Practical camera help

[micheleq]

Hi everyone,

I've headed over here from the WDW/DL/DCL boards looking for expert advice!

I'm purchasing a new camera for my DH. Back in the day (10-12 years ago) he shot with a Canon Rebel and really enjoyed it. However, on our honeymoon (13 years ago) he purchased a lens that he used maybe once. So as you see, he loves the toys but doesn't use them too much

Fast forward to now -- two little girls that both play hockey. We love to travel and he still loves to take pictures but prefers the ease of his phone which is a Nokia Lumia 1020. It takes great shots for a phone (we're both iphone users as well--his is for work the Nokia is a personal phone).

My choices are to go with a Rebel T3i or T5i, or get a mirrorless point and shoot -- looking specifically at the Lumix FZ70.

I'm afraid if I get him the T3i/T5i he won't use it to full capacity. The Lumix seems like a great option. Does anyone have experience with the new/newer Lumix models? From what I've read the burst speed (is that the right term?) is pretty decent on the FZ70 so sports shots should be fine. There's a big price difference (from the T5i especially). I don't want a $700 dust collector.

If I buy the Lumix, I may also buy a second waterproof camera for snorkeling/skiing pics.

Any input is appreciated! I've used a Canon Power Shot SD1300 for two years now and I love it Great little point and shoot for me.

 

[havoc315]

It's not the burst rate to worry about. The smaller sensor on the FZ70 and the pretty slow lens won't handle the challenging lighting of a sports arena as well as a dSLR. Though it will give you more zoom than a typical dSLR. It also won't allow for shooting at higher ISOs to get faster shutter speeds to freeze the action as well.

I don't have experience with the FZ70, so I don't want to give too strong of an opinion. But for fast-paced indoor sports, I wouldn't want to use a small-sensor superzoom camera.

Take a look at the FZ70 group on flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/fz70/pool/page2/

You notice that there are some beautiful shots, but no indoor action shots posted.

 

[micheleq]

Thank you! That's very helpful. I know the only place outside of vacations that he'll actively use the camera will be inside a hockey rink.

 

[SplashMo]

You could also consider a Nikon D3300 or D5200

a SONY RX100 (but not so much for sports)

 

[wiigirl]

You could also consider a Nikon D3300 or D5200

a SONY RX100 (but not so much for sports)

 

[micheleq]

You could also consider a Nikon D3300 or D5200

a SONY RX100 (but not so much for sports)

Thanks for the recs! I think he'd prefer a Canon over a Nikon since he's had a Canon before. The Sony looks interesting for the same reasons I'd consider the Lumix. I think my brother has a Sony so I will ask him about it.

Too many options lol! But I appreciate everyone pointing me in the right direction. No pun intended

 

[havoc315]

You could also consider a Nikon D3300 or D5200

a SONY RX100 (but not so much for sports)

I actually shot some hockey pictures with the RX100 and they came out very nicely. But yes, lacking some zoom range.

The RX100 is a great deal now, you can find it for about $399.

They were taken from VERY FAR.. I wasn't anywhere near the glass. I had to crop... so these are not GREAT images by any means... But they are pretty good for a point and shoot. For each picture below, there is the uncropped and then a cropped version.


autumn-78-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


autumn-78.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


autumn-77-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


autumn-77.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


autumn-76-2.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr


autumn-76.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, however you are talking (for the most part) about two different types of photography. Normally, vacations are shot in good light and there usually isn't a lot of movement. This makes the shots much easier. When you start shooting sports, no pun intended, but you are jumping into a totally different arena. Ice skating rinks are notorious for poor lighting and when you add hockey to that, you get into an area where equipment is paramount. You will need a camera body with usable high ISO capabilities and fast lens(es). That is where your expenses start to mount. In addition to my motorsports photography, I chase my DGD around from ice rinks to volleyball/basketball gyms. To get those ice rink shots, I would highly recommend a zoom, f2.8 lens. These are not cheap. For the ice skating (and I can shoot from edge of the ice) I use a 70-200 f2.8. My camera bodies are usable high ISO capable and with that lens I can get pretty good exposures that sometimes require some PP, but I am able to get some good shots. Its that combination of high shutter speed and low light that dooms many amateur photographers efforts who are using kit lenses. I can only compare lowlight sports to shooting the dark rides at WDW. They are some of the more challenging shots in photography. Here is an example from the DGD's last skating show shot at f2.8, 1/640 sec, 1600 ISO. This did require some PP.


Gianna Show 1265 by Terry McGraw Photography, on Flickr

This would not have been possible with lesser equipment.

 

[hakepb]

It looks like you ruled our the small sensor point and shoot, which is good because the Nokia 1020 has a 1" sensor (like the RX100) which allows it to take much nicer pictures than a traditional, small sensor point and shoot. The DSLr's have a sensor about 3x larger than the 1020.

 

[micheleq]

Thank you everyone for the sample shots!

Gianna'sPapa, you are right. I'm looking for two different types of cameras and that probably isn't realistic. I guess I'm searching for the happy medium.

Havoc315, those shots are exactly what we're after. The speed of my 8 year old daughter's U10 games isn't staggering (lol) so the Sony could work.

 

[micheleq]

It looks like you ruled our the small sensor point and shoot, which is good because the Nokia 1020 has a 1" sensor (like the RX100) which allows it to take much nicer pictures than a traditional, small sensor point and shoot. The DSLr's have a sensor about 3x larger than the 1020.

Ah, so the sensor in his phone is comparable to the RX100?

 

[havoc315]

Thank you everyone for the sample shots!

Gianna'sPapa, you are right. I'm looking for two different types of cameras and that probably isn't realistic. I guess I'm searching for the happy medium.

Havoc315, those shots are exactly what we're after. The speed of my 8 year old daughter's U10 games isn't staggering (lol) so the Sony could work.

The RX100 is a great vacation/travel camera. As Gianna'sPapa correctly stated --- good light, not fast action.
On my flickr, you can see Bermuda and Disney vacations taken with the RX100.

It is not good for sports.. especially not indoor sports. I consider those hockey shots to be "eh." Still better than you will get with a small-sensor P&S. It may be the "medium" you are looking for.

For indoor sports.... I use a full frame dSLR. I don't have an ultra expensive zoom lens, but I will bump up the ISO on my telephoto zoom, or use a 135/2.8 prime.

 

[havoc315]

Ah, so the sensor in his phone is comparable to the RX100?

Same size, very comparable sensor.

 

[micheleq]

So...maybe I get a fisheye/add-on lens for his phone and then keep researching DSLRs?

Thank you again everyone! You'll all been so helpful

 

[photo_chick]

So...maybe I get a fisheye/add-on lens for his phone and then keep researching DSLRs?

Thank you again everyone! You'll all been so helpful

It really comes down to expectations. Honestly the images Havoc posted would not make me happy as far as basic image quality goes. But obviously they make others more than happy or that camera wouldn't get the reviews it does. And that's why it's really difficult to make decisions like this based on recommendations you get on a message board. We all have different expectations.

My advice... get with your DH and have him make a list of what he wants in a camera. This is a lot of money and if it's for him he should have a lot of input. Really get into features and the expectations you have for the images. Also realize that a lot of what makes some of the really good images is knowing how to use whatever you have. You can buy top of the line everything but that still won't guarantee you good hockey shots.

Also, just a note, if he still has those old Rebel lenses and they were Canon lenses (as opposed to Sigma, Tamron, etc) they'll work on a Canon DSLR.

 

[zackiedawg]

Also just FYI - though P&S cameras don't have mirrors, and are therefore technically 'mirrorless', the term 'mirrorless' in the camera world typically is used for a specific class of large sensor, interchangeable lens cameras...not P&S cameras, but not DSLRs either.

P&S cameras typically are of the tiny sensor variety, and those are pretty well ruled out. The next upgrade are the larger sensor P&S cameras like the aforementioned RX100, as well as the new larger zoom RX10...these use the larger 1" sensor similar to that in your husband's high-end phone (and much larger than the typical sensor in a phone, which is usually even SMALLER than P&S camera sensors!). Then the next step up are the interchangeable lens large sensor 'mirrorless' cameras, which range from 1" sensors in the Nikon 1 series, to the M4:3 sensor from Olympus and Panasonic, to the APS-C sensors in the Sony NEX/Axxx series, Canon EOS-M, and Samsung NX series, which are actually the very same sensor as in DSLRs. And finally, there are DSLRs themselves, which sport the same APSC sensors, but in larger bodies with more controls, longer battery life, and bigger buffers to shoot lots of photos (I'm purposely leaving out full frame DSLRs and medium format, because you just don't need those!)

The mirrorless class might be a worthy consideration for you, as it will give significantly larger sensors than the phone, and much better low light performance potential, but still in a more compact, lighter body than a DSLR. You compromise a little bit on controls, and a little bit on focus tracking speed...but gain a big sensor in a tiny body. The Sony NEX have been the best sellers, with the Oly and Panasonic M4:3 right behind...Canon is not as competitive having only released one body and a couple of lenses, but they are on fire-sale right now for super low prices making them worth a look. Sony also has excellent deals on their NEX-3 series...both cameras will get you into an APS-C sensor for under $400 with lens...not a bad deal.

 

[havoc315]

It really comes down to expectations. Honestly the images Havoc posted would not make me happy as far as basic image quality goes.

I actually agree with you. The only reason I took those pictures, I happened to be at the ice rink, and had the camera in hand. And figured I would test it under those circumstances. I normally would have used a dSLR.

To get an image like Gianna'sPappa posted -- where you can get up close detail, a sharp well exposed picture of the action... You need high end gear (and need to know how to use it).

With lesser gear -- including the best P&Ss -- You can get results that some people would be happy with. A recognizable image of people skating across the ice. A decent picture of your kids when they are immobile and just standing still on the ice.
To me, the images I posted are perfectly acceptable to stick up in small size on facebook and say, "Hey.. my kid played hockey today."

But if I was looking for a photograph to stick in a frame, I'd want something with my better gear.

This isn't hockey.... But it's an indoor sports example with better gear:


untitled-100.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[micheleq]

Thank you again everyone.

Photo Chick, I may just do that -- bring him to a camera shop and say "Happy Birthday!" and give him a few options to start with. I just know he'll go for the biggest and baddest out there lol.

Havoc, that's a great shot of your DD (I'm assuming your DD)! What DSLR would you rec? As I said before, his old camera was a Canon Rebel EOS 2000 (yup, I found it in the basement). There's a small Quantaray for Canon lens (28-80) on it and I think there's a larger Canon lens around here somewhere.

So, I'm back to a Canon or a Sony Alpha 58 or 65 as they appear to be very user friendly.

 

[photo_chick]

I actually agree with you. The only reason I took those pictures, I happened to be at the ice rink, and had the camera in hand. And figured I would test it under those circumstances. I normally would have used a dSLR.

Yeah... And you said they weren't the best quality there as well. But many people are extremely happy with that level of quality. And that was really my point. Many of us on here are super picky about image quality where others may not be. Smartphone or point and shoot quality truly is enough to make many happy.

 

[havoc315]

Thank you again everyone.

Photo Chick, I may just do that -- bring him to a camera shop and say "Happy Birthday!" and give him a few options to start with. I just know he'll go for the biggest and baddest out there lol.

Havoc, that's a great shot of your DD (I'm assuming your DD)! What DSLR would you rec? As I said before, his old camera was a Canon Rebel EOS 2000 (yup, I found it in the basement). There's a small Quantaray for Canon lens (28-80) on it and I think there's a larger Canon lens around here somewhere.

So, I'm back to a Canon or a Sony Alpha 58 or 65 as they appear to be very user friendly.

If you have good Canon lenses, it's a reason to stick with Canon. Doesn't sound like that's the case, so you have an open field.

I shot that with the Sony A99 and a 135/2.8 prime. Yes, she's my DD.

For a great current value (as in right now, and not lasting long), the Sony A77 is on rock-bottom clearance. It's about to be replaced within the next few weeks. But it's still a fantastic camera, even being a couple years old. It's actually the same age as the A65 -- it's the more enhanced version of the A65.
It's probably the only sub-$2,000 dSLR that can shoot 12 frames per second with autofocus. It has a very robust autofocus system for sports.

You can get the camera body currently for $799... but for that same price, you can add in a memory card AND a grip. The grip can be re-sold for about $150. So at the end of the day, you have paid $650 for the A77 and a memory card. Arguably, it's the best dSLR you can get for that price. A semi-pro dSLR for a mid-level price tag.

(Though of course, you need to add lenses of course... on which you can spend a lot, or a little).

Canon and Nikon and Pentax all have great options as well. Depends how much you want to spend and what features are most important to you.
The Sony A77 has going for it -- a great EVF and live view, really fast burst rate (12 fps), continous autofocus in live view and video, and a few other nice advantages. It does not quite measure up to competing brands in high ISO performance. (That's the trade off for the great live view).

The reality is, even the cheapest modern dSLRs can offer great image quality. As you start going up in price, you get more features that enhance the shooting experience -- better autofocus systems, better live view, more buttons and customization of the camera body, weather sealing, etc etc.