First DSLR and so non-decisive, please help! :)

[jennmw]

Hello! I'm so excited to find this forum. I am a mom of two. I have always loved photography and now that our 8 year old is getting more into sports I'm tired of getting not great shots with my Canon point and shoot and want to get a dSLR. I have been reading reviews upon reviews and am so confused as what I need. I want all the bells and whistles but I'm guessing that I don't need them, anything would be a step up from what I have. I

My requirements:
- Takes decent actions shots for kids sports and just normal kids action
- Decent low light shots- I've never had a camera that does this so it would be nice.
- Good video as I take home videos with my current point and shoot

Ones I initially considered (but either of these will mean it'll be awhile before I get one):
Nikon D5200- Loved the fact it has wifi
Canon Rebel- Love the touchscreen, seemed easy to move around menus at the store

I have handled both in the store and both seem good to me. I really like the swivel screen and "think" I will use it a lot to get shots that I can't reach (I'm only 5 foot)

However, I want to get one sooner than later so others I am considering after seeing prices on Ebay:
Nikon d5100
Nikon d3200- no swivel but wonder if it something I will miss since I don't have it now
Canon Rebel t3i

I'm really leaning towards the d5100 now. I just thought the newer models would offer an easier time for me to learn the basics of DSLRs.

Thanks for any advice!

 

[hirejn]

I'm a Nikon guy so either of the entry-level cameras will do fine. Realize two things: As the frame rate goes up, the price goes up; as the ability to shoot in low light goes up, the price goes up. Therefore by rule the entry-levels won't be great for capturing action or clean images at high ISO (1600 or above). That's at a professional level. For your purposes, they'll serve fine. You'll be maxed out at about 4 frames per second, but that's not bad. It's just not 9. The entry-levels are something you can learn on and take great pictures with. Just understand how to work within their limitations. It's easy to be a victim of marketing. Truth is, it's not the equipment that takes great photos. It's the photographer. You are the best piece of equipment you could possibly own. Invest in your skills and knowledge and you can get more out of your equipment without upgrading. Don't fall into the trap that you need better equipment to take better photos. If you need more advice, just PM me here or contact me through my website.

 

[Derrel]

Have you seen the Nikon D3100 with 18-55 VR and 55-200VR lens for $499 with free shipping from Nikon USA's on-line Nikon store today only??? The deal continues until June 1, but there is a shipping cost after today...

Adorama has the 55-200 VR lens refurbished for $134. A refurb D3100 is super-low cost right now.

 

[goodguy]

You never gave us a price range to work with but with the cameras you are looking at I think I can recommend these cameras.
From the camera on your list the Nikon D5200 is the one I would go with.
Really good camera.

But to be honest I would recommend you to consider the D7000.
For the long run you will find this is much better then the other cameras because of the extra features like the in body AF motor which means the lenses you will get will be considerably cheapper (well if you will buy them used).
Its got 6 FPS frame rate which I think should be mroe then enough for your needs.
In low light it probably should be matching the D5200 but you get the extra dial for apature so there is less getting into the menue while you are shooting.
The D7000 is sold for pretty good prices so thats what I would recommend you to go.

Of course if you want even better then the D7000 and can afford it then go with the D600, full frame camera with killer performance in low ISO and you can get a refurbished one of 1600$

 

[jennmw]

Thanks Joel. As far as the frames per second, anything has to be better than my point and shoot. I have been told that it's the photographer that takes great photos and am going to take time to invest in that but want a piece of equipment that will give me the easiest ability to do so. I hope that made sense.

I'm a Nikon guy so either of the entry-level cameras will do fine. Realize two things: As the frame rate goes up, the price goes up; as the ability to shoot in low light goes up, the price goes up. Therefore by rule the entry-levels won't be great for capturing action or clean images at high ISO (1600 or above). That's at a professional level. For your purposes, they'll serve fine. You'll be maxed out at about 4 frames per second, but that's not bad. It's just not 9. The entry-levels are something you can learn on and take great pictures with. Just understand how to work within their limitations. It's easy to be a victim of marketing. Truth is, it's not the equipment that takes great photos. It's the photographer. You are the best piece of equipment you could possibly own. Invest in your skills and knowledge and you can get more out of your equipment without upgrading. Don't fall into the trap that you need better equipment to take better photos. If you need more advice, just PM me here or contact me through my website.

 

[jennmw]

Thanks Derrel. No, I have not, however I think I would really like the swivel screen, but, again, not sure it is a necessity. I'll check it out.

You're right Goodguy I didn't but I did say that if I went with the Nikon d5200 or the Canon t4i then it would take longer for me to get one, so the d7000 would be out of the picture.

 

[jwbryson1]

D7000

 

[Solarflare]

*shrug*

Really any current DSLR basically do what you want. Spend more money, get a better DSLR.

Flipscreens are IMHO *uber* useful. Sadly they are considered a "cheap" feature by Nikon, and only the D5100 and D5200 get them. Canon has some more cameras with this feature. Pentax too.

- Action - Well get a more expensive DSLR, you basically always get better AF. With a few exceptions - for example, with Nikon, the D7100 has a better AF than the D600.

And with DSLRs, for the AF performance, its also important what lens you use. A pro telezoom like the Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR, or AF-S 70-200mm f2.8 VR2 will be faster than compareably slow entry level zooms. This is especially true for Nikon; I heard Canon entry level lenses are usually closer to pro lenses in their AF performance.

- Maximum low light is from a full frame sensor, such as Nikon D600. Also D4. The D800 and D800E performance isnt so bad either in this respect. APS-C cameras arent TOO far behind, and certainly better than any P&S.

