Reading mode: Light Dark

All purpose camera for "newbie" - $1000 budget

Go to last post
B

bobjase

Member
Messages
32
Reaction score
2
My canon s90 is nearing the end of it's life and I was looking to upgrade to something with less shutter lag and better video.

Having missed so many good photo opportunities of my daughter b/c the camera was too slow, I have convinced my wife that it's time to invest $1,000 or so to get a proper camera.

I was wondering what you guys suggest. Here are the basic params:
  • It must shoot FAST. I want to think of it as "instant". Yes, i know i can pre-focus my s90 by pushing the button halfway down, but that's not always realistic and even when it is, there's a 1/2 second delay. I want fast. As in FAST.
  • It must be easy enough to use in some "automatic" mode that my wife can take reasonably good photos
  • It needs to take good video with decent audio and be able to do basic things like zoom/focus during video (sorry s90). I don't need 1080p, but it would certainly be a plus
  • The more portable the better.
  • We probably want an all-purpose lens that we will only change out on rare occasions. My wife and I are learning about cameras but this is really our first baby step.
  • Obviously, I am posting here b/c we want a camera/line that we can grow with.
We are open minded about full frame, APC, micro 4/3, etc... I don't really care. I just want it to take great photos/videos in as wide a range of conditions as is reasonable (the beach, the park, a birthday party, etc...), and for us to be able to actually CAPTURE the precious moments before we miss them.

I have read good things about the a55, t3i, the NEX-5n, and D-90, among others.

I saw this and it looked like a reasonably good deal, but I don't really know so i thought i should ask the experts: http://www.amazon.com/Sony-A55VHZ-Translucent-Technology-SAL18-250/dp/B004S5ZDG4/ref=sr_1_3?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1328646648&sr=1-3

Thanks in advance!
 
What you want is a Nikon D3 and a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. That's fast, as in FAST!

You get from the camera what you put into it. If you have an expectation of being able to point-and-shoot, you're going to be disappointed. Cameras like the Canon 7D can be configured to accommodate point-and-shooting, but you have to know how to match the configuration with how you work. If you just go "beep, beep" and click, it isn't going to work very well. If the camera isn't doing what you expect, you have to do something about it with the manual control options. That's where the expensive dSLRs are much better than no-controls compact cameras and dSLRs with cramped ergonomics.

Unless "birthday party" means indoors in very dim lighting conditions, what you're talking about doesn't require much of a camera kit. When it does mean that, the kit has to include a flash or a fast-aperture prime lens. I also recommend that you get a sensor-based or lens-based stabiliser, which will reduce blurring caused by camera shake.

Zooming with video while focusing is also not easy with a dSLR. Some dSLRs can do this, but you still have to keep the camera steady. Uninterrupted audio while zooming may require the use of an external microphone. As with photography, video requires that you know what you're doing with metering and focusing. The camera isn't always going to give you what you expect automatically. You have to be able to adjust the exposure and focusing manually, and that demands a camera with good ergonomics.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug
 
Thanks so much for your thorough reply.

The camera you recommended (Nikon D3) is $4,000 and I only have a $1,000 budget (as indicated in my message as well as the thread subject). I could MAYBE push her to $1,200, but $4k is definitely out of my league. Also, its gigantic and doesn't look like its easy enough for my wife to use, even for basic photos. Also, the lens doesn't seem very versatile in terms of zoom.

Any other recommendations?

Also, I am surprised that zooming while taking video+audio is complex. My dad's 1993 Sony Handicam could do it fine. Obviously it didn't take 1080p video, but I thought that 1080p vs 480i was about sensors and processing, not about the technical details.

In terms of low-light, I guess the more versatile the better, but i'm not taking hanging out with vampires. For the most part, when its dark i'll either use a flash or be in a reasonably well-lit area.
 
"What you want is a Nikon D3 and a 24-70 f/2.8 lens. That's fast, as in FAST!"

Don't you love helpful suggestions like that one?

