Buying cameras for high school classes

Happy Friday all! Long-time photographer here - think 1960s - trying to help my niece with school purchasing.

At her old school, she was in charge of media education which included having students shoot school activities and sports, edit the images and create posts for the school website, facebook and printed material. They used mostly Nikon d5500s which were purchased around 2015.

Now she is moving to a new school and starting a program from scratch and I am trying to help with research. The last cameras I bought were my Canon D7s so you can see I am sorta behind in the newer tech.

I need some expert knowledge and informed opinions on choices. The cameras are going to be used by high school kids so they need to be kinda rugged and hopefully survive for 5-8 years. Simple enough for absolute beginners, but also able to let them get into manual modes. Looking at a budget of about $1000 each and not tied to any specific manufacturer.

Thanks in advance for info and help and please ask questions if I've left anything out.

CCroom said:

Happy Friday all! Long-time photographer here - think 1960s - trying to help my niece with school purchasing.

At her old school, she was in charge of media education which included having students shoot school activities and sports, edit the images and create posts for the school website, facebook and printed material. They used mostly Nikon d5500s which were purchased around 2015.

Now she is moving to a new school and starting a program from scratch and I am trying to help with research. The last cameras I bought were my Canon D7s so you can see I am sorta behind in the newer tech.

I need some expert knowledge and informed opinions on choices. The cameras are going to be used by high school kids so they need to be kinda rugged and hopefully survive for 5-8 years. Simple enough for absolute beginners, but also able to let them get into manual modes. Looking at a budget of about $1000 each and not tied to any specific manufacturer.

Thanks in advance for info and help and please ask questions if I've left anything out.

Click to expand...

Not sure that anything new in your price range is really rugged enough to survive a drop. A silicone "skin" or other case might offer some protection. That in turn implies a model sold in high enough numbers that the manufacturer or a third party produced a skin/case. A "skin" might also be available in red or safety orange, which, while not a guarantee, could be beneficial in a country where too often cops shoot first and ask questions later (Oops, looks like it was only a cellphone, not a gun!).

Beyond that, I'd say either APS-C or Micro Four-Thirds (certainly no need for the extra cost, size, and weight of full-frame for the uses you mentioned). I'd definitely say mirrorless (rather than DSLR) because of the importance of video nowadays. IBIS desirable, particularly if interested in video.

For your use case, I'd lean towards Sony or Canon APS-C, or possibly Panasonic (Lumix) Micro Four-Thirds.

Both Sony and Canon probably sell a lot of APS-C bodies, and both have AF probably somewhat better than Nikon or Fuji.

Nikon doesn't seem to be all that serious about APS-C, bodies or lenses. (And IIRC, none of their APS-C bodies have IBIS, a significant disadvantage, and likely a disqualification if at all interested in video).

Fuji, though big in APS-C, has in recent years pretty much abandoned the lower end of the market. (Even the soon to be introduced Fuji X-T50 will be well above the budget you mentioned).

Until recently I would have advised against Canon because of no third-party lenses, but they are starting to allow some Sigma and Tamron lenses (APS-C only). Some Canon low-end models used to have a "guided" mode, don't know if that's still true or what it entails, but might be advantageous for learners.

Panasonic often has some good sales on lower-end MFT bodies, (several hundred $ off), often in packages with one or two lenses. And many of their cameras have some nice features (i.e. focus stacking, extracting stills from video, etc). But one potential disadvantage, if at all interested in video, is that those older bodies lack phase-detect AF. (Panasonic only recently switched to hybrid phase-detect, and their old system, "DFD" ("Depth from defocus"), will hunt or pulse while trying to focus. Not terrible for still photography, but problematic for video).

Can't advise on specific models, I'm using full-frame Sony and haven't been paying that much attention to smaller sensor cameras.

CCroom said:

Happy Friday all! Long-time photographer here - think 1960s - trying to help my niece with school purchasing.

At her old school, she was in charge of media education which included having students shoot school activities and sports, edit the images and create posts for the school website, facebook and printed material. They used mostly Nikon d5500s which were purchased around 2015.

