Need help on camera selection

[allisonswonderland]

Ok- I have a small digital camera, but am interested in getting one that is more advanced. I would like one that is still user friendly but shoots fast pictures and close up. I just gt married and I am thinking future for kids playing baseball or swim team with action shots and up close. But I do not want a huge camer that is hard to tote around either. Also I do not really want to go over 1000 bucks. Our computer guys recommended the Cannon Rebel

 

[YEKCIM]

Ok- I have a small digital camera, but am interested in getting one that is more advanced. I would like one that is still user friendly but shoots fast pictures and close up. I just gt married and I am thinking future for kids playing baseball or swim team with action shots and up close. But I do not want a huge camer that is hard to tote around either. Also I do not really want to go over 1000 bucks. Our computer guys recommended the Cannon Rebel

Check out the Nikon D40, D40x, and D80, and the Pentax K100D and K10D. My advice, given your budget, would be to look at a 6MP (D40/D100D) camera, and use the "savings" on more and/or better lenses. For example, you can get the D40 with the 18-135 "superkit" lens and the very good Nikon 55-200VR lens, both for $925, online, from buydig. That particular combo would give you a 35mm full frame film equivalent of 28-300mm, in two lenses, with some significant overlap, which I personally find to be helpful.

Some of the Pentax folks will probably give you some good alternatives, as well.

~YEKCIM

 

[polkadotladybug]

I recommend the Canon s3 - it's an "in-between" camera - up from a regular point and shoot, but not as fancy as a dslr - but with lots of capability for great shots. It has an awesome zoom (a 12x) which is such a step up from the regular point and shoots.

I considered a Canon Rebel but the size really turned me off - now I may consider it later on when I increase my photography skills but the Canon S3 is a great camera - and it's considerably less than your budget requires - (you can find it for sale around 300 or so)

 

[ukcatfan]

Here are three different solutions given current prices. Please note that the DA 50-200mm is out of stock everywhere and it could be a few more weeks before they start showing up. The price could also change a little on it. With Buydig and Beach, there would be no shipping charge.

Keep in mind that with Pentax, the IS is in the body and not the lens, so it works for all lenses.


Item / Price / Rebate / Total

Pentax K100D w/ 18-55mm / $459 / $-50 / $409
Pentax DA 50-200mm / $230 / $-100 / $130
Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 / $188 / $-25 / $163
Total Package $702
This is a good package that covers 18-200mm and has the prime for low light needs.

Pentax K10D w/ 18-55mm / $769 / $-50 / $719
Pentax DA 50-200mm / $230 / $-100 / $130
Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 / $188 / $-25 / $163
Total Package $1012
This is an even better package with the K10D that covers the same as above.

Pentax K100D body only / $389 / $-50 / $339
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 / $419 / $0 / $419
Pentax DA 50-200mm / $230 / $-100 / $130
Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 / $188 / $-25 / $163
Total Package $1051
This changes out the kit lens for a Sigma 18-50mm that has a constant aperture of f/2.8.

Kevin

P.S. The K100D is smaller than the K10D.

 

[Gary D]

The Nikon D40 is a great buy. For what you want to do, get a DSLR so you can change lenses. The lenses on cameras that are non interchangeable are not that fast, especially on the long end of the zoom. I would also look at the Olympus Evolt E-510. 10 megapixels, in body stabilization (no need to spend $$ on vibration reduction lenses) and it also has a "live view" on the LCD screen, like point and shoots do. I have a small Olympus D5050 that is 4 years old, only 5 megapixels but the glass is sharper than most of my so called "professional " lenses. If the new lenses follow suit, that would be a plus. Keep in mind the digital factor of the Olympus is 2x so that if you see a 14mm-45mm lens, it is equivalent to a 28mm-90mm on a film or full frame SLR. Nikon's and Canon's (unless you get the top gun $3000 plus cameras) digital factor is 1.5 to 1.6.

 

[allisonswonderland]

OK thanks guys after looking into somethings, I think the cannon rebel is way to big and much for what I need. I currently have a digital Olympus that is 5 megapixel and it is fine for just snapping, but I think I need something middle for now - Thanks any other sugguestions would be greatly appreciated because I really do not know anything about cameras other than my own. So the easier to use, the better, I think I could have a decent eye and would like to try to do somethings...

 

[Gary D]

If the Canon is going to be too big for you, then any DSLR will be. That leaves you with the point and shoots. Take a look at the Kodak cameras. They all sport very sharp Schneider lenses and I feel they are the most user friendly. They have some with a very big zoom range. If you are looking at something slimmer to fit in a pocket, the Panasonic Lumix line is very nice. I've recommended both to friends and all have been very satisfied.

 

[JR6ooo4]

...... but shoots fast pictures and close up.

Just to clarifywhat you mean by close-up, do you want to take pictures of a subject very close to a camera like a flower or bug, or do you want subjects that are very far away to appear close-up? Like the facial expressions of an outfielder running for the ball...

