New DSLR advice

[smelly]

Hello,

I'm new to the world of DSLR cameras. Currently have a couple of point and shoot compacts (canon ixus 220) and an old Sony.

Wife wants more shots of the daughter not blinking or as a haze when I'm shooting.

Looking at Nikon D3200 or something similar beginner DSLR wise. Will the Nikon be fast enough to cope with moving toddlers? And other point and shoot duties (landscapes, still people) inside and out? And the depth of focus shots (obviously depending on the user)

Comments welcome

[kalniel]

Any modern DSLR and most modern CSCs will be more than fast enough to cope with toddlers. They will also all excel at landscapes, portraits etc. inside and out.

What other criteria do you have? Budget? If it's just the above then practically everything fits great, so go into a store and try them all for size and get the on you like the feel of the best.

[Saracen]

One generic point for you. The main benefit of any DSLR is that it's part of a system, so you'd be best advised to consider the whole system, in the light not just of what you want now, but what you'll want to expand into, because the various brans almost entirely don't work with each other, and it can be expensive to change ships once you've bought.

So my advice is to not just think of the benefits of camera A versus camera B, or brand A versus brand B, but system A versus system B. And implicit in that, not just the price of the camera, but the price of the bits you'll want to add ... though there are often (but not always ) third-party equivalents that may or may not be as good, but will probably be cheaper, sometimes a lot cheaper.

[technodean]

As above, any dslr will be capable enough, But if you seen the gadget show review on the 3200, when they tried to use it for video capture it wouldn't track the shot, it kept going out of focus, I own the d5100 & owned a 3100 which they too wasn't very good at taking video's, keep going out of focus. Only saying this as you want it for capturing your babies memories and will probably wish to use all of the camera's settings.

[kalniel]

So my advice is to not just think of the benefits of camera A versus camera B, or brand A versus brand B, but system A versus system B. And implicit in that, not just the price of the camera, but the price of the bits you'll want to add ... though there are often (but not always ) third-party equivalents that may or may not be as good, but will probably be cheaper, sometimes a lot cheaper.

But does that actually narrow down the choice for us amateurs? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus and micro-Four-Thirds are all very extensive systems that will perform the non-specialist roles almost equally well.

[smelly]

I grasp the fact that lenses, flash guns, are not interchangeable and are proprietary. But are they all that different, please excuse the question as i really don't know. For what i'm anticipating using it for i don't really envisage getting more than 1 lens unless I find that I'm really lacking something that I need.

Thanks for the info guys

[Zadock]

I bought a Cannon EOS 1100D for my girlfriend, £285 with a 18-55mm lens. It is a lovely camera and absolutely ideal for someone new to DSLRs, when you turn the dial to e.g. "Av" for aperture priortiy mode is gives you a brief explanation of what that you can do with that mode on the screen.

We recently bought a Nikon D3200 for the office and I have to say that I am equally as impressed with that camera too.

I have a Sony Alpha 200, again a great amateur camera (though a few years old and some bigger than the aforementioned models).

Try and get a hands on with a few models within your budget and see which one "feels" the best i.e. the size, position of the controls etc because in terms of the technology inside them there is not a great deal of difference.

Hope that helps.

[kalniel]

I grasp the fact that lenses, flash guns, are not interchangeable and are proprietary. But are they all that different, please excuse the question as i really don't know. For what i'm anticipating using it for i don't really envisage getting more than 1 lens unless I find that I'm really lacking something that I need.

Thanks for the info guys

Between the different systems you mean? For the most parts, no, not really. Each system has a range from kit lenses designed to be sold with the camera, through 'my first kit replacement lens(TM)' to primes and lenses covering more specialist uses for eg. macro or ultra wide angle etc. or waterproof. At any given point in the range one system might have a superior lens to another systems, but chances are you'll pay for that anyway, or it'll be balanced by another lens being better in another system for a different use.

In terms of between different lenses in the same system, yes, they can be hugely different. This is the reason you buy an SLR/CSC - to get the right lens for the job (and budget) at hand.

[Bobster]

you wanna keep up with kids running around, look at expensive lenses..

[Dareos]

Couple of things on the entry level nikon, remote stuff doesn't work. That's remote flash and remote shutter. I love mine but would have appreciated those features. 5100 has them I believe

[Saracen]

But does that actually narrow down the choice for us amateurs? Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus and micro-Four-Thirds are all very extensive systems that will perform the non-specialist roles almost equally well.

Only if you have specific needs. For me, macro implies Canon (MPE-65 lens, MT-24 flash). But yes, that's specialist.

A more general point is probably prices if system bits, not the range .... though the range for Canon and Nikon tends to be wider than some others.

The point, though, was just be aware, buying into a DSLR is buying into the system.