Now she is moving to a new school and starting a program from scratch and I am trying to help with research. The last cameras I bought were my Canon D7s so you can see I am sorta behind in the newer tech.

I need some expert knowledge and informed opinions on choices. The cameras are going to be used by high school kids so they need to be kinda rugged and hopefully survive for 5-8 years. Simple enough for absolute beginners, but also able to let them get into manual modes. Looking at a budget of about $1000 each and not tied to any specific manufacturer.

Thanks in advance for info and help and please ask questions if I've left anything out.

Click to expand...

Don't most, if not all, high schools use cellphone cameras for original media these days? They're readily available and take pretty good photos. They have wiped out the entire segment of traditional small-sensor compact cameras. Media arts majors are more concerned about working with all kinds of software and web page design than the actual creation of original photographic media.

If your niece does need actual cameras then maybe the Canon R50 or R10. Avoid the temptation to buy a bunch of Canon R100s.

ZilverHaylide said:

ZilverHaylide wrote

Until recently I would have advised against Canon because of no third-party lenses, but they are starting to allow some Sigma and Tamron lenses (APS-C only).

Click to expand...

Respectfully, this is incorrect. Sigma has been making EF mount lenses since at least the late 90's that I know of. I bought my first Sigma EF mount lens around '98 or '99. Across all of their product lines, the overwhelming majority are full frame. I've owned their excellent 50 1.4 and 30 1.4 for 15 years. Wonderful lenses. The 50 is full frame, and the 30 is crop.

bifrost said:

bifrost said:

ZilverHaylide wrote

Until recently I would have advised against Canon because of no third-party lenses, but they are starting to allow some Sigma and Tamron lenses (APS-C only).

Click to expand...

Respectfully, this is incorrect. Sigma has been making EF mount lenses since at least the late 90's that I know of. I bought my first Sigma EF mount lens around '98 or '99. Across all of their product lines, the overwhelming majority are full frame. I've owned their excellent 50 1.4 and 30 1.4 for 15 years. Wonderful lenses. The 50 is full frame, and the 30 is crop.

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. I knew that, but since I had earlier in my answer suggested mirrorless, what I said about no third-party lenses until recently for Canon was implied to be with regard to that. I guess I could have been more specific, to avoid confusion.

The Panasonic G85 is what I would be looking at. They are light, handle well, have top notch stabilization, are easy to use and fun to learn on.

CCroom said:

Happy Friday all! Long-time photographer here - think 1960s - trying to help my niece with school purchasing.

At her old school, she was in charge of media education which included having students shoot school activities and sports, edit the images and create posts for the school website, facebook and printed material. They used mostly Nikon d5500s which were purchased around 2015.

Now she is moving to a new school and starting a program from scratch and I am trying to help with research. The last cameras I bought were my Canon D7s so you can see I am sorta behind in the newer tech.

I need some expert knowledge and informed opinions on choices. The cameras are going to be used by high school kids so they need to be kinda rugged and hopefully survive for 5-8 years. Simple enough for absolute beginners, but also able to let them get into manual modes. Looking at a budget of about $1000 each and not tied to any specific manufacturer.

Thanks in advance for info and help and please ask questions if I've left anything out.

Click to expand...

All cameras have a fully automatic mode that any beginner can use. That's just a given. As for ruggedness, that's hard to assess (except for the "tough" cameras - and they are too limited for your uses). Pro gear will be strong, but that's way out of your price range, and the sort of gear you can afford will certainly survive that long if treated with respect. That's something that will need to be instilled into the users.

Right now, at $1000 (with kit zoom, most likely) you're going to be looking at entry-level models, but do avoid the Canon R100 - a very feature-poor model that's unlikely to prove durable. The best that can be said about it is that it's cheap, but better models can be had within your budget.

One other thing to look into is the possibility of educational pricing. Some big companies have sales channels for selling to schools and students. I've not dealt with camera companies in this way, but I wouldn't be too surprised if such channels exist.

I think I would want IBIS and weather sealing for any camera used to teach kids. Also helpful if the lenses are cheap and available.

The cheaper full frame cameras are feature limited. I would skip them.

