Looking for a new camera- DSLR

[MHolleman]

I currently have a Sony bridge camera (h9 model). I am looking to upgrade after the first of the year when the tax money will come in. I have played a lot with the manual settings on this camera, but I want MORE!! The things that I am looking for are pictures that look better in low light and hopefully some dark ride pics that look decent when I go to Disney World again. SO I guess a camera that can handle higher ISO's without a lot of noise (or at least clean up well with the noise ninja). I am looking at the Nikon D90, but will gladly look at other models if anyone has a good suggestion. Not set on anything at this point. Also....what lenses should I look at getting. I want low light pictures as well as a lense for my kids soccer games and dance recitals or competitions. Thanks for a any and all help

Melissa

 

[ukcatfan]

It sounds like any DSLR will meet your needs. What it all really comes down to is if a particular model and brand suit you best. You need to thin about how far you are going to go with this hobby. Even though I am a Pentax fan, if you think you are going to use this to become a professional in a couple years, then Nikon and Canon are the best options. If professional aspirations are not on you horizon then your brand options are more open.

I have to give my obligatory plug for Pentax here. I have had my K100D for three years now and am very happy with it. Also, the lens choices have increased a lot in that time. That used to be one of the reason people never recommended the likes of Pentax, Sony, Olympus, etc. but it is not so much an issue for the average person that will not spend over $2k on a lens. As for the model, I recommend the K-x. Even though it is the entry level model, it is very capable. It would be very hard to dispute that it is currently the best bang for the buck in the entry level. The more advanced model is the K-7.

Whatever you do, I must say that it is important to go out and actually handle your options. That is how I ended up with Pentax to begin with. I just didn't like the feel of the Canon Rebels that I thought I wanted.

 

[disneyboy2003]

For an entry-level DSLR, you probably can't go wrong with any brand of camera.

Canon & Nikon are the biggest brands in the DSLR world, with Sony being a distant 3rd (although gaining some ground in the DSLR competition). The advantage of Canon & Nikon are their wide, wide, wide selection of lenses. Canon is probably better known for its high quality lenses. In addition, a lot of 3rd party companies (such as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc) create lenses just for Canon & for Nikon DSLRs.

Like ukcatfan said, go to the store and try out the different cameras to see which ones "feel" better in your own hands.

Regarding low-light photography, you'll need to look for lenses with larger apertures (lower f-numbers). You can get a 50mm f/1.8 lens for about $100 and does a good job. Or you can also get a 50mm f/1.4 lens (which lets in almost 2x more light than the f/1.8) for about $400. Many people on this message board also like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for about $400. These would be the lenses you'd use for dark rides or low-light indoor sports / theater.

For soccer games, you'll want more zoom plus larger aperture, too. You might have to bite the bullet and go for a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for about $1700 (ouch!). Or, if you're willing to compromise on a few features (ex. no image stabilization, smaller aperture - f/4, variable aperture, etc), then there are plenty of less expensive options.

For example, the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens would be about $550, but wouldn't be ideal for sports because of the smaller aperture letting in about 1/4 the light compared to the more expensive f/2.8 lens. However, if your kid's soccer games are during the day, then f/5.6 probably won't present as much of a problem.

 

[DawnM]

What he said!

I went out and looked at cameras and touched them and felt them and handled them before choosing.

We had always been Sony camera folks with P&S cameras (Olympus folks with SLRs in film mode WAY back!), but I did narrow my choices down to 2 Canon models and 2 Nikon models. Then I took my husband to the store to show him the four choices and he chose the one he wanted. We ended up with a Canon but that isn't to say it is better just that it was the one that suited us.

BTW: Just an FYI, Wolf camera is phasing out Canons completely so I wouldn't go there to try them out. They had a bit of a falling out with Canon and don't have positive things to say about them anymore.

Whatever you do, I must say that it is important to go out and actually handle your options. That is how I ended up with Pentax to begin with. I just didn't like the feel of the Canon Rebels that I thought I wanted.

 

[ukcatfan]

In addition, a lot of 3rd party companies (such as Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc) create lenses just for Canon & for Nikon DSLRs.

Three years ago, I would agree with this comment. They make most of them in at least the Pentax and Sony mounts now. Olympus has less of a selection because it is a 4/3 system and the same lenses cannot just be ported to a different mount.

