Idiot Proof DSLR?

I had pretty much decided on getting the Pany FZ50 to fill most of my needs. It provided good zoom, sturdy build, RAW, and ttl hot shoe. Noise issue aside. Then the Sony H9 was announced and now I think I am going to go with that camera as my general carryround superzoom but it does not provide RAW or external flash. So I am still looking for a camera that will provide those things for indoor low light situations.

I have just returned from Ritz camera (I know, a mistake but it's all I have) I realize that they were most likely just trying to make a DSLR sale but I have read many times on this site people saying the same thing and that is that for what I want I need to go to a DSLR. I have been trying to avoid doing that for several reasons. First I feel like I don't really belong there because I am not a photographer I am just a picture taking mom. Changing lenses is not something that is practical for me in most situations AND, although I would like to learn more about photography I absolutely have to have decent point and shoot ease of use. I know all of you real photographers make fun of "scene" modes but while I am learning they would be a necessity. The Ritz guy kept pointing out all the various cameras that offered scene modes but I know that I have read here that DSLRs don't, generally, take good "out of the box scene mode" pictures.

Can anyone comment on this? Is there a DSLR for an absolute beginner? And one really nice lens that would fill most of my needs without requiring changing?

I know you all have probably answered these questions before but the "search" function does not seem to be working. Sorry.

I should add that I don't mind pp work which I can do after the kids have gone to bed but I don't have time to try and figure out what I need to do about camera settings when I go to take a picture.
--
Robin

The Nikons and Pentax's would be a place to start. If you have to have a nikon, look at the D50. Otherwise, the K100D rocks. It is inexpensive, well built and has AS. The past 30 years of PK mount lenses fit and work.

Any low end dslr will work fine for a beginner. All have a full auto mode and a program mode which is also easy to use, but give you more control. They also have modes for advanced users, but you don't have to use that.

Lenses: That's more difficult. All the kit lenses are OK, but have a very limited zoom range. You can get superzooms like 18-125mm or 18-200mm from different manufacturers. Thes offer more zoom, but aren't too great optically. But a lot of users are happy with the results. It depends on your image quality requirements.

One combo that's expensive, but particulary interesting is a Nikon body (e.g. D40x) and the Nikon 18-200 VR lens. This will give you Nikon's latest image stabilisation in a very versatile lens.

You can get a similar combo from (all) other manufacturers, but the Nikon lens get somewhat better reviews. Sony A100 + 18-200 would also give a stbilzed combo with the stabilsiation in the body in stead of the lens.

Well, you certainly don't seem like an idiot!

I can understand that DSLRs can be complicated and intimidating and your desire to avoid frustration. I think any of the starter DSLRs will be ok for you. I have a Rebel XT and put on the fully automatic green square is available - even one step simpler than the scene modes if you're in a rush or don't want to hassle with anything. I've also heard exceptionally good things about the Nikon D40 and D50.

What I think a DSLR does offer are incrememntal ways to take more and more control once you want to. Most people start experimenting with aperture and shutter priority modes which let you control depth of field (how much of the scene is in focus and whether an image seems frozen in time or blurred with motion respectively). You also have control over how much sharpening, contrast, and colour you want in your photos, should you want this control, but with excellent photos out of the camera without any fidling. Because DSLRs also have bigger sensors compared with point and shoots, they also tend to have much higher light sensitivity which is better for available light shooting.

As for lenses, any of the starter kits will be fine. The vast majority of people who buy a DSLR stick with 1 lens. To me, having the option to change lenses wasn't the main reason I bought one - an acceptable viewfinder, manual control, and high ISO performance (for low light shooting) were more important.

I do want to say, however, that there can be a learning curve, even with the simplest DSLRs. Most people seem to have a lower proportion of sharp shots when they start becasue the focus is more critical, compared with small sensor / aperture point and shoots. Likewise, I've had to be more thoughtful about which autofocus sensor is being activated to get the sharpest shots, compared with my significant others' excellent point and shoot which will produce sharp shots with much less thought.

I think the control and effort is worth it but it is a personal decision and some people on the forums have written about giving up on DSLRs and going back to P&Ss.

Best of luck with whichever decision you make!

Mike

All DSRL have a Program or Auto-picture setting that makes them work like a P&S. Probably the most significant differentce between a FZ50 and small DSLR like the Nikon D40 or Pentax K100D is that on a DSRL you have to use the viewfinder. The FZ50 and most P&S have live view so you can use the screen to frame the shots.

I don't know why!

Any entry level DSLR with a kit lens is a good place to start.

I think the Olympus E410 or E510 would be a good place to start (due out late spring). If you can't wait that long, consider the E500, it has a FULL auto mode, so I suspect the new 410 and 510 will as well.

The Kit zoom lenses go from moderate wide angle to a moderate telephoto and are pretty good lenses considering they are kit lenses.

The focal lengths in the kit lenses are 14mm - 45mm, 17.5 mm - 45mm, and 40mm - 150mm depending on the kit you purchase (some kits have 1 lens some have 2). Multply the focal length by 2 to to calculate the rough 35mm lens equivalent. So a 14 - 45 is roughly equivalent to a 28mm - 90mm in a 35mm film camera. Sigma also sells some lenses that might be sold with an OLY but they tend to avoid those niches that Oly has filled.