APS-C should be the sweet spot, but oddly is not.

• Nikon APS-C lack IBIS. I am not sure about weather sealing. I would not invest in that.
• Canon - You have to go up the chain to the Canon R7 to get IBIS. The R10 or R50 are capable, but very feature limited. Canon R lens selection on the lower end is problematic.
• Fuji - XT3 II is the only camera in the price range. A good camera but lenses are expensive and ergonomics may not be the best for teaching general purpose photography
• Sony - bad ergonomics. And a lot of the cheaper ones do not have IBIS. However there are a lot of lens choice!

So that leaves micro four thirds.

• Pansonic G85 and G95 are weather sealed and have IBIS. Of these G95 has the better sensor.
• Pansonic G85 and G95 have great video features also.
• micro four thirds have inexpensive primes and also good lenses for team sports.
• EM1 Mark III or EM1 Mark II are also worth a look.

CCroom said:

Long-time photographer here - think 1960s - trying to help my niece with school purchasing.

At her old school, she was in charge of media education which included having students shoot school activities and sports, edit the images and create posts for the school website, facebook and printed material. They used mostly Nikon d5500s which were purchased around 2015.

Now she is moving to a new school and starting a program from scratch and I am trying to help with research. The last cameras I bought were my Canon D7s so you can see I am sorta behind in the newer tech.

I need some expert knowledge and informed opinions on choices. The cameras are going to be used by high school kids so they need to be kinda rugged and hopefully survive for 5-8 years. Simple enough for absolute beginners, but also able to let them get into manual modes. Looking at a budget of about $1000 each and not tied to any specific manufacturer.

Click to expand...

Overall, I think the best choice would be some kits of the Sony A6400 + Sony 18-135mm lens, often available for $1148. Then for sports requiring a longer lens (especially football and soccer), get a Sony 70-350mm ($898) or maybe Tamron 70-300mm ($499).

Rationale: shooting team sports is much easier / better-done if you have top-level autofocus. And almost the only camera with top-level autofocus available with a decent lens anywhere near $1000, that has a workable longer lens at a reasonable price for use where needed, is the A6400. The step-up from there is the A6600, which adds in-body image stabilization and a larger battery but costs $200 more.

Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus have their good points, but they don't have autofocus of the first level, at least not in cameras in or near your price range.

Then there's Canon. Canon has the most closed ecosystem, which to me is a big disadvantage and sometimes a substantial price / cost issue. But as of today, I suspect the students could also function pretty well with sets of the Canon R50 ($549) plus Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM ($499), and then for more reach where really need one or two copies of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM ($599). Instead of the R50 and lens, for not that much more (currently $1279 as a kit, so an extra $230 per set) there's a Canon kit featuring the step-up R10 camera plus the 18-150mm lens. Overall I think the Canon system would be less effective and maybe more expensive, but I won't say it's not basically capable. The Canon RF 100-400mm has a somewhat mixed reputation, so there's that downside too.

Last but not least: as already mentioned, there's no way you're getting any sort of rugged gear in your price range unless you buy quite old used equipment. You mentioned your 7D; I think you could buy sets of a used 7D II and a used Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM lens for $1000 or so.

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

Long-time photographer here - think 1960s - trying to help my niece with school purchasing.

At her old school, she was in charge of media education which included having students shoot school activities and sports, edit the images and create posts for the school website, facebook and printed material. They used mostly Nikon d5500s which were purchased around 2015.

Now she is moving to a new school and starting a program from scratch and I am trying to help with research. The last cameras I bought were my Canon D7s so you can see I am sorta behind in the newer tech.

I need some expert knowledge and informed opinions on choices. The cameras are going to be used by high school kids so they need to be kinda rugged and hopefully survive for 5-8 years. Simple enough for absolute beginners, but also able to let them get into manual modes. Looking at a budget of about $1000 each and not tied to any specific manufacturer.

Click to expand...

Overall, I think the best choice would be some kits of the Sony A6400 + Sony 18-135mm lens, often available for $1148. Then for sports requiring a longer lens (especially football and soccer), get a Sony 70-350mm ($898) or maybe Tamron 70-300mm ($499).

