Help please... venturing into the DSLR world :-)

[*sherry*]

Hi!
I have been browsing around here for awhile & have appreciated everyone's thoughts & advice- but would now like to have some of your insight for myself!:)

I am currently a stay at home mom to 3- so yes, very busy, lol.
I want to give a little background before filling out the questionnaire...

I bought a Canon A630 camera a little over a year ago and it's "ok" for the most part, I've taken some great photos with it. Low- light however...well, I don't want to go there. It also does not have IS which would have been nice a number of times.

The real question is- is it time to move on to a DSLR? Or would a point & shoot (a better one) still meet my needs?
Most of my photos are of my children & outside scenery. We live in SW Virginia and are surrounded by mountains so there are some spectacular views around here that I would love to capture with better detail. My 2 boys also play sports and I would love to get some great shots of their games.
I am also very into scrapbooking my photos & host of a scrapbook forum so photos/quality are very important to me.
I've lost a LOT of great shots due to the fact of poor low-light performance & shutter lag (i suppose this is what it is).
I want to be able to capture the moment when one of them blows out the candles on the birthday cake when lights are off without the photo being blurry.
I want to get that shot of my 2 1/2 yr. old daughter who will stay in one place for about 3 sec. So many times she's had a perfect expression or pose, only to find that by the time I push the button to snap the pic- I wind up with the back of her head! Very frustrating.

So I'm looking for speed & great low-light performance.

I am new to the manual controls (last couple months) but try to practice. I'm learning about ISO, aperture and all that good stuff.
I have used the snow scene mode and shots have been great with it.

I am very confused about lenses. I see the numbers but have no idea what all the different ones are for. If someone could seriously list some popular ones I would use often, I would appreciate it.

We are also going on a Carrib. cruise in Oct. so I would love to have a new camera by then- no major rush right now & I'm trying to save for the "right" camera.

Ok, sorry for the book- here is the questionnaire part-

Budget

* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? Please be as specific as possible.
$500-$600 + a good lens. I really just want one good lens you think I would use most often. I can add lenses 1-2 times a year.
I am not put off by a slightly more expensive camera but no more than $800.

Size

* What size camera are you looking for? Or does size not matter at all to you?
I prefer a solid camera, at least mid-size. Something of a decent size that is solid in my hands. I think the XTi is too small.
I do NOT care for teeny cameras & will not be putting it in my pocket, lol

Features

How many megapixels will suffice for you? 6

* What optical zoom will you need? (None, Standard = 3x-4x, Ultrazoom = 10x-12x, Other - Specify)
My camera now has a 4x. Something a little more would be great but I believe that will be in a lens not the camera for a dslr

* How important is “image quality” to you? (Rate using a scale of 1-10) 9-10 of course! :p

Do you care for manual controls? Yes. I am new to them & just starting to play but def. want to learn more. I would still like something that takes great pics in Auto as well though.

General Usage

* What will you generally use the camera for?
Family, nature, sports, vacation

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
no bigger than 10 x 13

Will you be shooting a lot of indoor photos or low light photos? Not always but sometimes, yes

Will you be shooting sports and/or action photos? yes

Miscellaneous

Are there particular brands you like or hate? I have a Canon so am familiar with the menu setup. But not averse to Nikkon, Olympus, etc.

Are there particular models you already have in mind?
Before thinking DSLR, I was going to purchase a Canon S5IS for the better zoom & IS. I am not sure I would be any more happy with it than my camera now however.

(If applicable) Do you need any of the following special features? (Wide Angle, Image Stabilization, Weatherproof, Hotshoe, Rotating LCD)
Not sure how IS works for dslr's- I've heard the camera can have it or the lenses or both- little confused on that. :o
I do like the rotating lcd I have now though it's not a "must-have"


I would really love opinions on the camera choices that would be right for me and the one lens you couldn't do without or the one you think I couldn't do without!
At least to start- as I said, I can add to them 1-2 x a year, but something that would suit most general purpose shots.

Thank you!!

Sherry

[WestCoast]

If you're going to shoot wildlife and sports, you'll need a zoom telephoto with some sort of image stabilization (Olympus, Sony, and Pentax have in-body IS). That and the body will put you well over $1,000. The Canon S5IS will have disappointing image quality in comparison to a D-SLR.

The bodies I'd recommend are...