 

[zackiedawg]

Consensus agreement here too - don't worry about the brand - worry about the price, the ergonomics (for you) and the features. Nowadays, the availability of lenses and diversity of bodies to choose from is solid for Pentax and Sony at the least, with the bulk of Canon and Nikon's lens lead being specialized lenses that mostly extreme enthusiasts with lots of money or professionals will likely ever delve into. Even there, the selection of lenses for other brands is growing fast, with Pentax having a nice legacy of lenses, and Sony having the entire legacy of Minolta lenses, at their disposal - and all stabilized to boot. And Tamron & Sigma are fairly universal in their offerings now for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax.

I'll throw in my pitch for Sony - since you've already had one and I've had many that have served me well...it may be that you find the Sony cams to be familiar or the menus easier to pick up on, since the names and functions share similar names you are used to from your P&S. I had excellent results from my first Sony DSLR, the A300, over the past nearly 2 years...and recently picked up the Sony A550, which is a serious low-light BEAST! At least 3 stops better than the A300, and perfectly usable handheld in pitch-night conditions up to ISO6400 for prints.

Feel free to look through my camera gear gallery, which includes every photo I have online separated by the camera (A300, A550, and T100) as well as subgalleries for each lens I own (from both the A300 and A550):

http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg/cameragear

But no worries - you truly cannot go wrong with the new DSLRs today, no matter what brand. Just make sure you like the way it feels, handles, has the features you want, and you like the buttons, controls, and menus...and of course, that the price is right! Good luck.

 

[MHolleman]

Thanks for the help you guys. Basically I have been playing around with some Urban photography of my kids and a few others that will be my test subjects. I would love to go into photography, mostly children and babies. I LOVE outdoor settings, problem so far has been the park I like to visit has a lot of trees and my camera just didn't get their faces the way I wanted it to. So my hunt for the new camera began. Soccer pics are of my now 5 year old, and he plays during the early moring hours, so no problem with light there, just need a quick shutter speed (I guess this is how it is properly explained) since the aperature is not really was big a deal. My daughter is 9 and is starting to dance competitively so I would love the camera to be able to capture the weird lighting and quick movements. I play with natural lighting mostly, usually leaving the flash off on my camera.

I do plan to try out the different brands, just didn't know where to start from. The feature I really liked on the D90 was that it offered live view, and did a few adjustments that the d40 didn't do.

Zackidawg- Do you find that the lenses are more expensive that the Nikons or canons? I do love my Sony and the colors it produces, but was afraid that their lenses would be so expensive in comparison.

Thanks again for all the help, I really appreciate it.

Melissa

 

[zackiedawg]

Zackidawg- Do you find that the lenses are more expensive that the Nikons or canons? I do love my Sony and the colors it produces, but was afraid that their lenses would be so expensive in comparison.

Not really...though it all depends on the lenses you are looking at. For example, I think most of the average 'all purpose' lenses, like 18-200 or 18-250, or even 70-300, the Sony lenses are pretty much directly comparable. In third-party lenses from Sigma and Tamron, they are pretty much comparable. As you get into high-spec lenses, some are more expensive in the Sony line than the directly comparable lens from Canon or Nikon...those such as longer F2.8 constant lenses and fast primes. But there are two little caveats which are worth considering - 1. Buying used lenses for the Sony is often a little cheaper, because you can go to any of the Minolta non-stabilized lenses...some of which are excellent...and because Sony has stabilization built into the body, they're all stabilized. Also, used lenses are often a bit more reliable, because Sony also has the focus motor in the body, so you don't have to worry about blown focus motors in lens on used lenses. 2. Because of the in-body stabilization, you essentially never have to buy the IS/VR version of the lens, but get the same benefit. While a non IS/VR Canon or Nikon lens of the exact same specs might be cheaper than the same Sony equivalent, the IS/VR version will be more expensive, and the Sony version actually cheaper by comparison.

I haven't had any problem with lens availability - I got pretty much every lens I wanted for my Alphas. I use an 18-250mm as a main walkaround lens, I have a used 50mm F1.7 Minolta lens I picked up for $70, a Sigma 30mm F1.4 which is the same price for all camera makes, a Tamron 200-500mm big zoom for birding, which wouldn't be stabilized on Canon or Nikon, and a Tamron 10-24 F3.5-4.5 ultra-wide, which again is pretty much the same price for all makes.