Rationale: shooting team sports is much easier / better-done if you have top-level autofocus. And almost the only camera with top-level autofocus available with a decent lens anywhere near $1000, that has a workable longer lens at a reasonable price for use where needed, is the A6400. The step-up from there is the A6600, which adds in-body image stabilization and a larger battery but costs $200 more.

Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, and Olympus have their good points, but they don't have autofocus of the first level, at least not in cameras in or near your price range.

Then there's Canon. Canon has the most closed ecosystem, which to me is a big disadvantage and sometimes a substantial price / cost issue. But as of today, I suspect the students could also function pretty well with sets of the Canon R50 ($549) plus Canon RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM ($499), and then for more reach where really need one or two copies of the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM ($599). Instead of the R50 and lens, for not that much more (currently $1279 as a kit, so an extra $230 per set) there's a Canon kit featuring the step-up R10 camera plus the 18-150mm lens. Overall I think the Canon system would be less effective and maybe more expensive, but I won't say it's not basically capable. The Canon RF 100-400mm has a somewhat mixed reputation, so there's that downside too.

Last but not least: as already mentioned, there's no way you're getting any sort of rugged gear in your price range unless you buy quite old used equipment. You mentioned your 7D; I think you could buy sets of a used 7D II and a used Canon EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM lens for $1000 or so.

Click to expand...

Good points about good AF for sports, and specific advice. But your lengthy reply made me think about that more than I had at the time of my previous reply. And, what I'm thinking is simply this: won't high school field sports be mostly played evening and night? How well will the fields be illuminated?

Might imply need for some lenses with significant reach AND relatively-large maximum apertures. (Obviously not as much as would be the case for pro usage; if only for student web publishing, one can, up to a point, simply crank up the iso, and maybe additionally apply some modern noise-reduction software in post). And not every student needs to be equiped that way. But maybe one or two. And depending on what those lenses are, might that influence choice of one or two cameras? So while it'd be beneficial for inventory and teaching for all cameras to be the same, might there be a good reason for them to not be?

I've not been a sports photographer, so in advice I'll defer to anyone with experience at that.

Out of curiosity, would they be shooting video primarily or stills? It might help with option choices. I'm thinking Panasonic G100's are a good general option. Small, cheap and pretty rugged.

One thing I just thought of. While it'd be more predictable to have a budget allocation and then decide how to best spend that (and has already been mentioned, there may be some educational discounts that can stretch that a bit), maybe consider whether serendipity could stretch that even more. What about social media (and regular media) appeals for equipment? There might be pros upgrading equipment or retiring, advanced amateurs who for reasons of infirmity aren't using their equipment much if at all (especially heavy telephotos that could be good for sports), or persons liquidating estates of relatives who have died. All those could be sources, with the potential for some very good stuff, even more if they can get a tax break for donation to an educational institution (not sure what the laws might be where you are, but the school district probably has an attorney or accountant who can advise). You'd probably end up with a diverse assortment of equipment, but it could even be an additional learning experience for the students, as they would have to RTFM!

ZilverHaylide said:

ZilverHaylide said:

ZilverHaylide said:

Long-time photographer here - think 1960s - trying to help my niece with school purchasing.

At her old school, she was in charge of media education which included having students shoot school activities and sports, edit the images and create posts for the school website, facebook and printed material. They used mostly Nikon d5500s which were purchased around 2015.

Click to expand...

Overall, I think the best choice would be some kits of the Sony A6400 + Sony 18-135mm lens, often available for $1148. Then for sports requiring a longer lens (especially football and soccer), get a Sony 70-350mm ($898) or maybe Tamron 70-300mm ($499).

Rationale: shooting team sports is much easier / better-done if you have top-level autofocus. And almost the only camera with top-level autofocus available with a decent lens anywhere near $1000, that has a workable longer lens at a reasonable price for use where needed, is the A6400....

Click to expand...

Good points about good AF for sports, and specific advice. But your lengthy reply made me think about that more than I had at the time of my previous reply. And, what I'm thinking is simply this: won't high school field sports be mostly played evening and night? How well will the fields be illuminated?

Click to expand...

