Get this lens instead.
There use to be a thread on the old forums covering DSLR cameras and I couldn't find it yet on this forum. I did find the "Your Own Photography Thread" thread but it doesn't really review cameras.
We are looking to upgrade to a Canon T4i DSLR camera for entry level photography and short films. We plan on using it for casual/vacation usage and sometimes family photos.
So if anyone has any experience with DSLR cameras (entry level sub $1000) that take video can you give your impression/reviews? We know it isn't a full camcorder replacement and we aren't expecting it to be. Youtube videos of the T4i are good enough quality for our short clips. Also looking for personal experience with STM lenses
STM Lense http://www.amazon.com/Canon-40mm-2-8...ords=canon+stm
Canon t4i http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listi...condition=used
Look at the used section. There was some kind of awesome deal over the holidays and now there are a lot of new T4i's being sold that aren't used at all.
Last edited by Selix; 02-04-2013 at 12:35 AM.
Don't get the 50 1.8 is you want to take video - focusing it is loud as hell (not USM). It's also made out of plastic and if you wanted to focus manually the focus ring is tiny and still makes tons of noise on video when you turn the ring.
I just actually looked at that other lens OP is looking at - the 50 1.8 is way better than that thing no doubt. Make sure you realize that with a crop sensor camera that 40 or 50 is going to be more of a portrait lens.
I've never really extensively used my DSLR for video, but if you're concerned about focus noise from your lens, wouldn't it be easier to just get an external mic? Plus, the onboard mic isn't that great anyways.
Something like this:
I don't own this, btw. It's just the cheapest I could find with good ratings on Amazon.
Another thing that doesn't get mentioned much, but if you're planning on shooting a lot of video, make sure you get a memory card with fast read/write speeds. You'll want at least a class 6 card for HD recording, but class 10 cards are pretty much everywhere.
I totally forgot about this over the holidays, and bought a cheapo card while walking out of a Best Buy. Tried to take video, and it stopped recording after a few seconds. It pissed me off to no end until I realized that the card was too slow (class 4).
not sure if they have a 50 in stm but yeah, for video it would be better because I believe stm are much quieter
the real question is what type of video will you be shooting
seems like if you don't have the body already you would be able to find a kit with the 18-135 stm which would be more practical for all a round use.
Last edited by Zodiac; 02-05-2013 at 07:46 PM.
Short video clips. Think of going to the Zoo with wife and kids, pull out camera from shoulder bag and maybe shoot some quick shots. Daughters and wife might pose and I'll take more serious shots. Kids doing something cute and I'll record a short video clip of them.
I also wanted the ability to do serious preplanned expert photography. With this camera I should be able to pull out a tripod, external lighting or whatever and do that to.
The big difference though is that I didn't want to lug around multiple devices and honestly I don't need 2 hour home movies from a camcorder. The microphone attachment might get around the shutter noise but it also seems to make the camera awkward to handle in the Zoo scenario I mentioned above. That is the main reason why I am leaning towards STM lenses since the built in microphone while not perfect is still adequate for the above. And in the future I have the option to upgrade/change my mind.
T4i plus the 18-135 STM would be fine for what you want. That 40 is going to be too much zoom on a crop indoors.
We had a big thread on this that died with MoreNetz. All I'm going to say is look into mirrorless cameras. DSLR quality in a much more convenient package.
I'm looking into Camera's in the range of $650 or less. I want a camera that takes great picture, decent zoom, but doesn't cost a ton of money. I'm not serious about photography but I want a decent picture. I was looking at some reviews of cameras like the Fijifilm X-20 and similar Sony products. Any thoughts?
Cannon all the way with cannon lenses. Regardless if its a dslr or an advanced point and shoot.