Canon Rebel XSi (newer and more expensive, but has the best features)
Canon Rebel XTi (very good value right now, get body-only and new 18-55 mm IS lens)
Nikon D80 (get body-only and the new image-stabilized 18-55 mm separately)
Nikon D60 (comes with the new image-stabilized 18-55 mm lens)
Nikon D40x (get body-only and the new image-stabilized 18-55 mm separately)
Olympus EVOLT E-510 (in-body IS)
The Sony A-200 might also be a decent choice, but I'd wait for a review first (the A100 was very noisy at higher ISO).

I hope that at least gives you a good starting point.

[griptape]

If you're going to shoot wildlife and sports, you'll need a zoom telephoto with some sort of image stabilization (Olympus, Sony, and Pentax have in-body IS).

Image stabilization won't help in any possible way with wildlife or sports. Image stabilization doesn't stop moving subjects at all, it just lets you have a longer shutter speed, which means any moving subject will be BLURRIER than if you were using a longer shutter speed without IS.



* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera? Please be as specific as possible.
$500-$600 + a good lens. I really just want one good lens you think I would use most often. I can add lenses 1-2 times a year.
I am not put off by a slightly more expensive camera but no more than $800.

As long as you realize that a "good" lens is about double the cost of the budget you have for your camera, yes, if you need speed and low light performance, a DSLR is the only thing that won't disappoint you completely (even DSLR's have their limits). Canon and Nikon are at the top of the list of low light performance, speed doesn't really differ between DSLR's. So I would say go to a camera store and see what you like best, what feels best in your hands, and look into what lens(es) you'll want and compare the cost of those between systems.

[raven15]

The Olympus E-510 has a large grip, it is about the opposite of the XTi. You can get that and two very nice kit lenses for $650. As said, it has IS.

The Canon XSi with the nice IS kit lens should be a very nice camera when it comes out. Probably the first Canon dSLR I would buy, if it doesn't feel like rattly plastic in a weird shape (actually, the XTi is much better than the XT, hopefully the XSi is an equally large step up). A little spendy.

So should the Sony A200, pictures on the internet so far reveal much less noise at high ISO than the A100. The kit lens is not so hot, I think. You can see sample A200 pictures on this website already.

Those three are the cameras I would choose between. Not sure about Nikon, I can't personally justify either the D60 or D40x (or D80) when the three above offer so much more for similar or less money.

[raven15]

Image stabilization helps enourmously for wildlife.


Take a picture at 450mm zoom, and you will need 1/450th second shutter speed just to counter the shake you caused by holding the camera. The wildlife itself would only require ~1/100s shutter speed, which can be achieved with IS.

IS is less usful indoors, but still noticeably useful. A faster lens might be nice, but over your budget. An Olympus E-510 with a 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 lens would total almost $900, and that is probably your cheapest option.

[erichlund]

Based on your criteria, the Nikon you would want to look at is the D80 ($730@B&H) with the new 16-85VR lens (5.3x lens is $690@B&H, but is far superior to any of the 18-55 lenses - It may not be available yet, as it's only recently announced). The D80 produces image quality similar to my D200, but is a little bit more aggressive in its metering. This means a little bit more chance to blow out highlights, but at the same time, less work in post processing for the keepers. If this is not to your liking, you can adjust the camera to be less aggressive.

You've been given a list of the recommendations for cameras. I now recommend you spend some time at your local camera dealer. Give the various cameras a try in the shop. Once you've done that, if you still have questions, come back and ask.

[WestCoast]

Image stabilization won't help in any possible way with wildlife or sports.

Are you Ken Rockwell?

Since many sports are played indoors (basketball, hockey, swimming, gymnastics, etc.) and sometimes outdoors at night, IS would certainly help with lower-speed shots. Obviously, a faster lens would be the most useful for sports, but IS can be helpful as well.

Since one almost always needs a telephoto to shoot wildlife, IS will allow you to shoot in the 200+ mm range without hauling around a tripod. Some wildlife is also shot in less-than-optimal lighting (like, say, in a forest on a cloudy day) and IS helps those scenarios as well. Unless you're using a tripod, IS is almost mandatory for shooting telephoto.

[griptape]

Wrong.

Since many sports are played indoors (basketball, hockey, swimming, gymnastics, etc.), IS would certainly help. Some sports are played outdoors at night as well.