If you start getting into G glass and Carl Zeiss glass, the prices go up...but most would equate Carl Zeiss with Canon's L glass...which is also suitably much more expensive. And some of the CZ walkaround zooms are actually quite reasonably priced. So no, I haven't really found it to be an issue with lenses costing significantly more - and it seems to balance out in that while some lenses might cost more for Sony, others cost less used or without IS/VR options needed.

 

[disneyboy2003]

I can speak from Canon's perspective. Canon's Rebel T1i includes Live View, as well. Actually, all of Canon's DSLRs in the past 2 years have included Live View.

I only use Live View on very rare occasions, such as when I have to lift my camera up in the air above a crowd to take a picture, or if my camera is on a tripod pointed straight up at the moon. Otherwise, for every other situation, I find it much faster to use the viewfinder.

Regarding lenses, zackiedawg's right in that the advantage of Sony DSLRs is that "image stabilization" is built-in in the camera itself, not in the lenses. So essentially, ALL your Sony / Minolta lenses will have image stabilization.

When you look through the viewfinder of a Sony DSLR, however, you won't see the image stabilization at work until after the picture is taken! So you can hold your camera as steady as possible, but through the viewfinder, the image will still appear shaky. However, image stabilization is working behind the scenes in your camera body, so that your final image will actually be stabilized. In the end, it seems like a guessing game as you hope that the shaky image on your viewfinder ends up being an image-stabilized picture in the end.

On the other hand, Canon & Nikon's image stabilization are built into the lenses themselves, which makes them more expensive to their equivalent Sony counterparts. Because image stabilization is built into the lenses, you'll actually see the image being stabilized as you look through the viewfinder. As you click the shutter button, you'll know that the image-stabilized view you see in your viewfinder will actually be an image-stabilized picture in the end.

In the end, though, I believe I read that all image stabilization mechanisms are about equally effective, so one system isn't necessarily "better" than another. Hope that helps to confuse things a little more.

 

[ukcatfan]

I LOVE outdoor settings, problem so far has been the park I like to visit has a lot of trees and my camera just didn't get their faces the way I wanted it to. So my hunt for the new camera began.

If it was in good lighting, but shady, then this sounds more like an issue with the exposure and not necessarily the lack of capability of the camera. While a good DSLR will probably do better at determining the exposure, it will never be perfect. There are situations where you simply must know how to manually adjust it to get the shot. This is where learning a little more will help more than new equipment.

I do plan to try out the different brands, just didn't know where to start from. The feature I really liked on the D90 was that it offered live view, and did a few adjustments that the d40 didn't do.

Zackidawg- Do you find that the lenses are more expensive that the Nikons or canons? I do love my Sony and the colors it produces, but was afraid that their lenses would be so expensive in comparison.

Pretty much every new DSLR has live view these days. I do not recommend using that as your primary method of use though. You simply cannot hold the camera as stable with it outstretched from your body as you can with it up against your face.

Not really...though it all depends on the lenses you are looking at. For example, I think most of the average 'all purpose' lenses, like 18-200 or 18-250, or even 70-300, the Sony lenses are pretty much directly comparable. In third-party lenses from Sigma and Tamron, they are pretty much comparable. As you get into high-spec lenses, some are more expensive in the Sony line than the directly comparable lens from Canon or Nikon...those such as longer F2.8 constant lenses and fast primes. But there are two little caveats which are worth considering - 1. Buying used lenses for the Sony is often a little cheaper, because you can go to any of the Minolta non-stabilized lenses...some of which are excellent...and because Sony has stabilization built into the body, they're all stabilized. Also, used lenses are often a bit more reliable, because Sony also has the focus motor in the body, so you don't have to worry about blown focus motors in lens on used lenses. 2. Because of the in-body stabilization, you essentially never have to buy the IS/VR version of the lens, but get the same benefit. While a non IS/VR Canon or Nikon lens of the exact same specs might be cheaper than the same Sony equivalent, the IS/VR version will be more expensive, and the Sony version actually cheaper by comparison.

You can ditto what Zackie said when it comes to Pentax. They also have the in body IS and still have the in body focus system in every camera. They also offer some lenses that have the focus system in them though. Most consumer level lenses are around the same prices for the same application. If you ever do decide that you need some really expensive specialty lens, you are probably going to upgrade the camera body in the process, so I personally do not see that as a deterrent on which entry level system to get started with.