Yes and no on day versus night games. Around here, soccer seems to be played more during daylight hours. Football is more often, but not always, played at night. The night-time stadium illumination at the stadium where I've been to the most football games is not very high or perfectly uniform, but IMO it suffices. A proper exposure varies a bit, but the average shot can be taken at about 1/800 s, f/5.6, ISO 12800. With a decent modern-ish camera and good modern software (I prefer / recommend DxO PhotoLab Elite), that works out fine.

ZilverHaylide said:

Might imply need for some lenses with significant reach AND relatively-large maximum apertures. (Obviously not as much as would be the case for pro usage; if only for student web publishing, one can, up to a point, simply crank up the iso, and maybe additionally apply some modern noise-reduction software in post).

Click to expand...

Yes and no on the long, fast lenses. My son shoots some of his high school's sports. He's seen others using, and had brief chances to try, high-end rigs like a pro sports camera with a 300mm f/2.8 lens for football and a pro camera with an 85mm f/1.2 for basketball. He's used the school's 70-200mm f/2.8. At least in some circumstances, are such lenses, and cameras of a similar level, better / more capable? Sure. Does a high school need to send to send out a student journalist with a $5500 rig to shoot basketball, or a $9000 rig to shoot football? Definitely not.

Also: a large maximum aperture is nice (sometimes very nice), but focus speed and accuracy are important too. So an f/2.8 lens that has only moderate focus speed may be less satisfactory than an f/4.5-5.6 lens that focuses quickly.

As perspective, when I was in high school, pretty much everything was shot on 35mm film; nobody had those sorts of big, fast lenses; and the school typically issued ISO 400 film, which you could push in development to 1600 or so. Games were still photographed. Fewer shots were taken, the keeper rate was lower, and the average quality was lower. But usable shots can be taken with gear that's fairly modest by today's standards.

ZilverHaylide said:

And not every student needs to be equiped that way. But maybe one or two. And depending on what those lenses are, might that influence choice of one or two cameras? So while it'd be beneficial for inventory and teaching for all cameras to be the same, might there be a good reason for them to not be?

Click to expand...

Arguably. I do think all cameras should use the same lens-mount, so any lens can be swapped onto any camera. Beyond that, there are more tradeoffs and judgment calls.

ZilverHaylide said:

I've not been a sports photographer, so in advice I'll defer to anyone with experience at that.

Click to expand...

FWIW / as a guide to how much weight someone might want to put on my thoughts, I'm far from a pro. I haven't shot sports other than my kids' teams. That started with recreational leagues at about four years old, and went through high school. I've shot football, flag football, basketball, baseball, softball, t-ball, soccer, swimming, cross-country running, track and field, and volleyball. This has been over the last twenty years or so. My skills have certainly improved over time and with experience, but again, they are far from pro-level. My gear has certainly improved from a mid-level 35mm SLR to my current Sony A9. My results have ranged from basically unusable to perfectly fine. So take my opinions with whatever salt you deem appropriate!

For under 1000, I imagine brand new, I would maybe look at something like a Canon R10 or Nikon Z50.

Both have decent grips, are shooting decently fast and have decent autofocus (the R10 is better and more "foolproof").

If the goal is to shoot sports and such, the RF system has the cheap 100-400 lens that would be ideal for that kind of situation. The Nikon has the 50-250 DX, which would also be fit for the job.

I would like to recommend the Sony A6100 but I'm not sure how rugged it would be compared to the Z50 and R10. Seems to me both the Canon and Nikon are also a little more beginner friendly in their ergonomics and menu system, even if the Sony might have the edge on performance.

There is of course a whole bunch of "better" cameras you can get in that price range used, but I don't know if a school would buy used equipment... you're not really getting any certainty that you'd be able to get the number of cameras you want all in the same shape etc. I would stick to brand new equipment.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Thanks for your thoughts! I'm sure they will use cellphones for some quick grab stuff, but she wants them to learn real photography with actual cameras.

Would not have thought of panasonic. will look into them . thanks

Thanks for your thoughts!

Thanks for your suggestions

Sony is another one I would have thought of. Thanks