Wrong.

IS still does absolutely nothing to stop a moving subject. IS allows a LONGER SHUTTER SPEED. The longer the shutter is open, and the more your subject moves, the blurrier it will be.

What you're describing IS to be is something that adds light. IS doesn't add any light whatsoever, ISO is what adds light, and the majority of the cameras with in body IS have inferior ISO performance. Outdoors at night, indoors... there's less light, sure... Moving subjects within those lighting conditions? Longer shutter speed=blurrier pictures.

[WestCoast]

Wrong.

IS still does absolutely nothing to stop a moving subject. IS allows a LONGER SHUTTER SPEED. The longer the shutter is open, and the more your subject moves, the blurrier it will be.

I never claimed that it would.

And you're also dead-wrong about IS not being useful for wildlife photography. Thanks for playing.

[WestCoast]

What you're describing IS to be is something that adds light. IS doesn't add any light whatsoever, ISO is what adds light, and the majority of the cameras with in body IS have inferior ISO performance. Outdoors at night, indoors... there's less light, sure... Moving subjects within those lighting conditions? Longer shutter speed=blurrier pictures.

You're making the ill-informed assumption that all sports shots are of people running full-speed. That's not always the case.

[griptape]

To the OP; Be convinced by whoever you like, but read about what IS does, and compare your needs to what IS is capable of. A 1/100 shutter speed will stop moderately slow action. A 1/15 shutter speed that IS allows you does not, and you will get blurry pictures. Again, research before you decide who you believe.

[WestCoast]

To the OP; Be convinced by whoever you like, but read about what IS does, and compare your needs to what IS is capable of. A 1/100 shutter speed will stop moderately slow action. A 1/15 shutter speed that IS allows you does not, and you will get blurry pictures. Again, research before you decide who you believe.

And when you do that research, you'll discover that IS works at shutter speeds faster than 1/15. I shoot at 1/100-1/200 with IS on cloudy mornings all of the time.

I also suggest that the OP reads up on how IS is useful for stabilizing telephoto (wildlife) shots.

[garyswood]

Hi Sherry

I can't claim the expertise of most of the contributors to this thread, but I recently was on the same quest that you describe. I did lots of homework, but my budget changed before I made a purchase.

Anyways, the camera that kept coming up as a deal for me was the Pentax K100D Super. It has the body-style IS, so lens cost can be greatly reduced. It also takes all Pentax style lenses, so you can find deals on lenses as you grow your needs.

The rest of the feature list was comparable to or better than the usual entry level DSLR market. Add to that its' modest price (kit with good starting lens at under your budgeted $600) and it seems like a good fit.

I am not sure why the gurus have glossed over this one, but I think it's worth a look.

p.s. I ended up finding an S3 IS locally at a price I couldn't pass up. For a point and shoot, it has very nice features, great zoom, etc. Its' low light prowess is still lacking, but I am learning to compensate for it. I considered the S5, but in my case the extra $200 wasn't worth the added pixel count.

[Rooz]

its not useful in every situation sure, but if your shooting a game of football at 1/160s on a 300mm lens IS will of course help. if your shooting a bird perched in a tree at 1/80s with a 200mm lens, again, of course IS will help.

slwoer shutter speed doesnt necessarily have to mean 1/15s. it needs to be taken into consideration with the focal length you are using aswell.

[*sherry*]

Thanks for all the suggestions... I will def. stop by a store & check them out, hold them...I would like to keep it all under $1000 so the "best" lens is out for now. The money flies out the door as fast as it comes in so the fact I'm considering spending what I am now is pretty nervy on my part!:D
It does sound like a dslr will be more of what I'm looking for in any case. I was thisclose to buying the S5 after reading the great reviews but though I still think it's a great P&S, I think my needs are more of dslr now. It may take awhile but I WILL get a feel for it- that I promise.

And not quite sure where it came from but I don't shoot wildlife, lol. I enjoy taking photos of the mountains/landscape but no wildlife.
The kids sports right now are: soccer 2 months out of the year (outdoors) and basketball which just ended. So that's about it for sports, at least for now. I'm sure more will be added as they get older but it's not exactly "top" priority right now- I should've explained that better in the questionnaire.:o

So... I will check out the cameras listed but does my statement about not shooting wildlife change the lens recommendation?

