture into older used Nikon lenses, or share/borrow lenses from a long-time Nikon shooter, you need to have that in-camera focus motor.
- Weather sealing -- Yes on the Pentax and Nikon D7000... no on the D3300.

These differences are significant enough to me, to say it comes down to a bit more than which fits best in your hands. If none of the above matters to you, then which fits best in your hands, lol.

 

[photo_chick]

Not totally that simple. Of course, I agree that with the right knowledge, you can get any shot with any recent dSLR..

But the D3300 has some disadvantages in terms of long-term photography development compared to the other cameras, that might not be apparent to a layperson just holding the camera in their hand... but might lead to a regrettable decision a year or 2 later if their photography knowledge has really advanced.

-THe D3300 lacks auto-exposure bracketing. For me personally, that would stop me from buying the camera. Without auto bracketing, it really complicates doing HDR. (Forget about ever doing it handheld.. and it will take much longer as you need to manually make the changes while on a tripod).
-The D7000 and I believe the Pentax both have dual control dials. This is not critical for most users, and I *could* live without it... but it is definitely a plus when shooting fully manually, as it allows quick adjustments to both shutter speed and aperture. I find it much more cumbersome with one dial. A total newbie might ask, "who the heck really needs that second dial?" But if your photography advances, it's nice to have.
-The D7000 has an in-camera focus motor, the D3300 doesn't. This is probably a non-issue for most newer photographers, who will likely only buy newer lenses with in-lens motors. But if you want to venture into older used Nikon lenses, or share/borrow lenses from a long-time Nikon shooter, you need to have that in-camera focus motor.
- Weather sealing -- Yes on the Pentax and Nikon D7000... no on the D3300.

These differences are significant enough to me, to say it comes down to a bit more than which fits best in your hands. If none of the above matters to you, then which fits best in your hands, lol.

To someone who doesn't know how to use the features yet, a novice user who will be doing good to get it off auto and be consistently successful in the first 6 months even with diligent study, the specs usually mean very little. Those features you're nit picking really don't amount to anything if you don't already know how to use them to your benefit. It's overthinking it. You and I get into those things but it's information overload for a novice shooter. And it's not like the camera is that huge a part of the equation anyway. It's just a tool. Getting the shot is 90% the photographer, 10% the camera.

So yeah. If you really have no idea which way to go pick which one feels best in your hands. Because if it doesn't feel good you're not going to use it. Then down the road when you understand more about the technical side of things if the camera you picked doesn't meet your needs then sell it and buy a new one. It's that simple.

Edited to add... A little OT but I cannot believe exposure bracketing is a criteria for choosing a camera. I bracket all the time but have never used the bracketing feature on any camera. I simply decide which way I want to alter it (shutter, ISO or aperture) and adjust accordingly. But my camera is set up in whole stops as well so it makes that easier anyway. I can change it as fast as my shutter will fire.

 

[havoc315]

To someone who doesn't know how to use the features yet, a novice user who will be doing good to get it off auto and be consistently successful in the first 6 months even with diligent study, the specs usually mean very little. Those features you're nit picking really don't amount to anything if you don't already know how to use them to your benefit. It's overthinking it. You and I get into those things but it's information overload for a novice shooter. And it's not like the camera is that huge a part of the equation anyway. It's just a tool. Getting the shot is 90% the photographer, 10% the camera.

So yeah. If you really have no idea which way to go pick which one feels best in your hands. Because if it doesn't feel good you're not going to use it. Then down the road when you understand more about the technical side of things if the camera you picked doesn't meet your needs then sell it and buy a new one. It's that simple.

Edited to add... A little OT but I cannot believe exposure bracketing is a criteria for choosing a camera. I bracket all the time but have never used the bracketing feature on any camera. I simply decide which way I want to alter it (shutter, ISO or aperture) and adjust accordingly. But my camera is set up in whole stops as well so it makes that easier anyway. I can change it as fast as my shutter will fire.

You can change the exposure, while hand holding the camera steady enough to capture the identical scene, 5 times in under a second?