Another general point, now that I think of it. Try the cameras in your hand. Find a shop that will let you fiddle for a good while. Some people find one camera comfortable, another uncomfortable. I find most of the newer Canon models far less comfortable that the older ones. It's something to do, I think, with the bit to the left of the lens having been made smaller, and I feel less confident with the grip. I'm committed to Canon (MT-24, MPE-65, 100mm macro, etc), short of major expense, but it has stopped me buying a new camera, certainly in the low to mid-range range.

[Saracen]

I grasp the fact that lenses, flash guns, are not interchangeable and are proprietary. But are they all that different, please excuse the question as i really don't know. For what i'm anticipating using it for i don't really envisage getting more than 1 lens unless I find that I'm really lacking something that I need.

....

That's kind-of where I was going, though.

Kal is right, most manufacturers have versions of most lenses, flash, etc, and by and large, more or less equivalents at more or less the same quality levels. For instance, they tend to have consumer and "pro" lenses in more or less the same spec and quality, though Nikon usually seem to be a bit pricier than Canon.

But if you're only likely to buy one lens, it's not much of an issue.


On the other hand, if you're only buying one lens, is a DLSR the best option, given that the biggest single reason for an SLR is the ability to use the lens to suit the job. And, as soon as you have the ability to remove the lens, you have an opportunity for dirt or dust to get into the sensor.

I'm not saying a DSLR is wrong, just that it might not be necessary, or the best route.

As per last post (and assuming it's feasible to get to one), I'd suggest :-

1) Go to a decent camera shop, tell them what you want to do, see what they suggest and try the cameras out.
2) Be prepared to spend a couple of hours, or whatever it takes.
3) Do not, repeat NOT take money or credit cards with you. Then, you can't buy on impulse.
4) Come back and tell us what they say, and I'm sure you'll get good feedback, and the assurance of having tried the actual models.

[smelly]

Many thanks Saracen I'm off this weekend to John Lewis to have a little play. A colleague also mentioned the canon 100d as it's quite light. I think I need to handle these toys.

[lostp]

I would disagree with Saracen and say that SLR is the right choice for child photography - shorter 'boot up' times compared to anything else. And saving 2 seconds may well be the difference between gettign a shot and as kids move about!

[Saracen]

Another option to, just possibly, consider, would be used gear.

For instance, I have a venerable old Olympus E20. Bear in mind when new, this was a £1500 camera, and the system bits that go with it were another £2000, or so. BUt they can be picked up for, relatively speaking, silly money.

The downside? It's a DSLR but a fixed lens one, i.e, not removable, It is, however, a damn good lens.

Another downside is .... 5 Megapixel. But .... depending on what you want, that may not be a problem. My opinion is that unless you want to print pretty large images, 5 MP is perfectly enough for most purposes and anything much above that really only useful for cropping down, that is, "digital" enlargement.

A third downside? It's quite a big, heavy honker. But then, it's kinda battleship grade in build quality.

By 'eck, it looks the part, though

The upside? Minimal cost, very good camera, extremely good lens. It's a 4x zoom, with a 35mm equivalent of 35-140mm, and is a very fast f2 at the wide end, and still an extremely fast f2.4 at the tele end.

I'm not sure how much of that makes sense, but consider the lens as like a tap running water, but it's running light instead. If you want more "water", you have three options :-

- open the tap more
- run the water for longer
- use a bigger tap on a bigger pipe.

Running the water for longer is the shutter speed. IF you leave for tap open for 90 seconds, you'll get more light than if you leave it open for 30 seconds. The same with lenses (though, generally, a LOT less time than that), with the complication that the longer the lens (shutter) is open, the greater the chance of what your photographing (kids) have moved. A mountain or lake scene will probably still be there, but the kids won't.

So, option 2) is constrained by the subject matter.

You can, therefore, open the tap more, that is use a wider aperture. The smaller the number on the aperture (f2.8 is smaller than f11) the wider the aperture (I know, it's kinda confusticating). BUT .... the cheaper lens have a larger aperture rating, hence a smaller maximum size of opening.

An F2 lens is physically larger than an f3.5 of f8 lens, and lets is quite a bit more light, in a given time period, than a "slower" lens is capable of.

So .... a "fast" lens means you can use a faster shutter speed and still more light than a "slower" lens would allow.

But, generally, the faster a lens, either, the worse the image quality or the higher the price. Because they're that much bigger physically, it's a LOT more expensive to make the actual lens elements, and keep them high quality.

Which is one reason why a camera like the E20 can be appealing - the lens is very high quality, and fast, and yet at a price that, new, would buy you a current lens of that speed, much less a camera body too. It's old now, and the usual caveats about second hand and being careful apply, but you can get one heck of a lot of camera for relatively silly money.

Just a thought.