I have a D90 and love it. Not "instant" but damn fast with decent "low light" capabilities. You can get the D90 body only for around $800 and the excellent 35mm prime for around $200.
Video isn't all that great, though.
 
bobjase said:
[snip]

Also, I am surprised that zooming while taking video+audio is complex. My dad's 1993 Sony Handicam could do it fine. Obviously it didn't take 1080p video, but I thought that 1080p vs 480i was about sensors and processing, not about the technical details.
Click to expand...
It isn't just zooming which is a problem, hand held video with a DSLR is just about impossible without an expensive steadycam rig. They are only really usable on a tripod.

If you want an interchangeable lens camera that also takes hand held video, you need to look at ones with an electronic viewfinder (EVF) instead of an optical viewfinder (OVF). Examples are the Sony NEX7 and the Panasonic G3 and GH2.

Panasonic makes some lenseswhich are specifically designed for smooth zooming and focusing for video: http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/lenses/panasonic_x_14-42_3p5-5p6_pz
http://www.dpreview.com/products/panasonic/lenses/panasonic_x_45-175_pz

Alternatively just buy a camcorder.
--
Chris R
 
Hi!

As far as I understand, you want your camera to be small/light enough and affordable together. Then, for sure full frame pro-cameras become not possible (in terms of money + size + mass). At this point you start losing from camera speed. You need to find a compromise! :)

Camera speed can be classified into different categories (i) shutter speed, (ii) continuous burst speed (iii) auto-focus speed, etc. I couldn't understand which one you meant but even an entry-level cameras can maintain 1/3000 s shutter speed with 2.9 frames/second continuous burst mode. Auto-focus speed is also lens-dependent as well as it is camera-dependent.

Under these constraints, assuming that you can go upto $1.2k maximum, if I were you I would go for an entry-level body (Nikon D3100, or Sony/Canon equivalent) + 3rd party all-in-one solution lens (I'd prefer Tamron, but why not having a look at the other brands too =) ) .Since it also contains longer focal distances buying with Image Stabilizer (IS, VC, VR, whatever) is much better. :)

I know that all-in-one solution lenses do not take super sharp photos as prime lenses but at the end it is again a compromise, otherwise you need to carry all of your "better" lenses together with you. :)

Hope that could help even a little,
AG.
 
This "fast, fast" stuff you want is unrealistic in any camera.

It sounds to me like you're trying to shoot a moving child, indoors and in low light without flash. Don't bother trying this, as it's asking too much of any camera.

Fast focus requires light. That light can be ambient light in the scene ( e.g. good daylight ) or a focus assist lamp on the camera ( sometimes the flash doubles for this in a special low power mode ).

Also note that avoiding blur in moving kids requires a high shutter speed ( to freeze motion and avoid motion blur ). But that also requires either a lot of ambient light or flash, or a high ISO ( you "trade" high ISO for faster shutter speed ). As good as modern DSLRs are at high ISO there is still no substitute for flash.

This is why flash is so important. Many beginners live in mortal dread of flash ( why I don't know, but they do ) and try to get a "natural" look ( rather like trying to avoid parking on a hill so you can avoid starting on one IMO ). Experienced shooter use flash and learn to use it properly. Key to this is using an external flash capable of bounce ( and swing ideally ).

So perhaps what you need is a basic DSLR with a reasonable external flash.

--
StephenG
 
I'm not afraid of using flash, though I openly admit that I don't have any idea what bounce and swing are.

Assuming I am not afraid of using a flash, is there something you recommend?
 
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative response.

The Nex-7 is $2,000 and therefore out of my league.

Is the NEX-5 also a reasonable choice?

Also, you said the at DSLR's are bad for video - do none of them have image stabilization?

I still don't understand why a $1,000 camera doesn't have the same tech as my dad's $300 handicam from 1993. Is it a matter of weight? IP? Why is it so hard?
 
bobjase said:
I thought that once I was willing to spend $1,000+ dollars on a camera, I could reasonably expect good speed and performance. I'm not saying that my budget is $199.
Click to expand...
For $1000 you certainly can get good speed and performance. But, to repeat what a previous poster said, a moving child indoors is a very difficult subject. Your budget will cover any one of several solid cameras -- Nikon D3100 or D5100, Canon T2i or T3i, Sony A35 or A55, Pentax Kr (if you can find one) -- which, with flash, will meet your still photography needs.
bobjase said:
I am aware that there are cameras that cost $25,000, but what i'm asking for doesn't seem crazy and I'm willing to spend some cash.