As for the low light lenses, Pentax has the best selection of prime lenses around. These are the single focal length lenses that offer larger apertures than a zoom lens. They are also typically sharper than a zoom lens. They do not offer the super cheap $100 50mm f/1.8 like C&N, but their $200 version is better at f/1.4 and more solidly built. The f/1.4 version on C&N will run closer to $400.

 

[zackiedawg]

When you look through the viewfinder of a Sony DSLR, however, you won't see the image stabilization at work until after the picture is taken! So you can hold your camera as steady as possible, but through the viewfinder, the image will still appear shaky. However, image stabilization is working behind the scenes in your camera body, so that your final image will actually be stabilized...In the end, though, I believe I read that all image stabilization mechanisms are about equally effective, so one system isn't necessarily "better" than another. Hope that helps to confuse things a little more.

Good point - and true. In-body stabilization doesn't show through the viewfinder. Both systems do seem to work equally well, but the in-body ones you won't see the result as you are snapping, just afterwards. Do note that you CAN buy lens-based IS lenses for Sony/Pentax/Olympus too - you simply turn OFF the camera body IS system and turn the lens based system on (can't use them both at the same time, or they fight eachother!).

You can ditto what Zackie said when it comes to Pentax. They also have the in body IS and still have the in body focus system in every camera. They also offer some lenses that have the focus system in them though.

Also a good point I forgot to mention! Indeed, the cameras that have in-body focus motors are not limited to those lenses - there are motor-in-lens lenses available for Sony/Pentax as well, both from the manufacturer and from third-party makers. The in-lens motors are often much quieter and faster, so those lenses often tend to be a bit more expensive.

Options are always good!

BTW - on Live View - as mentioned, pretty much all manufacturers have it now. Most would agree with DSLRs, you are better off using the OVF. Most live view systems are made for tripod work, or slower scenic situations, as they are usually slower, focus slower, and require the mirror to flip down then up again before shooting...so there's quite a delay from pressing the shutter and getting the shot.

Sony does have the fastest live view system by far, and some of their cameras offer 2 modes - one is the more traditional main-sensor live view, slower and more accurate for fine macro work and tripod stuff...with the extra mirror flips (the type used by Canon and Nikon)...while the other is a second-sensor live view that allows the camera to focus equally fast, no extra mirror flips, and even allows a few tricks like live histograms while shooting. This method is excellent for walkaround live view use, as there is no performance penalty in focus or speed...but it isn't as good as the main-sensor live view for low-light focusing and macro work requiring accurate manual focus. It's one reason I love my new A550 that offers both versions of live view (my A300 offered the fast 2nd sensor version, but not the manual-focus live view main sensor mode). Note that Olympus used to offer a dual mode too, and were the first to work out a slightly faster version of live view for casual shooting...but they had a slightly different solution from Sony and have since simplified their offerings. From what I've heard, they are still a bit faster for every day use than Canon/Nikon. I honestly don't know how fast or slow Pentax's system is, and whether they offer only main-sensor live view or any dual modes.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The advantage of Canon & Nikon are their wide, wide, wide selection of lenses. Canon is probably better known for its high quality lenses.

For quite a while Canon was known for having better long telephoto primes, but Nikon has recently updated theirs and, I think, closed that gap. The long Canon lenses are much cheaper, but I don't think they are noticeably better. Nikon also has a 200-400 f/4 for which Canon has nothing comparable. Nikon definitely beats Canon on the wide angle lenses. At the moment, I'd say that Nikon has a better lens line-up than Canon with the exception of tilt/shift lenses.

One caveat not yet mentioned about stabilization systems is that many lens based stabilizers have a panning mode in which they stabilize one axis during panning shots. I don't think anyone has done that for in-body stabilizers yet. The panning mode is really handy if you shoot steady moving things like bikes, cars, skaters, etc. Of course, a decent tripod or even monopod would probably do just as well.

 

[JoeDif]

One caveat not yet mentioned about stabilization systems is that many lens based stabilizers have a panning mode in which they stabilize one axis during panning shots. I don't think anyone has done that for in-body stabilizers yet. The panning mode is really handy if you shoot steady moving things like bikes, cars, skaters, etc. Of course, a decent tripod or even monopod would probably do just as well.

Actually the Olympus models with in body stabilization do offer this feature. It comes in handy when using a monopod.