I'm not second guessing your skill... But that doesn't sound possible

My camera lets me capture 5 bracketed shots in under a second. With my old camera without effective auto bracketing, I needed a tripod to do real HDR, and needed a static scene. Now I can do it handheld.

 

[SkaGoat]

You can change the exposure, while hand holding the camera steady enough to capture the identical scene, 5 times in under a second?

I'm not second guessing your skill... But that doesn't sound possible

My camera lets me capture 5 bracketed shots in under a second. With my old camera without effective auto bracketing, I needed a tripod to do real HDR, and needed a static scene. Now I can do it handheld.

The OP wants a DSLR to take photos of her kids at recitals, while playing sports, and while traveling, hardly any of these requires auto exposure bracketing.

Weather sealing, while nice to have, isn't a necessity, it also is only truly sealed if you use a weather sealed lens.

I feel the important factors for her are size, weight, how it feels in your hand, availability of affordable lenses.

IMO D3300,D5200, SL1, T5i, Sony a6000, (don't know enough about about Pentax to recommend a model).

If you're going to be lugging it around to gyms, arenas, soccer fields, vacations etc... a long with all the other crap that kids need, you're not going to want to lug around a big D7000.

D3300= .95 lbs
D7000= 1.7lbs
SL1= .90 lbs
T5i= 1.28 lbs
70D= 1.66 lbs
a6000= .76 lbs

 

[boBQuincy]

-THe D3300 lacks auto-exposure bracketing. For me personally, that would stop me from buying the camera. Without auto bracketing, it really complicates doing HDR. (Forget about ever doing it handheld.. and it will take much longer as you need to manually make the changes while on a tripod).

I am going to line up on Havoc's side this time and agree that bracketing is a really useful feature, useful enough that I would not consider the D3300. If I were buying a camera to learn on and planned on getting another in a year it might not be a big issue but if I were planning on keeping the camera for years (which I usually do) I would want to spend a bit extra to make sure it has this feature.

Whether it is for HDR or just for exposure bracketing, I use this a *lot*.

 

[photo_chick]

I'm not saying bracketing isn't useful if it's a feature you want it. Just that it seems odd to me to be the a reason to disqualify an otherwise great camera when you can get around it very easily. I strongly suspect there are also other reasons havoc wouldn't choose that particular camera than just the bracketing.


And havoc I can change the settings when my camera is on a tripod fast enough to get it done for HDR. I wouldn't shoot multiple exposures for HDR hand held if I wanted to capture the same identical frame even using a burst mode and auto bracketing. Now if I'm willing to line those exposures up in Photoshop and crop a little first to make it all fit nicely together then that's a whole other situation. But we all do things differently.

 

[havoc315]

I'm not saying bracketing isn't useful if it's a feature you want it. Just that it seems odd to me to be the a reason to disqualify an otherwise great camera when you can get around it very easily. I strongly suspect there are also other reasons havoc wouldn't choose that particular camera than just the bracketing.


And havoc I can change the settings when my camera is on a tripod fast enough to get it done for HDR. I wouldn't shoot multiple exposures for HDR hand held if I wanted to capture the same identical frame even using a burst mode and auto bracketing. Now if I'm willing to line those exposures up in Photoshop and crop a little first to make it all fit nicely together then that's a whole other situation. But we all do things differently.

I never suggested it should disqualify the camera for OP. It would personally disqualify it for me, because I routinely do handheld HDR shooting and there really isn't any efficient work around. (I rarely lug around a tripod).

I was pointing out that features are not irrelevant, and it does go beyond the feel in the hands (which is indeed important itself).

So OP should consider whether any of the feature differences are likely to matter to her in the present or near future.

Different features matter to different people. There are people who put great value on wifi for the instant sharing of photos -- irrevelevant to me. We all place value on different things. That's why there is room for so many different camera models at different prices.

Handheld HDR.. Couldn't have done these with the D3300..

Grand Central Tourists by Havoc315, on Flickr

Day at Citi Field by Havoc315, on Flickr

lpark3.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr