Used Canon body advice...(update: now open for other brand suggestions as well)

[pittsburghmom]

Last year, along with the helpful advice of this board, I upgraded from my Canon Elph to the Canon s100 (which I love!). Couldn't ask for a better pocket camera.

Now I'm looking to add a dSLR into the mix. After chatting with a cousin of mine who has a small photography business about cameras/photography he recommended the following (since I am on a budget):

Used camera body (I would like to spend around $300 for the body)
and the following lenses:
f2.8 17-50mm
f1.8 50mm or f5.6 55-200

I am looking to stay with Canon since that is what I am familiar with. He shoots with a Nikon so he wasn't able to give much advice with choosing a decent body.

What would you all recommend for a used Canon body? Looking for the best "bang for my buck". Doesn't need to be the latest and greatest technology....just a good value. Opinions on the Rebel line vs. the "D" series???

 

[DoDaLeCa]

Get the latest Rebel you can afford as you might be even able to find a new on clear out body only at your price point (now or after Xmas SALE).

An xxD body has many benefits (better build and more durable shutter, faster with more points AF, microfocus adjust which can be priceless if you use a typically third party lens which reverse engineers Canon's focus algorithms so it may exhibit front/back focusing issues which you may be able to compensate for, etc.) but at $300 it will be beat or several generations older than would a Rebel be at the same price. The older camera may use a lower resolution noisier sensor with less features as well (less beginner style modes ,cheezy in camera effects, etc). The more common flip out Rebel screen is nice in some circumstances as well.

 

[SkaGoat]

In the used Dept. at B&H photo you can get a Canon Rebel T1i for $279 or a Rebel T2i for $359.

They are both great cameras, the T2i has basically the same sensor as the new Rebels, the 60D and the 7D. It's a great camera.

As far as lenses, the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8($500) is a great lens for the price, and you can't go wrong with the Canon 50mm f1.8 (it's only $110).

 

[havoc315]

I'm not trying to dissuade you from Canon. You'll be very happy with a Canon dSLR. Just wanted to say that when stepping up from a compact to a dSLR, brand continuity becomes irrelevant.
Other than the logo on the camera, a Canon dSLR will not seem any more or less familiar than a Nikon/Pentax/Sony dSLR.

Canons are great cameras so you won't go wrong with a Rebel. But you won't necessarily be happier with a Rebel than you would with another brand. You may want to look at the pluses and minuses of what you can get in each brand for your money. ( for example, Pentax would be weather sealed and body stabilized. Sony would be body stabilized with full time full auto focus live view, etc etc).

 

[sporadic]

If you're referring to the EF-S 17-55 2.8, it's a very sharp lens. Optically, it's L quality. Just doesn't have the build / sealing as an L and is a crop body only lens. I find myself rarely even using my 50 1.4, so I'd hold off on the 1.8 unless you just really need the speed. If you're thinking for dark rides, 50mm is a little tight for that on a crop body. As for the 55-250 (nifty 250), it's a nice little telephoto for the price but you may want to test drive one first after using the 17-55 and determine if the sharpness and color rendition is what you want. The 17-55 will spoil you, it's an amazing lens

As for Rebel vs xxD bodies, it real depends on what you'll be using the camera for. The xxD's are a little bigger, heavier, and built better. All this comes at the expense of weight of course. Ergonomics and control layout is different as well, with the xxD more easily accessible manual controls, like the rear thumb-wheel for controlling aperture. The xxD bodies generally have faster focusing and higher burst rates as well which is great if you have kids playing sports. Going the Rebel route, you'll gain a lighter and smaller camera which may be a plus, and probably a newer sensor with better high ISO performance when shooting in low light. For under $300, looks like a 40D or T1i hits the mark. If you have a local Best Buy, give them a visit and hold a Rebel and xxD in your hands and you'll see what I mean about the build and ergonomics. Take in consideration your usage. Lightweight (although the 17-55 itself is heavy) vs burst vs high ISO performance. You're definitely taking the proper route however, putting your money towards the glass. Good glass is forever and retains high resell value. Bodies come and go.

 

[pittsburghmom]

Wow! Thank you all for the feedback! You all have gave me a lot to think about.

Admittedly, I am a bit confused about 'body stabilized' and 'full time auto focus', so I'll have to research that some more.

My main subject is pictures of my 3 young children. They are starting to get involved with sports, so that will be something I will be capturing as well. I'm happy to hear the positive feedback about the 17-50 lens, so I am feeling comfortable with that decision.

As for the body, I never really considered branching away from Canon, but now that Havoc brings up an interesting point, I am going to look into all options. It is pretty overwhelming to me, so I appreciate all info you all can pass along.

 

[havoc315]

I'll quickly answer body-stabilized.
When shooting at slower shutter speeds, often necessary in lower light, stabilization helps to prevent motion blur. For example, if you shoot at 50mm--- if you shoot without stabilization, shutter speeds below 1/50th of a second will usually be blurry (without a tripod). With stabilization, you may shoot as low as 1/15th or so, and still get sharp images.
Stabilization becomes even more important with long telephoto lenses.

Now you mentioned the 17-50/2.8-- there is no exact Canon match, so I assume you mean the Tamron 17-50/2.8. They make 2 versions-- stabilized and non-stabilized.

Canon and Nikon do not put stabilization in the body. So if you want stabilization, you need to buy a stabilized lens. The 50/1.8 doesn't even come in a stabilized version.
Sony and Pentax put stabilization in the body. So you get the benefits of stabilization on all lenses, without needing to buy stabilized lenses.

Here is what I meant by full-time autofocus--not really a universal term. But I was using it to describe Sony dSLTs. The Rebels you are looking at-- if you choose to compose your shots on the LCD instead of the viewfinder, you will get a very slow secondary autofocus system. You also get slow and/or manual focus in video. On semi-recent Sonys (starting with the A33), you get full fast autofocus even when using the LCD and in video as well.

For the most part, all 4 brands are similar but each has it's own slight advantages and disadvantages.

 

[DoDaLeCa]

If you're shooting kids doing sports (as opposed to pictures of things that aren't moving) then image stabilization isn't going to help much for those shots.

Assuming the camera is focused properly you can still get a blurry picture from a combination of two things - you not holding the camera steady while the shutter is open (corrected by image stabilization) and/or the subject moving so that the image of a point on the subject is spread out over more than a few pixels on the sensor while the camera shutter is open (corrected by shooting at a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the subject if that is the effect you want).

Image stabilization is required when the shutter speed is slower than 1/(focal length * crop multiplier) in seconds to keep camera shake (by person holding the camera) from blurring the picture. For Canon the crop multiplier is 1.6 for the Rebels/xxD/7D cameras and for Nikon crop cameras it's 1.5; I don't know what the other brands crop multiplier is. A full frame sensor camera has a multiplier of 1 for this equation.

Although the stabilization will help hold the image projected by the lens steady on the camera sensor at shutter speeds much slower than predicted above (2 - 4 stops slower than the above calculated speed is typically possible) you are still going to get a blurry picture if the subject is moving. Stabilization is most useful for pictures of nearly static subjects in low light when the shutter has to be open for a "long" period of time to let enough light in for a proper exposure. This is most noted on cheaper consumer zoom lenses that have a slow maximum aperature (f/3.5 - f/5.6) throughout the zoom range; hence this is why most of them are available with some form of image stabilization for bodies that don't have stabilization as a built in feature.

For shooting sports you will probably have a much faster shutter speed (short time) to freeze the subject which will be above the minimum shutter speed that you would calculate for camera shake affecting the picture.

For in lens stabilization the construction is often more complex as you need some form of motion detection plus some means of moving the lens elements to offset the motion detected. These stabilized lenses often have more elements, cost more and are more subject to decentering (as there are typically more lens elements moving which means they could get misaligned if the lens gets a good bump or drop).

 

[mom2rtk]

If you are shooting sports, pay close attention to the frames per second on each camera. I have had a variety of Rebels through the years and hit my limit many times when it was really inconvenient (like at the finish line for cross country).

 

[photo_chick]

While in body stabilization makes it so every lens essentially has IS with so many IS lenses available on other lines it's becoming a smaller advantage to have it in body. And some of those lenses that have IS give you more stops than in body IS does, so it's not a simple thing to compare anyway. Personally I wouldn't hinge a brand selection on that feature.

OP the $350 for the T2i is a really good deal. As already said this camera has a similar sensor to other Canon cameras like the 7D, 60D, and T3i. The sensor in the T4i and T5i is slightly improved (just slightly) and the 70D has an all new sensor. But other lines also have equally good deals on older bodies.

On the lenses... are you talking about the Canon 17-55 f/2.8? While this is an amazing lens I'd be hesitant to spend 3 times more for a lens than I've budgeted for the body for my first DSLR. Especially when you don't know your personal shooting style yet. Because while many people love that lens some of us prefer something like the 24-105 on a crop body but YOU won't know that until you have the camera and use it for a while. Basically I'm saying never buy a high dollar lens based on someone else's recommendation because we all recommend what is right for us and what is right for us may be totally wrong for you. But you won't know that until you've shot with a DSLR for a while. And there's also the really awesome Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 to consider in the same ball park price wise. Which if I were determined to get a fast standard zoom would be my choice. Then I'd skip the 50mm f/1.8 and put another $100 towards the body. But again, that's me and not you... you gotta figure out what is right for you.

 

[pittsburghmom]

Thank you all for the additional input! You have helped clear some things up.

I also wanted to mention that I plan on purchasing used lens as well...

Still taking my time wading through reviews, side-by-side comparisons, etc, but it is still nice to have some "real life" opinions.

Now adding Nikon into the mix, I'm seeing the D90 and the D5100 being in my price range....

Mom2trk, just curious since you mentioned the Rebel wasn't fast enough for sports, what do you shoot with?
From the side by side comparisons, it looks like most of the cameras I am looking at have a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 seconds...
My Canon s100 has maximum shutter speed of 1/2000 seconds....
Still feeling overwhelmed, but I tend to overthink things LOL!

 

[DoDaLeCa]

I think they mean that the Rebel's burst capture rate (3 - 4 frames per second) isn't fast enough if you want to catch the moment of the action by holding down the shutter and firing a burst of captures (xxD's are typically 5 -6 fps, 7D is 8 fps). I don't believe they were talking about the minimum shutter time available (fastest shutter speed) as that would be much faster than almost anything you want to capture from a human powered motion perspective (although in bright light a 1/8000s speed might allow you to shoot with a lens wide open for a small DoF without the need for a neutral density filter to prevent overexposure).

If you are only firing a shot every 1/3 of a second you may miss the best shot as compared to grabbing 2 -3 times more photos in the same time period.

As well the Rebel might not hold as many shots in the buffer before the frame rate slows down while writing data (photos) to the memory card.

 

[havoc315]

Mom2trk, just curious since you mentioned the Rebel wasn't fast enough for sports, what do you shoot with?
From the side by side comparisons, it looks like most of the cameras I am looking at have a maximum shutter speed of 1/4000 seconds...
My Canon s100 has maximum shutter speed of 1/2000 seconds....
Still feeling overwhelmed, but I tend to overthink things LOL!

You don't need a shutter speed faster than 1/1000 to freeze action for most sports shots.
But getting good sports shots isn't about the shutter speed -- technically almost any camera has a fast enough shutter speed. Whether the AF system is good at tracking, etc.
It's also about the speed and accuracy of the autofocus system. It's also about the burst rate -- Cameras in your price range will mostly be in the 3-5 frames per second range, with a couple Sony models (because of the different technology) hitting 10 frames per second. Technically, you don't necessarily need anything faster than 3 fps. But, for example, I've taken shots of my son playing baseball at 10 fps, which better allows me to freeze the exact moment where the bat makes contact with the ball.

There are lots of great 2-4 year old cameras in your price range. From the Canon t2i, the Nikon D5000/5100, D3100/D3200, the Sony A33/35/55.

Truthfully, many shooters wouldn't even notice the differences between them-- they can be subtle. As photochick said about in-body-stabilization, for example, it can become 6 of one versus half dozen of the other. A stablized lens on a Canon/Nikon will give similar results as Sony/Pentax with IBIS. Often a stabilized lens will perform better than IBIS (in body image stabilization). But then, with IBIS, you even get the benefits on prime lenses, which are rarely stabilized on Canon/Nikon.

So you just need to see if any of the various models have any features or benefits that seem to call to you

 

[mom2rtk]

Mom2trk, just curious since you mentioned the Rebel wasn't fast enough for sports, what do you shoot with?

I have a T2i. But I wasn't talking about the shutter speed. I'm talking about the frames per second and buffer size. It has to do with how many shots your camera can take in quick succession before it shows as "busy" to write the images to the card and make room for more.

 

[photo_chick]

You don't need a shutter speed faster than 1/1000 to freeze action for most sports shots.
But getting good sports shots isn't about the shutter speed -- technically almost any camera has a fast enough shutter speed. Whether the AF system is good at tracking, etc.
It's also about the speed and accuracy of the autofocus system. It's also about the burst rate -- Cameras in your price range will mostly be in the 3-5 frames per second range, with a couple Sony models (because of the different technology) hitting 10 frames per second. Technically, you don't necessarily need anything faster than 3 fps. But, for example, I've taken shots of my son playing baseball at 10 fps, which better allows me to freeze the exact moment where the bat makes contact with the ball.

There are lots of great 2-4 year old cameras in your price range. From the Canon t2i, the Nikon D5000/5100, D3100/D3200, the Sony A33/35/55.

Truthfully, many shooters wouldn't even notice the differences between them-- they can be subtle. As photochick said about in-body-stabilization, for example, it can become 6 of one versus half dozen of the other. A stablized lens on a Canon/Nikon will give similar results as Sony/Pentax with IBIS. Often a stabilized lens will perform better than IBIS (in body image stabilization). But then, with IBIS, you even get the benefits on prime lenses, which are rarely stabilized on Canon/Nikon.

So you just need to see if any of the various models have any features or benefits that seem to call to you

You hit the nail on the head with sports photography. I have a Canon 6D. It's an amazing camera for what I need but it's AF system and slower burst rate make it less than ideal for sports. Although those things can be compensated for and with a little time and practice, as well as a whole lot of learning to anticipate the shot, it becomes less of an issue. I do think if you anticipate doing a ton of sports shooting it should be a consideration but if you're just shooting a season of little league not so much.

 

[DoDaLeCa]

I have a T2i. But I wasn't talking about the shutter speed. I'm talking about the frames per second and buffer size. It has to do with how many shots your camera can take in quick succession before it shows as "busy" to write the images to the card and make room for more.

You might try a couple of things to help you get more shots.
1. Try shooting in JPEG if you're not already (assuming you've got good light and correct white balance) as the buffer in JPEG is 34 shots vs 6 in Raw for maximum resolution. You could try reducing the JPEG quality to get a larger burst number (Disclaimer: I always shoot RAW to give me the flexibility to do more with the picture if required).
2. Get the fastest card that you can put in the camera, here is a test of camera write vs card speeds that show how things can improve with a faster card.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/380167/does-your-camera-need-a-fast-sd-card/3

 

[DoDaLeCa]

You can buy a refurb T3i body direct from Canon for $339 with a 1 year warranty.

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/refurbished-products/refurbished-eos-digital-slr-cameras#