Am I being so unrealistic?
Click to expand...
You're being unrealistic if you expect a still camera to also perform as well as a good camcorder. Despite vague advertising claims, still cameras are not proficient at hand-held video. Frankly, you could probably meet your needs best by choosing a strong P&S camera plus a decent camcorder -- and stay within your budget. Check out http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4333175133/buyers-guide-enthusiast-raw-shooting-compact-cameras for a comparison of several excellent P&S cameras.
bobjase said:
is this the type of lens you mean?

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Canon/dp/B001DYE1B6/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1328719447&sr=8-14
Click to expand...
That's probably the kind of lens he means, but depending on this kind of lens defeats the purpose of buying a body which takes interchangeable lenses. If you aren't going to use multiple lenses, why pay the tariff for an interchangeable lens mount? That's why I suggest you look at P&S cameras.
 
bobjase said:
I thought that once I was willing to spend $1,000+ dollars on a camera, I could reasonably expect good speed and performance. I'm not saying that my budget is $199.

Am I being so unrealistic?

is this the type of lens you mean?

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-18-270mm-3-5-6-3-Aspherical-Canon/dp/B001DYE1B6/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1328719447&sr=8-14
Click to expand...
No, it is not totally unrealistic. In fact, it is totally realistic. In my opinion, it is hardly that money is the limitation, our imagination is what limits us. Therefore, I think you can totally enjoy photography by spending $1k.

Yes, that link is showing the all-in-one solution lens. Unfortunately, it is aperture is quite varying. But if you want to narrow down your range to portrait lens of 24-70 mm, you can get constant aperture of f/2.8 with the same price! :)

What I was just saying is that you can get entry level body+a third party lens+external flash (mounts on your camera) with ~$1k!
 
Virginia Bill said:
That's probably the kind of lens he means, but depending on this kind of lens defeats the purpose of buying a body which takes interchangeable lenses. If you aren't going to use multiple lenses, why pay the tariff for an interchangeable lens mount? That's why I suggest you look at P&S cameras.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right. But, DSLR(w/single-lens-solution):
  • has a better low light/high ISO performance
  • enables the chance of adding further lenses in the future (if interested)
  • flash can be mounted so that indirect lighting can be maintained
Anyway, the bottom line is it is true that a DSLR is not designed to be used with a single lens only but still serves for its purpose better than a P&S, I think. =)
 
bobjase said:
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative response.

The Nex-7 is $2,000 and therefore out of my league.

Is the NEX-5 also a reasonable choice?
Click to expand...
Possibly but if you have a relatively heavy lens on it you may need to buy the add on EVF for hand held video. It is much easier to hold the camera steady if you can brace it against your cheek to use an EVF rather than hold it at arms length to use the LCD. Try holding one at arms length and then see how steady you can hold it when you take one hand off to turn the focus ring or zoom ring.
bobjase said:
Also, you said the at DSLR's are bad for video - do none of them have image stabilization?
Click to expand...
All do, either in the body or the lenses.
bobjase said:
I still don't understand why a $1,000 camera doesn't have the same tech as my dad's $300 handicam from 1993. Is it a matter of weight? IP? Why is it so hard?
Click to expand...
A DSLR is vastly more advanced for video than your father's $300 handicam which is why many professional filmakers are using. Unfortunately the features that are advantages for filmakers are disadvantages for amateur video users, e.g. very small depth of field. Pros always shoot off a tripod or with a steadycam rig, don't use autofocus, rarely zoom during a shot and need high quality lenses and large sensors.

The main DSLR video problems relate to size and weight which makes them very difficult to hand hold and, compared with a camcorder, a very small depth of firld which makes focusing critical. DSLR are designed for still photography and have relatively poor handling for video.

If you want something that is more of a hybrid between a camcorder and a still camera, look at the Panasonic GH2 with the PZ lenses that I linked to above.
--
Chris R
 
Well to use an external flash you need a camera that can mount one, which (mostly) means a DSLR. Canon do make an external flash ( HC1 ? ) for the S90, but I've no idea of what can be done with the S90 and HC1, although the combination is a lot less intimidating in size than the DSLR route.