I own the 14 - 45 and the 40 - 150 kit lenses. both are quite good considering their cost.
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'

Thank you for replying. The info and advice is very much appreciated.

I should add to this that I have an inherited Canon Rebel 300d with kit lens and a Canon 75-300mm (1.5m/4.9) zoom with IS. I have been VERY frustrated with this camera, not that I think it is any way the camera's fault, but my own lack of ability and knowledge. I have read, and would like to know if it is true, that the newer entry level DSLRs are more beginner friendly than this older camera.

Also, I don't know if this zoom lens is any good, and if, since I already have it, it is worth sticking to a Canon product. I could, I am sure sell this lens, in fact the entire set up, and get something that won't have me so dissatisfied with MY ability. This may be a good camera and lens but not if I can't use it.
--
Robin

rzarbo said:

Thank you for replying. The info and advice is very much appreciated.

I should add to this that I have an inherited Canon Rebel 300d with
kit lens and a Canon 75-300mm (1.5m/4.9) zoom with IS. I have been
VERY frustrated with this camera, not that I think it is any way
the camera's fault, but my own lack of ability and knowledge. I
have read, and would like to know if it is true, that the newer
entry level DSLRs are more beginner friendly than this older camera.

Click to expand...

No. As you have already experienced a DSLR (and adequately capable one at that.), don't go for another one unless you urself feel the need for it. (Which you will do only if you are able to enjoy the present one and over a period of time find some shortcomings.)

DSLRs are for persons who want more control over output (primarily by choice of lenses, and fast performance. Also low noise at High ISO, Enhanced Dynamic Range).

Always keep in mind that: A change must be need based and not because it is available.

rzarbo said:

Also, I don't know if this zoom lens is any good, and if, since I
already have it, it is worth sticking to a Canon product. I could,
I am sure sell this lens, in fact the entire set up, and get
something that won't have me so dissatisfied with MY ability.
This may be a good camera and lens but not if I can't use it.

Click to expand...

The zooms you have are as good as they go.

I suggest you consider Nikon S10 (6MP, 10x zoom with Image Stabilisation, Swival Body for over-the top & near-ground shots, compact.)

If compact is not a requirement and you do lots of indoor shots, then also have a look at Fuji S6000fd (6MP, 10.7x manual zoom good IQ).
Else Canon S3IS (6MP, 12x zoom with I.S., Swival LCD) is also a capable camera.

--
Regards, Ajay
http://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612

If you're not happy with the 300d then getting a new dSLR probably wont help much. The 300D has a green mode which does everythng for you, not more difficult than using a P&S.

Think you should have a much more specific reason for switching than usability. Newer models have more megapixels, are slightly smaller and faster, but are about as easy (or difficult) to use.

What is it that you want to take pictures of again?

DSLRs are also very point-and-shoot these days--you just have to point them a bit more accurately than other cameras... (gotta get those crosshairs on the subject's eye to ensure perfect focus)

And if you are ok with post processing, you can put everything on automatic and shoot RAW--that will let you fix most minor problems with exposure.

I think is what you are looking for?

Sigma introduced at the PMA '07 the DP1. There is no word yet from Sigma when it will sell. Rumours say in the summer.

1. It has a DSLR sized sensor (where you get the DSLR quality from.)

2. It is the only like of it's kind to use a 3 layered sensor, that captures light the same way as film. See http://www.foveon.org

3. It comes with a hot shoe so you can use an external flash or optional viewfinder.
4. It comes with a built in flash as well.

5. Although it is not out yet, users of the DSLR SD14 which incorperate the same Foveon sensor find that it works extremely well in low light.
6. The quality of the built in lens is excellent.
7. Yes it is the perfect snap shot camera
8. Unlike most P&S, this one is built like a tank.

Check the specs:
http://www.sigma-dp1.com (flash)

Here are two very recent inside reports:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS07/1173400237.html
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030807sigmadp1.asp
--
I'm happy as can be with my SD9.
SD14 Interview at Photokina '06: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41ChPbvcQa0
http://www.pbase.com/jasonpage

The goal is not to change your subjects, but for the subject to change the photographer. -Anonymous

Perhaps accurate pointing, or lack thereof, is my problem. I have not been happy with the 300d pics on auto or scene compared to my p and s, until that is, I go inside. Then the 300d pics are MUCH better than the p and s but still not really anything I am satisfied with. The salesman at Ritz was trying to convince me that the newer cameras are easier for a beginner to use and that their auto/scene modes are more p and shoot like than the obsolete (his term) 300d. One thing I did immediately like about some of the newer models is that the view finder and lcd screen were easier to use. But you all are certainly right that if the auto modes are not, in fact, any better than it would be silly to get something newer.
--
Robin

I just checked out those links and it does indeed sound pretty cool! Would the fixed 28mm lens be suitable for taking pictures of someone ten feet from me as well as at the other end of my 30ft livingroom?
--
Robin

What do you mean accurate pointing? Looking through a viewfinder is different from looking at an LCD at arms length and both have their pluses and minuses, but it is definitely an adjustment to switch from one to another.