Mikeeee

 

[allisonswonderland]

Well Maybe both the face of an outfielder and a flower, is that an option of only a bigger, more expensive camera? Let me put it to you this way - I am not sure how you all feel about Nikons - that is always what my dad had so I thought they were good, I asked my computer guy and he said they were not a good brand, and they wold not have an SLR but they do. I am not sure he really knows THAT much about cameras and I think he just wants to sell me one, so I am not sure if he has told me something way out there that I do not need.

I will say this - I am looking at this that I am not running out tomorrow to buy a 1000 dollar camera, it would be something I would save for, I am not a super photographer so if there is somewhat of an upgrade that would not cost me an arm and a leg that would snap fast shots and take close ups an be small enough for me to carry and take pics good enough that I could blow up and put on the wall (I like landscape paintings and thought why can't I just take a picture, but my camera does not get close enough for all the details). Does this help?

 

[AndrewWG]

Well Maybe both the face of an outfielder and a flower, is that an option of only a bigger, more expensive camera? Let me put it to you this way - I am not sure how you all feel about Nikons - that is always what my dad had so I thought they were good, I asked my computer guy and he said they were not a good brand, and they wold not have an SLR but they do. I am not sure he really knows THAT much about cameras and I think he just wants to sell me one, so I am not sure if he has told me something way out there that I do not need.

I will say this - I am looking at this that I am not running out tomorrow to buy a 1000 dollar camera, it would be something I would save for, I am not a super photographer so if there is somewhat of an upgrade that would not cost me an arm and a leg that would snap fast shots and take close ups an be small enough for me to carry and take pics good enough that I could blow up and put on the wall (I like landscape paintings and thought why can't I just take a picture, but my camera does not get close enough for all the details). Does this help?

Why don't you look into the Canon S3 IS or S5 IS. These are "smaller" but not overly small. They also take GREAT pics fo rthe money. I'm not really sure what the going rates are now, but usually the S3 can be found for under $300, I think. The S5 just came out so I suspect it is around $350-400. For what you want to do with the camera, I don't think you will be disappointed at all. Here are some examples of photos from my S2 IS. This camera is the older version of both the S3 and S5. There was never an S4 produced.

Another great feature of this camera is it's (in my mind) outstanding video capabilities. The sound is great and the video is quite nice. Not what you would get from a nice camcorder, but prety darned close in my opinion. PM me if you want to see an example. I may be able to load one on my website (the files are a bit large).

Andy

These were most likely taken using the Macro or Super Macro feature:

The Super Macro feature is AWESOME!

These give examples of baseball pics. They aren't outfielders, but you get the idea. Keep in mind that these are taken from a considerable distance, not something that is close to the field like in a little league game. This is also a regulation baseball field, not little league size. These are not even using all of the zoom power of this camera!

 

[Groucho]

Well Maybe both the face of an outfielder and a flower, is that an option of only a bigger, more expensive camera? Let me put it to you this way - I am not sure how you all feel about Nikons - that is always what my dad had so I thought they were good, I asked my computer guy and he said they were not a good brand, and they wold not have an SLR but they do. I am not sure he really knows THAT much about cameras and I think he just wants to sell me one, so I am not sure if he has told me something way out there that I do not need.

Trying to sell you something? Why, does he have a used camera to sell, or this guy also sells Canons exclusively?

Right off the bat, if the guy is telling you to avoid Nikon because they're "not a good brand" - stay away! I don't shoot Nikon but it's not because they're not a good brand - pretty much all the DSLRs are top-notch, each has its own little exception features and drawbacks, but it's certainly not that Nikon is churning out junk. And I don't understand that Nikon "would not have an SLR but they do"???

Second, you can get a DSLR for well under $1,000, from any of the big manufacturers - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, or Olympus. Entry-level models from them range from $400-600.

Third - ultimately, you have to keep your expectations realistic. Point-n-shoot cameras are capturing the image with a sensor that's probably smaller than your pinkie nail. It's amazing what they can do with that, but ultimately, you give up quality (both in sharpness and in low-light ability) by having such a small sensor - but consumers want tiny cameras that fit in their pocket, so that's what the companies build and sell. However, a comparable 35mm film point-n-shoot camera should consistently produce better photos, due to the much larger size of the negative vs the sensor in the digital camera. The professional landscape photos you see are probably taken with a medium-format or large-format camera that cost several thousand dollars - you're not going to be able to take a photo that can blow up as large and look as good with a $200-300 camera that'll fit in your pocket. In terms of action sports photos, look at the pros with their enormous lenses - they're not big just for the sake of being big, they are big to let more light in at long distances, in a way that a small camera just can't.

Does this mean that you shouldn't get a small digital camera? Of course not. But just like you can't expect your daily driver to perform like a Formula One car, you can't expect your compact digital camera to produce a poster-size photo with the clarity and quality of a professional one. But you can still produce many nice and satisfactory photos.

A DSLR has a much larger sensor and can be fitted with any number of different lenses, so it is capable of higher quality, but they are bigger, can be a little more confusing to use, and to get the most out of them, you have to be willing to invest some time into learning the camera, some money into buying lenses (sometimes more expensive than the camera!) and other accessories, and some effort into lugging it all around.