Now the best approach ( for your needs ) is to pick a DSLR you like first and then investigate the flashes available ( as on the relevant forum for that camera here ).

One thing to remember : that combination of camera, lens and flash isn't small and, in general, flashes are not small. So if this is a family camera you might find that combination a problem.

--
StephenG
 
The NEX-5N is certainly a reasonable choice - similar to the NEX7, smaller in size, focuses about the same, has full autofocus during video - as Chris mentioned, the EVF add-on accessory might be desirable in the end as it makes video a bit easier.

Also worthy of consideration are any of the Sony 'SLT' models - all of which have fast autofocus during video (camcorder-style) with good video spec. The thing you'd have to watch for with these is what lens you get to pair with them - you'd likely want to stick to the quieter lenses optimized for video, as opposed to the screw-driven lenses which will be audible through the video sound.

Any of the M4:3 cameras by Olympus & Panasonic would also be similarly good, like the NEX mirrorless cameras and other mirrorless models - all of which can autofocus during video.

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
 
bobjase said:
That being said, is there a good pairing of DSLR+single-lens that you would recommend?

Was my original option ok?
Bear in mind that my wife is going to go crazy if its 25lbs or 2 feet tall.

Thanks again
Click to expand...
I agree with the previous poster that Sony Alpha Nex5 is a very attractive and good alternative for a DSLR.

Regarding your selection, I think the camera body itself is great! The lens is a kit lens, with varying aperture, but users of it seemed to like it. For more info, if you have not previously, please refer to:

For camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyslta55/

For lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/lenses/sony_dt_18-250_3p5-6p3/user-reviews/list

I think if you go for a DSLR, you may also seek for a compatible external flash as an extra. In my opinion, Sony's are really good, their only slight disadvantage is their relatively limited variety in lenses (compared to Canon and Nikon).

Please correct my opinions, if I am wrong.

Cheers,
AG.
 
bobjase said:
I thought that once I was willing to spend $1,000+ dollars on a camera, I could reasonably expect good speed and performance. I'm not saying that my budget is $199.

I am aware that there are cameras that cost $25,000, but what i'm asking for doesn't seem crazy and I'm willing to spend some cash.

Am I being so unrealistic?
Click to expand...
No, of course not. $1000 is serious money for most of us. But no amount of money or technology is going to solve a problem without understanding what the problem is.

You are shooting under one of the most demanding conditions for a camera (low light, moving subject). Basically, the camera needs light to record an image. But there is no light, so to collect it, it keeps the shutter open. This results in a blurry image because the subject moves.

So what you can look for is a DSLR, based on the fact that the lenses can be changed, and you can select a lens that is optimal for what you want to do. Another reason is that the auto-focus works differently, and is usually faster. Just don't expect that you can hammer the shutter-button and it will take a good image automatically.

For $1000 you can get an entry-level DSLR body. The lens you can use for indoor phtotography in low light might be a 50mm f/1.8 or a 85mm f/1.8. These are still reasonably priced. Note that these lenses won't zoom, and I picked them specifically for the job at hand.

The most important element, however, is tuition in photography. Learn about exposure. You must be able to take a photo in full manual mode and know what you are doing. Then you get an understanding why some shots work, and others don't. Why the camera can't possibly capture an image in full auto, but in one of the manual modes, you can. Or why it is absolutely impossible to take a photograph.

Photography is an art, but also a craft. You need to learn (a little bit of) that trade to get the shots you want. Getting capable equipment is only half of the equation.
 
You're trying to equate money with capabilities, and while throwing money at the problem can help, what you may be asking for will require more than a Nikon D3 and a standard zoom lens. A dSLR is designed for still photography, not videography. A Handicam was intended as a video camera, and if that's what you want, you should be looking at compact camcorders. Longer zoom lenses require much more stability, while video at the wide-angle is easier, so "versatile" doesn't mean "big zoom" because longer zooms mean more difficult recording for both stability and audio. It really comes down to you knowing what you're doing and having the proper equipment to the job. You may be happier with a compact camcorder.

--
http://www.alexanderrogge.net/arshutterbug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top