And could someone explain what the various lenses are good for? A small list of what each is best suited to maybe... ?
For instance, what is the difference between some I've seen mentioned- the 50 mm prime or the 70-300 or 17-85...??? I'm completely lost on that to my embarassment.:rolleyes: Not sure what the #'s mean, any of it.

Thanks again to all who responded! ;-)

[raven15]

All the posts before wildlife was mentioned were to the point (you said "nature"). It is still possible to get a "best lens" and the E-510 for under $1000, but honestly you might not notice the difference. Maybe if you decide on a camera, we can recommend lenses. Also, someone recenly said, possibly a Pentax K100D would fit in your budget. You could then get a nice Tamron 17-55 f2.8 lens.

[AlexMonro]

For instance, what is the difference between some I've seen mentioned- the 50 mm prime or the 70-300 or 17-85...??? I'm completely lost on that to my embarassment.:rolleyes: Not sure what the #'s mean, any of it.

The numbers you quote are the focal lengths of various lenses. The FL is one of the most important lens parameters, and affects many things, most important being the angle of view. If you think of a triangle with the bottom side being the width of the sensor, and the height being the FL, the angle at the top is the angle of view.

So a long FL gives a narrow angle of view, like looking through a telescope, and a short FL gives a wide angle. A so called "normal" FL, defined as about the diagonal of the image (about 30mm for most DSLRs), gives a "normal" view, roughly what we're used to seeing with the naked eye. Less than this gives a wide angle, useful for landscapes. Longer is known as telephoto, used for getting close ups of distant subjects such as wildlife.

You might find this site useful to get an idea of the field ov view you get for a given focal length: Tamron Focal Length Comparison (http://www.tamron.de/Focal-Length-Comparison.238.0.html?&L=2)

[WestCoast]

Thanks for all the suggestions... I will def. stop by a store & check them out, hold them...I would like to keep it all under $1000 so the "best" lens is out for now. The money flies out the door as fast as it comes in so the fact I'm considering spending what I am now is pretty nervy on my part!:D
It does sound like a dslr will be more of what I'm looking for in any case. I was thisclose to buying the S5 after reading the great reviews but though I still think it's a great P&S, I think my needs are more of dslr now. It may take awhile but I WILL get a feel for it- that I promise.

And not quite sure where it came from but I don't shoot wildlife, lol. I enjoy taking photos of the mountains/landscape but no wildlife.
The kids sports right now are: soccer 2 months out of the year (outdoors) and basketball which just ended. So that's about it for sports, at least for now. I'm sure more will be added as they get older but it's not exactly "top" priority right now- I should've explained that better in the questionnaire.:o

So... I will check out the cameras listed but does my statement about not shooting wildlife change the lens recommendation?

Sorry, I thought that "nature" implied "wildlife", instead of just "landscapes." You won't need a telephoto in that case, but a 55-200 mm lens is useful for a lot of applications.

I can give you two good Nikon options...

(1) D80 body ($730 from B&H) and the 18-55 mm VR lens ($180 from Beach Camera). I'd also suggest the Nikkor 55-200 mm VR ($215 from B&H), although that puts you slightly over $1,000.

(2) D60 with 18-55 mm VR lens ($750 from BuyDig) and the 55-200 mm VR ($215).

The D80 is older than the D60, but is better on a number of levels. Both of those lenses have image stabilization (VR, "vibration reduction") and all three of those vendors are very reputable.

I'll leave the Canon, Minolta, Sony, and Pentax suggestions to the owners of those brands, who know more about them than I.

[*sherry*]

Hey all,

I've had time to go & pick up a few cameras- I've decided for a # of reasons to go with either the D40 (store had) or D40x (store didn't have).
The only problem now is lenses. I'd actually like to go with just the D40 but it's only sold with the lens (or the 2 lens kit) and neither of them have VR.
I can get the D40x body only online then pick up the 18-55mm VR lens but it just kills me because the 2-lens kit for the D40 is cheaper and that's the camera I'd rather have. I could just buy the kit & sell the kit lens...

I think I will be happy with the D40 (don't need the extra mp of the D40x) as an entry level DSLR & it should give me plenty to work with for some time!
I would rather have a couple decent lenses & when the time is right, if I need to, then upgrade the camera body.