 

[figment52]

Trying to sell you something? Why, does he have a used camera to sell, or this guy also sells Canons exclusively?

Right off the bat, if the guy is telling you to avoid Nikon because they're "not a good brand" - stay away! I don't shoot Nikon but it's not because they're not a good brand - pretty much all the DSLRs are top-notch, each has its own little exception features and drawbacks, but it's certainly not that Nikon is churning out junk. And I don't understand that Nikon "would not have an SLR but they do"???

Second, you can get a DSLR for well under $1,000, from any of the big manufacturers - Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, or Olympus. Entry-level models from them range from $400-600.

Third - ultimately, you have to keep your expectations realistic. Point-n-shoot cameras are capturing the image with a sensor that's probably smaller than your pinkie nail. It's amazing what they can do with that, but ultimately, you give up quality (both in sharpness and in low-light ability) by having such a small sensor - but consumers want tiny cameras that fit in their pocket, so that's what the companies build and sell. However, a comparable 35mm film point-n-shoot camera should consistently produce better photos, due to the much larger size of the negative vs the sensor in the digital camera. The professional landscape photos you see are probably taken with a medium-format or large-format camera that cost several thousand dollars - you're not going to be able to take a photo that can blow up as large and look as good with a $200-300 camera that'll fit in your pocket. In terms of action sports photos, look at the pros with their enormous lenses - they're not big just for the sake of being big, they are big to let more light in at long distances, in a way that a small camera just can't.

Does this mean that you shouldn't get a small digital camera? Of course not. But just like you can't expect your daily driver to perform like a Formula One car, you can't expect your compact digital camera to produce a poster-size photo with the clarity and quality of a professional one. But you can still produce many nice and satisfactory photos.

A DSLR has a much larger sensor and can be fitted with any number of different lenses, so it is capable of higher quality, but they are bigger, can be a little more confusing to use, and to get the most out of them, you have to be willing to invest some time into learning the camera, some money into buying lenses (sometimes more expensive than the camera!) and other accessories, and some effort into lugging it all around.

I opened this thread becasue I am in the market for a new camera as well. Thank you very much for speaking English instead of techno-speak . Those of us that are "stepping up" from point and shoot cameras have to go slow sometimes

 

[allisonswonderland]

Thanks for your explanation - I think he said he could get me what ever I wanted but I do not think he really knows as much about cameras as he acted like he did...I may not know squat about them, but I do know that Nikon is a good brand along with the others so when he was recommending certain things to me I became a little skeptical - not sure why.

Yes thanks for speaking English - so my new question is - is there an in between? A step up? I mean my small digital is only a few years old and there is nothing wrong with it so I could always get another bigger one and switch off...but I am just really trying to reasearch here and find out what I need and not talk to a sales person who is going to give me a line of bull. So Thank you all so much for your feed back so far!

 

[Gary D]

A good site to check out is www.photographyreview.com. Check out cameras you are interested in and see what people who have bought and used them have to say. No sales people pushing something or a biased magazine review because they sell ad space. I've used the site before purchasing cameras, lenses, film and it's always been helpful.

 

[Groucho]

Well, for "in-between", you have a few choices...

You can go for a more advanced point-n-shoot camera with a long zoom, like the Sony H5, Canon S5, or equivalent Kodak/Panasonic/Olympus/etc. These will offer a few more options and give you a lot of zoom.

The next step is one of the Fuji bridge cameras, which look and feel like a real DSLR, complete with real zoom and focus rings (the others use buttons.) These offer most of the features of a DSLR including RAW mode and a lot of buttons and switches, but still have a fairly small sensor (though larger than the competition.)

After that, you can go for a real DSLR and spend a minimal amount. The best bargain IMHO is the Pentax K100D, which has built-in image stabilization and a very complete feature set compared to other entry-level DSLRs. Beach currently has it with the kit lens for $409 after rebate. Naturally, you should research all the entry-level DSLRs to make sure that it's the right choice for you, but it's a fantastic camera at an amazing price.

Either way, I wouldn't buy from your contact - you'll have a very hard time getting any better deal than you will online, especially from somewhere like Beach.

Good luck!

 

[polkadotladybug]

I mentioned the Canon S3 previously - check out the "s3 family - post your pics" thread that is currently going - it's a great showing of pictures that were taken with the Canon s3 which is a quite popular camera on this board (I know I wanted one after I'd read this board for a few weeks/months!).

The Canon S5 is out, but many have said it doesn't have much more than the S3 to warrant the extra $150-$200 - but that's for you to decide. I always like to come in way under budget if possible though - LOL!

Look for a "megazoom" camera - those are the "in-between cameras" - they have a higher optical zoom (mine is a 12x) - that's where you will realize the differences from a regular point and shoot.

The inbetween cameras are larger than a pocket camera, but not too much more. The photo results are worth it.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

It sounds to me like you'd also be happy with a Canon S3 or S5. IME there's a bit of a learning curve with it, but once you learn to use it fully, the possiblilites are endless!