Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 26, 2009, 3:19 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

And, TCav, my friend-

That will push the budget well over the proposed $(US) 500.00. There is a need for a lot of zoom here that will require an expensive DSLR lens, if you go to 400mm or over.

The alternatives:

Pentax K-2000: with the kit lens and the Pentax 50-200mm lens. That would give you 300mm worth of zoom.

Nikon D-3000:with the kit lens and the Nikon 55-200mm lens. That would give you again 300mm worth of zoom.

Sony A-200/230: with the kit lens and the Sony 55-200mm lens. 300mm again.

Canon XS with kit lens and the Canon 55-200mm len. 300mm again.

But in every case, 300mm of zoom becomes the limiting zoom available, which is less than the zoom available in a lot of super zoom cameras.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 3:22 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
anthony_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 211
Default

TCAV, I hear you loud and clear...would a basic dslr kit give me a really nice picture of my kids at the park ?....that's all I need....Basically the best picture possible of my kids standing neXt to Mickey Mouse..LOL .....and that's what I'm trying to get too. In other words for $450 I can get an entry level dslr and can grow for years to come or pay $400 for a p/s Panasonic fz35 and have to sell it down the road becuase I've outgrown it....
anthony_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 3:25 PM   #23
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TCav View Post
You can do a lot with a basic dSLR kit. You can do as well or better than a Superzoom, within the limits of the kit lens. The difference is where you go from there. No superzoom will be able to shoot your daughter's volleyball games. No superzoom will capture the action during a play at second base. No superzoom will be able to capture a low noise photo of a dance recital without a lot of motion blur. For those kinds of things, you need a dSLR and appropriate lenses.
BINGO. This is it in a nutshell. Beyond the 'difficult' stuff, don't miss the point about the kit lens. That is usually a very limited focal length. So even for the basic shots, you'll have a lot less reach than with say a superzoom. So, if the kit lens is 55mm at long end (78mm equiv) then that DSLR & kit lens will take photos as well as any digicam with zoom extended to the equivelent of 78mm. But if the digicam can zoom to 500mm equiv and the DSLR only 78mm then the digicam has an advantage from distance in good light (i.e. taking a photo of your kid standing in the field).
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 3:27 PM   #24
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony_b View Post
TCAV, I hear you loud and clear...would a basic dslr kit give me a really nice picture of my kids at the park ?....that's all I need....Basically the best picture possible of my kids standing neXt to Mickey Mouse..LOL
Assuming you learn a few things - like positioning your subjects with relation to the sun or using fill flash to eliminate shadows etc.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 4:10 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

This brings us back possibly to the basic underlying factor here. yes, folks want a fully automatic camera, while asking in the very same breath, asking for the very best image quality. That is a contradiction in terms.

Getting that very best image quality requires, in most cases, learning something of the photo craft. Images just don't get recorded by that automatic camera and look great unless a little photo knowledge is applied to the photo environment, or if the result is a pure accident.

I think that was the point that JohnG was addressing as well.

The budget and the need for long zoom sort of dictates a super zoom camera, but the low light level requirement, skewers that again. If we eliminated the low light level photo requirement, which is 10% of all photos taken, and made the assumption that photo would be taken in good light or supported by a good external flash with some power when photographing groups, indoors, parties, dances, and similiar events, then the Canon SX-10 with its hot shoe is a logical candidate. But you must also keep in mind that the SX-10 is also somewhat ISO limited.

An FZ-28, a Sony H-50, and even a Kodak Z-1012 that can easily take good photos at ISO 800, and then meeting the flash requirement by using a good slave flash like the DigiSlave 3000 would work. The FZ-35 is still a question mark as we have not yet seen a professional review on that camera.

I think it is now up to anthony_b to give us some input.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 4:11 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
anthony_b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 211
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Assuming you learn a few things - like positioning your subjects with relation to the sun or using fill flash to eliminate shadows etc.

Boy, this has really taken the fun out of getting a new toy.
anthony_b is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 4:43 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

anthony_b-

Please don't be upset. We honestly are really trying to help you. In doing so we have to ask questions and pose some conditions. Have we in some way gone wrong. I am sure that no poster here has that intent.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 4:47 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

You can spend a little money now, and chuck it when you outgrow it, or you can spend a little money now to set the proper foundation for what you ultimately want to do.

You can get a superzoom to do the snapshots.

... or ...

You can get a Canon XSi with the kit 18-55 IS lens ($632) for the snapshots, and later, you can add a Tamron 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 Di LD ($170) for baseball, a Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($439) for volleyball, and a Canon 70-200mm f/4.0 ($649) for recitals, for example.

Doesn't that sound like fun?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.

Last edited by TCav; Aug 26, 2009 at 4:53 PM.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 4:56 PM   #29
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthony_b View Post
Boy, this has really taken the fun out of getting a new toy.
Again, the intent is not to take the fun out. But cameras aren't magical. You keep saying your primary objective is high image quality. The #1, BY FAR, issue with image quality with any camera is the person behind the camera. I've seen people drop $4,000 on camera equipment and still take lousy pictures. I've seen some amazing shots from digicams because the people using them had an understanding of lighting and composition.

I also know from first hand experience that those photos at the park and at disney can be some of the more challenging from a lighting standpoint. So if Image Quality is your number 1 concern, the solution isn't the most expensive cameras - it's understanding photography. Otherwise you could spend $4,000 and still get poor images.

On the other hand, if you spend $600 on a DSLR or superzoom and use the camera within it's limitations and learn a little about photography you'll be able to take some amazing photos. But if you think the camera's going to do everything for you then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

We don't say these things to discourage you - just to help educate you BEFORE you spend your money.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 26, 2009, 5:28 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Thanks, JohnG-

You have perfectly laid out was I was attempting (and not very well, probably) to point out in my post. Well done!

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:31 AM.