Advice on finding the right DSLR

[chuasam]

I've shot many, many horse shows and made hundreds of horse portraits. In your shoes I would opt for a mirrorless system with a zoom lens that goes from slightly wide to slightly telephoto. These systems can provide outstanding image quality, are easy to use, are light and small and have interchangeable lenses. There is no question that the DSLR's have more complete systems and capabilities but I tend to think you don't need all that. Give it some thought.

I have to admit that I'm completely clueless regarding the mirrorless options. Any off-hand recommendations for where to start looking?

The mirrorless cameras don't have a swinging mirror and pentaprism. Instead of looking into a viewfinder you see the subject projected on a screen on the back of the camera, something like the camera in a smart phone. But they will outperform a smart phone by a bunch and have far more capabilities. Why not just go to Amazon and put mirrorless camera in the search block. You will find hundreds of them at prices ranging from around $200 to over $1500. Popular brands include Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Nikon etc. They aren't cheap but they are less expensive than DSLR's.

Nikon mirrorless are god awful. Sony is decent but makes my suggestions look inexpensive. I handled a Leica SL the other day. I loved the aesthetic but it was unholy expensive. Panasonic is decent but more video centric. Fuji and Olympus are the way to go. Oly has a bigger range of lenses, Fuji is better in low light. Neither of which will squeak under a $700 budget.

 

[Ido]

You can barely get entry level at that budget

You may be surprised at how much can be done with that budget. As usual, the gorilla's recommendation is on point: a D5200 with a Tamron 70-300 VC is a good kit, at least to start with.

 

[fmw]

I've shot many, many horse shows and made hundreds of horse portraits. In your shoes I would opt for a mirrorless system with a zoom lens that goes from slightly wide to slightly telephoto. These systems can provide outstanding image quality, are easy to use, are light and small and have interchangeable lenses. There is no question that the DSLR's have more complete systems and capabilities but I tend to think you don't need all that. Give it some thought.

I have to admit that I'm completely clueless regarding the mirrorless options. Any off-hand recommendations for where to start looking?

They're nice if you don't need fast autofocus.

OK. I've shot horse shows way way before autofocus existed. I see your point but the concern wouldn't have occurred to me. If an AF camera can keep up with manual focus, then it's fine for horse shows.

I've seen photos back from the pre autofocus days. They have a certain static sort of aesthetic that you embrace because you can't track a moving horse while keeping it sharp and wide open.
If you want to have the sort of images that were all the rage 30 years ago, by all means get a camera with slow auto focus.

I just ordered one yesterday, thanks. I have no idea what a certain static sort of aesthetic is and I wasn't aware that good photography was somehow transformed by auto focus but I appreciate the opinion.

 

[mrsmc]

Thank you all for the suggestions. I've started looking at what's out there and seeing what I can put together. Hopefully I'll have a new post in the near future about my new camera.

 

[chuasam]

I've shot many, many horse shows and made hundreds of horse portraits. In your shoes I would opt for a mirrorless system with a zoom lens that goes from slightly wide to slightly telephoto. These systems can provide outstanding image quality, are easy to use, are light and small and have interchangeable lenses. There is no question that the DSLR's have more complete systems and capabilities but I tend to think you don't need all that. Give it some thought.

I have to admit that I'm completely clueless regarding the mirrorless options. Any off-hand recommendations for where to start looking?

They're nice if you don't need fast autofocus.

OK. I've shot horse shows way way before autofocus existed. I see your point but the concern wouldn't have occurred to me. If an AF camera can keep up with manual focus, then it's fine for horse shows.

I've seen photos back from the pre autofocus days. They have a certain static sort of aesthetic that you embrace because you can't track a moving horse while keeping it sharp and wide open.
If you want to have the sort of images that were all the rage 30 years ago, by all means get a camera with slow auto focus.

I just ordered one yesterday, thanks. I have no idea what a certain static sort of aesthetic is and I wasn't aware that good photography was somehow transformed by auto focus but I appreciate the opinion.

There is a reason sports photographers like their auto focus. I'm not sure what level of equestrian photography you've done but I'm talking about FEI World Cup events here not the local horse shows.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thank you all for the suggestions. I've started looking at what's out there and seeing what I can put together. Hopefully I'll have a new post in the near future about my new camera.

Keep us posted mrsmc.

 

[fmw]

I've shot many, many horse shows and made hundreds of horse portraits. In your shoes I would opt for a mirrorless system with a zoom lens that goes from slightly wide to slightly telephoto. These systems can provide outstanding image quality, are easy to use, are light and small and have interchangeable lenses. There is no question that the DSLR's have more complete systems and capabilities but I tend to think you don't need all that. Give it some thought.

I have to admit that I'm completely clueless regarding the mirrorless options. Any off-hand recommendations for where to start looking?

They're nice if you don't need fast autofocus.

OK. I've shot horse shows way way before autofocus existed. I see your point but the concern wouldn't have occurred to me. If an AF camera can keep up with manual focus, then it's fine for horse shows.

I've seen photos back from the pre autofocus days. They have a certain static sort of aesthetic that you embrace because you can't track a moving horse while keeping it sharp and wide open.
If you want to have the sort of images that were all the rage 30 years ago, by all means get a camera with slow auto focus.

I just ordered one yesterday, thanks. I have no idea what a certain static sort of aesthetic is and I wasn't aware that good photography was somehow transformed by auto focus but I appreciate the opinion.

There is a reason sports photographers like their auto focus. I'm not sure what level of equestrian photography you've done but I'm talking about FEI World Cup events here not the local horse shows.

So tell me about the FEI world cup events you have photographed.

 

[robbins.photo]

So tell me about the FEI world cup events you have photographed.