What would be the best way to go here??
The D40 kit of 2 lenses (are they really ok without the VR?)
or
The D40x body only & buy the 18-55mm VR lens separately?

Thank you for all your advice...

[tim11]

D40x comes with 18-55 VR. What are the lenses offered with D40?

[*sherry*]

D40x comes with 18-55 VR. What are the lenses offered with D40?

I can't find it with the VR... am I just missing it?

The lenses with the D40 are either the 18-55 or 18-55 and 55-200 but neither are VR.

[tim11]

I can't find it with the VR... am I just missing it?

The lenses with the D40 are either the 18-55 or 18-55 and 55-200 but neither are VR.

Sorry I misunderstood your post. I thought D40x comes with VR.
Personally, I don't see why anyone needs VR at 55 mm. Certainly not with such premium you have to pay for the 18-55 VR. It's a new lens; that's why. People have been using 18-55 (without VR) for years and years so it should be okay for you too.
55-200 will be harder to hold but it won't be impossible depending on how steady your hands are. I use Sigma 18-50 and 50-150 (no stabiliser of any kind) but if I'm to pick up another lens with focal length beyond 150 mm then I will have to find one with VR.
If 6MP is sufficient for you, it's sensible enough to choose the D40 kit. I can't see the justification for paying more for extra MP and VR (for short focal range of 18-55 mm).

[Rooz]

i believe that the 18-55VR is also optically better but its only to be offered as a kit with the d60. sherry, tim is right you dont necessarily need VR on the 18-55 range, its more a "nice to have".

for your tele end though i would strongly recommend the VR version of the 55-200. you can always pick that up seperately as opposed to a kit anyway. its pretty cheap regardless. so, if you cant find a kit pack with the 55-200VR, buy it seperately, i think its around the $240 mark. of course, since you are buying seperately you could also consider the 70-300VR if you need the additional range.

[*sherry*]

Thank you!:)
This is still all so new and lenses are still quite confusing for me...I'm getting there...
So unless something happens to change my mind, I will go with the D40 kit- that will save me some $$ to put towards one more lens...
Are there any other good/general purpose lenses I should consider? I don't believe there are any primes compatible with the D40 w/o being manually focused- are there?

Sorry for 500 questions...just trying to make an informed decision.:o

[Rooz]

the only prime that will AF on the d40 at this stage is the sigma 30mm f1.4. there is also the new nikon 60mm micro f2.8 that will AF and can be used as a prime portrait lens aswell. look for AF-s on nikon lens' and HSM on sigma lens'. there are lots of "all purpose do-it-all lens' around with more being annouced regularly. right now there is the tamron 18-250mm, sigma 18-200 and nikon 18-200 that are probably the pcik of the bunch. if money is an issue, i'd stick to the kit you've already mentioned and if you have the cash, the 30mm sigma is a great low light lens. as i mentioned though there are alot of new lens' being released that are d40 compatible now in both consumer and pro ranges so take you time when deciding on your lens' and do the research to pick the best one for your needs.

maybe head into the nikon dslr area ? lots of d40 users there who can share there experiences. even look thru the d40 pic thread and see what catches your eye.

[WestCoast]

for your tele end though i would strongly recommend the VR version of the 55-200. you can always pick that up seperately as opposed to a kit anyway. its pretty cheap regardless. so, if you cant find a kit pack with the 55-200VR, buy it seperately, i think its around the $240 mark. of course, since you are buying seperately you could also consider the 70-300VR if you need the additional range.

Good info here. Don't get the 55-200 mm without VR. The VR version retails for about $220, which is very reasonable for an image-stabilized zoom telephoto. Also agree that the 70-300 mm VR is worth the extra money if you need additional range. The 70-300 glass is also better than the 55-200 glass.

[Visual Reality]

Do not discount the 18-55 VR just because of the focal length. Just because it's "only 18-55" does not mean you don't need VR.

As soon as you start shooting indoors with it you will see the virtue of having VR at any focal length.

[tim11]

Do not discount the 18-55 VR just because of the focal length. Just because it's "only 18-55" does not mean you don't need VR.

As soon as you start shooting indoors with it you will see the virtue of having VR at any focal length.

I have used both VR and non VR. However if your budget is stretching IS/VR for short focal length shouldn't be a deciding factor - as in OP case. Like Rooz said, it's nice to have but...