- Best video is apparently from D5200 or D800. I dont know why exactly, though. Just read it on some videographer site and he just didnt bothered to explain it well enough why, and I dont do video and didnt looked elsewhere for more information. Anyway they shoot "real" movies with the D800, so I guess thats the camera for perfect video (if you get some other stuff like lenses with image stabilization and a variable ND filter to keep the shutter speed close to the movie fps, and of course good audio hardware). And the D5200 is apparently perfect because of the flipscreen.

 

[ecphoto]

Hello! I'm so excited to find this forum. I am a mom of two. I have always loved photography and now that our 8 year old is getting more into sports I'm tired of getting not great shots with my Canon point and shoot and want to get a dSLR. I have been reading reviews upon reviews and am so confused as what I need. I want all the bells and whistles but I'm guessing that I don't need them, anything would be a step up from what I have. I

My requirements:
- Takes decent actions shots for kids sports and just normal kids action
- Decent low light shots- I've never had a camera that does this so it would be nice.
- Good video as I take home videos with my current point and shoot

Ones I initially considered (but either of these will mean it'll be awhile before I get one):
Nikon D5200- Loved the fact it has wifi
Canon Rebel- Love the touchscreen, seemed easy to move around menus at the store

I have handled both in the store and both seem good to me. I really like the swivel screen and "think" I will use it a lot to get shots that I can't reach (I'm only 5 foot)

However, I want to get one sooner than later so others I am considering after seeing prices on Ebay:
Nikon d5100
Nikon d3200- no swivel but wonder if it something I will miss since I don't have it now
Canon Rebel t3i

I'm really leaning towards the d5100 now. I just thought the newer models would offer an easier time for me to learn the basics of DSLRs.

Thanks for any advice!

First of all you need to learn the basics. There are a lot of great free tutorials on youtube. If would highly recommend that you pick up Tom Ang's book it will teach you everything from basics to intermediate techniques($15 at BN).
I say all this because when I started I just picked up a dslr and had no clue or direction and it took me much longer to become proficient.

Considerations you also need to make are shutter speeds and high iso performance. Both of those dslr's have great low light performance and max shutter speed of 1/4000 which is more than enough for kids sports.

If you are on a budget you need to account for cost of additional lenses and accessories further down the line. Canon tends to be more expensive up front, but the addons are cheaper. Nikon tends to be cheaper up front, but lenses and accessories are sometimes more pricey. Both make excellent gear, with marginal differences in features.

The next thing you will need is a 50-200mm lens, you'll notice quickly that the kit lens that's included only works really close up when sports are what you are shooting.

Have you considered the Nikon D3100 ? You can get it for $350 (refurb) / $450 new. from Adorama.com its a great starter camera.

Sent from my C5155 using Tapatalk 2

 

[EDL]

You mentioned sports and low light in the same breath.

That, unfortunately is an expensive game to get into if you want good results without being hampered by equipment limits...as I am finding out for myself right now.

Fortunately you've told us in your post want you want to do and to some degree how well (better than your current point and shoot). That's a good start.

If you read here enough you'll see a lot of threads on "Want to get into photography, what's the best camera to get" and they're all pretty much the same.

What kind of photos do you want to capture? How much do you want to spend? etc, etc.

There's pretty much a "canned" response to this, and everyone has their "pet" questions. One I don't see asked a lot, or discussed to a great degree very often is; "How do you plan to view your photos"? This can be important because it can help dictate the degree of equipment needed to produce satisfactory results.

If all you want to do is view your photos on the computer at a size that fits on the screen, or make small prints (say, 5x7, or maybe 8x10 at most), then the equipment needed to make that happen is less costly than if you plan to zoom in to a 100% view and/or make large prints. Certainly, you can zoom way in on a shot made with some of the best and priciest equipment made and find "issues" with clarity, detail, sharpness, aberrations, etc (this is called "pixel peeping") as there is no perfect lens, or body regardless of price.

Shooting fast moving objects in low light unfortunately is expensive no matter what. The lens has to be fast enough (i.e. it needs a large enough aperture setting) in order to capture enough light to give you a fast enough shutter speed to avoid blur. Fast lenses tend to be pricey. On top of that you will need a zoom since the players, the ball, etc tend to roam all over the field and you need to be able to zoom in closer. Fast zooms are pricier still. How fast you need depends greatly on the lighting at the place you are shooting. Pro sports arenas are well lit compared to, say a local high school football field (the place I'm trying to shoot at), so you can get by with a slightly slower (less expensive) lens at the pro arenas.

You can boost the ISO setting to get faster shutter speeds (you'll pretty much have to regardless of which camera body you buy), but some cameras are better at this than others (i.e. more expensive ones). You see where this is going?

To give you an example, I have a Canon T3i (entry level, 18 megapixel body). I intend to "try" shooting at a local high school football field at night under their lights. Probably the fastest zoom from Canon with a decent focal length is the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM. That lens is $2,200, but that's Canon's "L glass" and is the top of the line. I'm looking at a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom that's $1500. Both lenses have image stabilization. You can get them without IS for less price and you could do ok without it, but it's just one more compromise that could limit you in an already limited environment. The Tamron has rated well overall, and even rivals the quality of the Canon in the middle of the zoom range, but the Canon is definitely better when you are zoomed out near 200mm. However, this is where that "how do you intend to view your photos" thing comes in. In my case, I'll be viewing on the PC, or small prints. In this case the Tamron will be fine.

Other than the f/2.8 zoom without image stabilization (which run in the $1,000 to $1,600 range) I'm not aware of any other zooms in that speed range for less price (I haven't seen any). Used lenses are always an option as well, but even used they command a price premium, especially if in good shape.