They went, they saw, they took horsey pictures. Not sure what else there would be to tell on something like that.

 

[EIngerson]

I have to admit that I'm completely clueless regarding the mirrorless options. Any off-hand recommendations for where to start looking?

They're nice if you don't need fast autofocus.

OK. I've shot horse shows way way before autofocus existed. I see your point but the concern wouldn't have occurred to me. If an AF camera can keep up with manual focus, then it's fine for horse shows.

I've seen photos back from the pre autofocus days. They have a certain static sort of aesthetic that you embrace because you can't track a moving horse while keeping it sharp and wide open.
If you want to have the sort of images that were all the rage 30 years ago, by all means get a camera with slow auto focus.

I just ordered one yesterday, thanks. I have no idea what a certain static sort of aesthetic is and I wasn't aware that good photography was somehow transformed by auto focus but I appreciate the opinion.

There is a reason sports photographers like their auto focus. I'm not sure what level of equestrian photography you've done but I'm talking about FEI World Cup events here not the local horse shows.

So tell me about the FEI world cup events you have photographed.

This conversation is going places.

 

[Didereaux]

YOU NEED LOW LIGHT sensitivity! Canon 6D with a 24-105mm L lens. This is a LOW light setup 6D image quality is right up with the 5dmkiii. and the 24-105 is many pros workhorse lens. Check with canon or one of the big camera stores for a refurb, or low shutter count...should save you some $$$. Wife shoots little birds in low light all the time and that is what we got ours for not a single complaint about it from us. The non-pro 'experts' complain about to few focus points, and slow frame speed 4.5fps....and they are right if you are shooting flying ducks at 20 feet. Look at the reviews, not the amateur bloggers.

 

[EIngerson]

YOU NEED LOW LIGHT sensitivity! Canon 6D with a 24-105mm L lens. This is a LOW light setup 6D image quality is right up with the 5dmkiii. and the 24-105 is many pros workhorse lens. Check with canon or one of the big camera stores for a refurb, or low shutter count...should save you some $$$. Wife shoots little birds in low light all the time and that is what we got ours for not a single complaint about it from us. The non-pro 'experts' complain about to few focus points, and slow frame speed 4.5fps....and they are right if you are shooting flying ducks at 20 feet. Look at the reviews, not the amateur bloggers.

Or a dirt bike flying through corner. But….The OP is upgrading from a point and shoot. Let's be reasonable with the advice. Get a good (anything with 2 digits, XXD) Canon and you'll be fine. The Nikon equivalents are fantastic also.

 

[table1349]

OP, Eingerson has it right as far as camera body goes, as for lenses, the 70-200 f2.8 is the go to lens for action photographers, especially if you are starting out. You can save money on such a lens if you go with either used and/or the Sigma or Tamron version. The Tamron is under $1000 and the Sigma is slightly over $1000.

 

[EIngerson]

OP, Eingerson has it right as far as camera body goes, as for lenses, the 70-200 f2.8 is the go to lens for action photographers, especially if you are starting out. You can save money on such a lens if you go with either used and/or the Sigma or Tamron version. The Tamron is under $1000 and the Sigma is slightly over $1000.

All good options.

I recommend the Canon 70-200 F4L Non-IS. I've owned Version one and two of the 2.8s and ALWAYS go back to the F4. Tack sharp and at $599 retail you get an incredible lens for the dollar. You can find a great one used for less. I use it for night sports all the time with outstanding results.

 

[Didereaux]

YOU NEED LOW LIGHT sensitivity! Canon 6D with a 24-105mm L lens. This is a LOW light setup 6D image quality is right up with the 5dmkiii. and the 24-105 is many pros workhorse lens. Check with canon or one of the big camera stores for a refurb, or low shutter count...should save you some $$$. Wife shoots little birds in low light all the time and that is what we got ours for not a single complaint about it from us. The non-pro 'experts' complain about to few focus points, and slow frame speed 4.5fps....and they are right if you are shooting flying ducks at 20 feet. Look at the reviews, not the amateur bloggers.

Or a dirt bike flying through corner. But….The OP is upgrading from a point and shoot. Let's be reasonable with the advice. Get a good (anything with 2 digits, XXD) Canon and you'll be fine. The Nikon equivalents are fantastic also.

OP, Eingerson has it right as far as camera body goes, as for lenses, the 70-200 f2.8 is the go to lens for action photographers, especially if you are starting out. You can save money on such a lens if you go with either used and/or the Sigma or Tamron version. The Tamron is under $1000 and the Sigma is slightly over $1000.

All good options.

I recommend the Canon 70-200 F4L Non-IS. I've owned Version one and two of the 2.8s and ALWAYS go back to the F4. Tack sharp and at $599 retail you get an incredible lens for the dollar. You can find a great one used for less. I use it for night sports all the time with outstanding results.

She NEEDS the low light capabilities of the 6D,,,NONE of the Canon XXD, nor Nikons have decent sensitivity. Remember in the arenas and such she CANNOT use a flash around those horses. Secondly, I own the 70-200 F4 and agree with you on the quality, But again it is NOT a good choice as a single lens fro what she wants to do. She will need a wide angle to mid angle in order to shoot in those confined spaces. If she is outside and more space then a 1.4X ext is the answer. The other thing about the 6D is it's weight...it is light, and easy to carry around. NO, the over-riding consideration in the OP's situation is low light sensitivity! Period....anything on the average will not produce satisfactory image quality under the conditions mentioned.

 

[Overread]

70-200mm is what you need for horses. If you get wide angle you'll get too much perspective distortion unless you're getting landscape type shots; which is often not what most want from equine photography. Most horse arenas; even smaller ones, will have more than enough room for a 70-200mm to work in; though sometimes you might have to move around inside the arena