Sonys with the carl zeiss lenses are good, as are the panasonic ones wit the leica lenses.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
I just recently bought a DSLR for my business. My first DSLR ever. At this point I'd almost rather have less megapixels. I bought a refurb nikon 5200 with lense for like $480 on Ebay through B&H. It takes great pictures. I used someone elses camera before buying one. He had like a newer 5000 dollar nikon and an old like 5 megapixel camera from 2005 or something. Turns out all the cameras basically take the same pictures. The camera I have now. Once i open that picture on my computer it's HUGE. If you want to post it to a website, email, facebook etc. You're going to have to reduce the quality dramatically to get it to load anyways. Now if you're going to have 8x10 prints and posters made with the images you take, sure more megapixels the better. But for what I'm doing, taking pictures of fish with a macro lens etc. I have more mega pixels than I'll ever need.
One thing I can't stress enough with any DSLR is that you also need some good photo processing software (Lightroom 4). And you should spend just as much time learning to use the software as you do the camera.
(Incoming dumbed-down explanation for beginners)
Basically, your typical point-and-shoot camera, when it takes a picture, takes in far less data and further more, the camera basically decides for you what a picture should look like, only keeps that data necessary to make the picture look that way, then throws out the rest of the data. So in the end, if the grass isn't the shade of green you want or you want to make the sky look bluer, there is only a limited amount of data left in which you can use to edit the photo.
Conversely, with a DSLR, they take in a lot more data due to their larger sensors and the camera doesn't throw away any of the data it takes in (if you are shooting in RAW like you should). You are left with a whole lot of data which allows you to tweak your photo in numerous ways. What the camera won't do for you is decide how the picture should look. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that their DSLR's don't take as good of pictures as they are used to with a point-and-shoot because they don't realize with their DSLR they need to take the extra step of processing their photos. It might seem like more work but it is worth it because you can really tweak your photos and bring out the elements that you really want.
With a DSLR the improvement in image quality (over say a point and shoot or your phone's camera) is due to the larger sensor. Larger sensors tend to have larger pixels and therefore less noise in their images.
If you want to be able to take high quality pictures, have the option of interchangeable lenses, don't need as much control, and prefer a smaller package -- then I'd look into one of the mirrorless cameras like the Sony NEX series. They pack a large sensor in a smaller body. So you lose some manual controls, but get a smaller overall package. To be clear, you can still do things like shoot in aperture priority or shutter priority, but since you're on a smaller body, there's just less space for the controls you'll find on a full DSLR.
Thanks alot for your replies, very helpful. After reading this I think I might be better off starting out with a nice point and shoot camera. I dont think I have the time or expertise to get the most out of a DSLR or mirrorless camera and dont want an expensive camera sitting around collecting dust. I think something like the Cannon Powershot G15 might be better for me right now.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Yeah, if you don't want to spend time in post a point & shoot is going to take just as good or better pictures.
The new mirrorless cameras can produce on par if not better than just about any non full frame camera. IMO if you're going to go DSLR, go big or go home. Otherwise spend $500 and get a NEX-5R with a fast lens and a wide lens and call it a day (or a cheaper route with the $650 kit, but you're not getting a sexy fast lens). That camera will out perform most low-mid range DSLR's in IQ, FPS, focusing, and it's easy to carry. You can also control all your major settings in manual mode just like with a DSLR, or go completely auto.
Sony NEX-5R 16.1 MP Compact Interchangeable Lens Digital Camera with 18-55mm Lenses
Last edited by Illuziun; 02-21-2013 at 10:12 AM.
Mirrorless camera requires the same amount of post photo editing to get the most out of it? I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but I just want to be sure. That sony is one sexy looking camera.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
But it's not like you have to post process every image. The images will come out really good on their own, but you'll have more information (color depth) to tweak the images so that they come out how you want.
As an example, here's the World Press photo of the year with and without post-processing: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gunthert/8485283411/
All he did was adjust the colors, but it completely changes the tone of the image.
Also, with higher megapixels, you don't have to frame your shot perfectly every time. Good framing helps, but can always crop the image to your liking without a loss in quality in post.
Neph and co. Can they also do short video? I wil check myself but if you have experience with them I would be interested in hearing about it. Part of the reason we are upgrading to the t4i is for the long term ability to improve our photo taking skills and eventually take family photos as good as the hundreds of dollars we would spend on a professional photographer. And having the raw data means as our skill improves we can go back to old photos and improve them more then before.
I expect this to be a years long hobby for us and eventually transfer to the kids. The canon is the kind of camera you can pass down generations I think.
All of the NEX cameras can take video. But I don't personally have experience with the Sony NEX series.
When I got my T2i two years years ago, the first NEX camera came out. I thought hard about getting a NEX, but it boiled down to Canon lenses. If you want to get into photography, a significant portion of the investment is in the lenses. You can get different camera bodies that have better features/capabilities: burst speed, ISO, video, wifi/gps, etc etc. But at the end of the day, the glass you put in front of that sensor makes more of a difference in the image you can capture than the sensor itself. Canon has a really big line up ranging from ~$100 to $11,500 that can be used on any Canon DSLR. On the other hand, the NEX only has a handful of lenses.
This is true, but I think it's safe to say that the mirrorless lenses are going to get more numerous and DSLRs are eventually going the way of the dinosaur. Not right away, but smaller cameras are just highly preferable for many reasons and there is not any real advantage to the mirror in this day and age.
DSLRS ARE A DYING BREED – 3RD GEN CAMERAS ARE THE FUTURE
Last edited by BrutulTM; 02-21-2013 at 04:35 PM.
I said this back in the FoH thread, but I'll say it here too: I have both a full DSLR setup and a m4/3 mirrorless setup. Comparable lenses in each (3-5). The only time the DSLR gets used any more is for sports, everything else is my GX1. They are ridiculously convenient for travel, and take fantastic pictures. I don't think you can go wrong with the NEX series or m4/3, they both have their pros & cons.
I am personally waiting on the variety of mirrorless options to become more numerous before I jump on board. If you want something with at least a ASP-C sized sensor your selection is extremely limited (and I am personally waiting for some full-framed options). Also last time I checked, the amount of lenses available for the mirrorless options was very limited.
Then again, I already have a DSLR so I can still do the photography I want to do while I wait for the big boys (Cannon, Nikon) to finish pushing their DSLR bodies and start releasing their mirrorless options. If I were looking to buy a camera today I would have a hard time deciding which direction to go.
Well, both Nikon and Canon have mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras out (1 and EOS-M, respectively). The EOS-M, as far as I've heard, suffers from slow focusing. I'm not sure what's going on with the Nikon 1, but I haven't heard any glowing reviews.
If the the EOS-M had decent focusing, I'd probably snatch one up.
Last edited by Neph; 02-21-2013 at 07:20 PM.
There are some drawbacks to the currently available mirrorless cameras still. The guy who wrote the article BrutulTM posted above very objectively covers all of them. Some people will say don't buy a DSLR today because in 5 years it will be antiquated technology. Frankly, if you bought a DSLR 5 years ago and you are at all semi-serious about photography you would probably think your old DLSR is antiquated technology compared to the new DLSR's available. The camera technology is changing fast and if you are continually waiting for what is coming down the pipe you will never end up buying a camera.
Overall, if I had to recommend a camera for someone to buy today, and they were struggling to choose between DSLR or mirrorless, I think agree with the above authors advice given in his Sony NEX-7 review.
If you’re just getting into photography and scared of big DSLRs, this Sony NEX-7 is definitely the way to go.
If you are a veteran DSLR shooter that is needs action-photography performance, low-light sharpness with excellent ISO performance, or the flexibility of a robust lens system, then the Sony NEX-7 may not be for you.
Are the Canon STM lenses them only ones with nearly silent shutters/focusing?
From what I understand STM lenses are better for video because they focus more smoothly & are more suited to the contrast detect auto-focus.
Check the video at 0:45
Last edited by Zodiac; 02-21-2013 at 10:00 PM.
Are any of the film to digital conversions for DSLRs worth it?, I have $4K in old bullet proof Nikon gear that I will never get rid of and don't want to replace with the plastic stuff out now.