The newer DSLRs are faster (in startup, saving pictures, shutter lag). If responsivity is one of the things that troubles you about the 300D, this has been much improved in the newer cameras.

Mike

Sorry! I forgot to answer YOUR question. I would mainly be taking pictures of my kids, family gatherings and any of the many, (too many) animals that are a part of our family. Should I ever get good enough with a DSLR I would like to be able to take pics of my daughter's horse shows which can range from up close to across a ring and from slow dressage work to very fast jumping. Also, my son wants me to photograph him on his atv going over jumps and he doesn't do anything slowly except clean his room!
--
Robin

Sorry for the confusion. I was responding to a previous post suggesting that I perhaps needed to "point more accurately" which could very well be the case.

Speed and responsiveness are not, at least at this time, a problem for me although I was impressed with how the Canon could take pics much more quickly then my ps ultra zoom. The problem was that none of them came out very well on sport mode, (I was taking pics of my daughter riding) and the p and s did a better job although I was not able to capture as many of her taking jumps because I had to try and guess at when she was going to be airborne. I am assuming that this is what you all refer to as shutter lag and yes I did find it annoying!

But for now, it is really in the indoor low light ability that I want to address.
--
Robin

It's not a 28mm lens. It has the same (wide) field of view as a 28mm lens on a full-frame-35mm camera. It's a good lens for indoor use and landscapes, but probably too short for typical head & shoulders portraits at 10 feet. For people shots with this camera, you'll want to get in close, w which is doable with a small unobtrusive camera.

j

rzarbo said:

I just checked out those links and it does indeed sound pretty
cool! Would the fixed 28mm lens be suitable for taking pictures of
someone ten feet from me as well as at the other end of my 30ft
livingroom?
--
Robin

Click to expand...

The 300d/digital rebel is a capable camera and can be used to take great photos - have a look at http://www.shutterpoint.com/Photos-BrowseTech.cfm?type=1&name=Canon%20EOS%20300D%20Digital%20Rebel

What about your photos is it that is worse than your P&S?

Composition/framing - maybe you are more comfortable framing with a screen than an optical viewfinder. If this is the case no traditional DSLR is going to help you. Consider the Sony R1 (which has great high ISO performance thanks to it's sensor size) or one of the new Olympus DSLR that offer live view.

Colour/Contrast/white balance - colour and contrast are usually more pronounced on p&s than dslr. You could set the camera to enhance contrast and saturation to get more of the punchier look, or preferably use raw and do this in post processing so you can choose how much to go for. auto white balance tends to be weaker on dslr than p&s. The Canon 400d is better than the 300d but still doesn't get it right all the time. The best option is to shoot raw and use the processing software to set wb: often it has an auto white balance that does a much better job than the camera can.

Exposure - maybe a newer dslr would have more sophisticated auto metering but I don't think the 300d is especially weak in this area. You say you don't mind pp - then try shooting raw and you can tweak the exposure later by up to 2 stops.

Subject out of focus - the dsl has a much smaller depth of field due to its larger sensor. A new camera won't help you with this. You will have to become more adept at paying attention to which focus point the camera is using and making sure it is on your subject. If light levels allow use a smaller aperture (larger f/number) to get a larger depth of field. Sports mode will probably not help with this as it will try and use a larger aperture to increase shutter speed and freeze the action.

Hope some of this is helpful.

Dan

--
http://photo.pidcock.co.uk/ - Photography information
http://www.pidcock.co.uk/photos - My photographs

If you were considering the Panasonic DMC-FZ50, any reason that you didn't consider the Fuji S9100 (The S9000 has a review here)?

rzarbo said:

I had pretty much decided on getting the Pany FZ50 to fill most of
my needs. It provided good zoom, sturdy build, RAW, and ttl hot
shoe. Noise issue aside. Then the Sony H9 was announced and now I
think I am going to go with that camera as my general carryround
superzoom but it does not provide RAW or external flash. So I am
still looking for a camera that will provide those things for
indoor low light situations.

Click to expand...

Thank you so much for your very helpful reply. Your photos are beautiful! I would be quite happy with result half that good! lol

Your questions helped me actually analyze what I have been seeing. I believe it is a combination of the colors not being as "punchy" and the subject not being in focus.

I always tend to frame with the VF and not the lcd so I don't think that is it. Nor do I think it is an exposure problem.

I have had this camera, inherited from my father, for about 4 months. He was not a photographer and was probably sold this cam by some guy at a Ritz camera shop who convinced him it would make him a photographer. He did not even realize that the fact that he did not own a computer might be a problem!!

It is very frustrating to have a great tool that you don't know how to use. Unfortunately I seem to be in an area that does not offer photo courses anywhere that I can find so I am kind of flying blind with learning how to use this thing. I thought that maybe a newer one might have better auto/scene modes that would help me out while I tried to learn but I guess that is not the case.

I had been looking at the Pentac K100 just BECAUSE of all the scene modes it offers! I know all you photographers are probably just putting your heads in your hands over that alone! lol
--
Robin