So I don't really know much about DSLR video and it's capabilities and what not. I knew that it was used to make an episode of House, but Gizmodo had this vid on their site yesterday, and this guy (DevinSuperTramp) does some really cool things that he puts up on YouTube. The majority of his stuff seems to just be DSLR + steadicam mount + boom mic on top (second video shows a behind the scenes), which makes it totally accessible. Of course you have to attach your DSLR to an octocopter to get the aerials, but still, the core of it is just up to your own creativity.
Honestly, photography is just like any other art form. You can get a true artist with a $120 point and click take pictures that are 1000X better than your average Joe Schmoe with the latest gadgets, $2000 DSLR setups and such. Granted a true artist would have all the tools as well, but just sayin. If you take shitty pictures and have no concept of light, shadows, composition, depth of field...etc a $2000 camera is not going to help you, sorry.
No doubt, you have to conceive the cool shot before you can attempt to execute it, regardless of what kind of equipment you shoot on.
My point was just that I knew that DSLR's lowered the barrier to entry for video, I just wasn't aware of the prevalence of it. I look at a well shot video and assume that it took a $10,000 camera to achieve it. But really, all it takes now a days is a DSLR and something to steady it. It was just weird to me because I know that great still shots can be taken by point and shoots, but it just never occurred to me that it's also true for video.
Can someone point me to a good resource comparing all the different Sony NEX models?
I was curious about that as well this weekend... basically trying to determine if it really matters to a novice whether I am purchasing the $700 or $300 version of one of these cameras.
I've been using NEX-7 for around a year, and I've kept an eye on the rest of the product line to see what direction Sony is going. Here's my breakdown on the features of each model:
NEX-7: (New model likely to be announced next month)
- 24MP, both a blessing and a curse. In good lighting conditions, the images are absolutely stunning, and you can crop to your heart's content. But due to the densely packed sensor, the ISO performance is one stop worse than the other NEXs. Also due to the same reason, it needs top of line lenses to produce sharp images (and Sony has very few of them.)
- Tri-Nav, works wonders, in M mode, unmarked dials work as ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture.
- EVF, works great when you have a large aperture lens. But if you are using a zoom lens at the long end with 6.3 aperture, the screen will become very grainy and slow.
- Tilting LCD, can tilt up 90 degree, and tilt down slightly, which is useful for taking pictures from different perspective.
- Pop-up flash + Minolta Hotshoe, note that Sony has moved to use the standard ISO hotshoe since NEX-6, so you'll want to be aware when buying future flashes and other accessories.
- PDAF, the supposed big selling point of the new model, but users reviews have been a fixed bag. From what I gathered, it will reduce focus hunting, and improvement in focus speed is around 1/10th faster than other NEX's CDAF.
- Controls, have a physical mode dial that all the models lack, including NEX-7.
- Pop-up flash + ISO Hotshoe, Sony currently has only one flash using ISO hotshoe, you'll need adaptor for their older flash models.
- Wifi, can be used for remote shutter, file transfers. Also supports Sony's camera apps; some are free, some are paid.
- USB charging, useful if you have a mobile battery pack like I already do for charging my phone on the run, but an external battery charger is not included.
- EVF, same as NEX-7.
- Tilting LCD, same as NEX-7.
- Touchscreen, it's the only NEX model that has it, and works great for selecting focus point. (When using other NEXs, you want to use center focus and then recompose). Note that Sony has cheaped out and used the old school resistive screens here, so you'll likely shake your camera when using touch to focus/shutter.
- 180 tilting screen, useful if you have a SO that wants to take self portraits. It can also tilt down slightly.
- Screw-on flash and accessory port, no hotshoes here, but there's an accessory port that you can plug an EVF on it.
- PDAF, same as NEX-6.
- Wifi, same as NEX-6.
- USB Charging, same as NEX-6.
- 180 flipped up screen, only flips up, no tilting down here.
- 200 Base ISO, Sony hardcoded base ISO to 200 likely to differentiate model lines.
- Pop-on flash, no hotshoes or accessory ports.
- No IR Receiver, I believe it's the only NEX that doesn't have an IR receiver, so you can't use an IR shutter remote.
Size: 7 = 6 > 5R > 3N
Overall it's a decent lineup of cameras, but like majority of Sony's products, they make excellent electronics while their software is below average -- their sensors are absolutely top of lines, but the out of camera JPEGs at times are hideous (I always shoot RAW+JPEG and postprocess majority of images), and the menu systems can take a long time to get used to. In addition, I believe they have the worst average lens quality, that means it's worse than Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and even Samsung. (There's no comprehensive testing of all lenses from all manufacturers, so it might be a grass is greener thing for me.)
Awesome man. +1. Do you have any suggestions other than a NEX that is mirrorless and compact?
If I have to buy a new camera myself, I'll likely wait for the new NEX-7 model to come out and see if Sony brings any surprises because I've already invested into NEX lenses.
For now, NEX-6 and Olympus OM-D E-M5 (Olympus can also use Panasonic lenses) are the best choices. OM-D is a better camera overall and have a much larger selection of lenses, the downside is it has a smaller sensor. The bigger sensor on NEX offers better low light performance and can give you shallower depth of fields (think more blurry background) when you need it, but note that bigger sensor needs bigger and pricier lenses.
Fuji's X-E1 and X-Pro1 have the best image quality, but the features are catered toward pro-amateurs, and they are also priced as such.
If you want something cheaper and smaller, you can look into the Olympus PEN E-PL5 and the older generation NEX-5N.
I'm looking at some 5Ns right now on Ebay. The two cameras you mentioned (Nex6 and Olympus) are out of my price range right now, I don't know enough about photography to drop $1000 on a camera.
Right now there is a way to get Sony cameras at roughly 80% of their listed prices. If you're gonna get one of the NEXs that's on the Sony store, let me know and I can walk you thru the steps.
Ill take that PM as well please.
I picked up a Pentax for my husband for christmas - http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-K-30-We...ords=pentaxk30
He really likes it but there's a couple of lenses that we still need to get. Along with one of those remote flash thingies. That's what he wants for his bday - but fuck if I know any more about which lense to get. One of them is the one for close ups?
Any prime lenses are good, the faster they are the better too (low f stop). Pentax is known to make some good glass so they should have some good lenses.
One of my questions is, as an amateur photographer, am I going to notice a difference between something like the Sony NEX-F3K and the NEX-5RK... I don't think I'll ever get so into it that I need to be changing lenses but maybe I will and don't even realize it.
The $200 difference is what I'm hung up on.
For reference: Sony NEX-F3K
Sony has the new NEX-3N coming out this week, so you should also check that out even if it's more of a side-grade; it will have the same picture quality as F3, lower LCD resolution, but comes in a smaller package with slimmer body AND a collapsible power zoom lens.
In terms of F3/3N vs 5R, the big difference is the 5R has a better autofocusing system; with a larger sensor camera, accurate focusing is important due to shallower depth of fields. The 3-series' autofocus can work well if you follow a handful of guidelines and tricks, but the 5R will probably be a less frustrating experience. In addition, 5R has touchscreen that will also aid in focusing.
The final picture quality are the same between the two lines; 3s' base ISO is limited to 200, but that difference will very rare come into play.
Other notable differences: 3s are all-plastic vs 5s' partial magnesium alloy. The lens on 5R is twice the size as the 3N. (Obviously you can buy the collapsible lens separately, but at a much higher price.) The flash on the 3s is built-in, while the 5s has a screw-on.
I just missed a NEX 3K on ebay for $210. Meh.
I just bought me a NEX-5N with an 18-55mm lense with 3x batteries and 16gm card, flash etc for $425.00 on ebay.
Congrats. How do you plan on using it?
I'll let you know when I learn how. New to photography.
I there a good place to watch for used lenses for the Sony NEXs other than Ebay?
craigslist is where i bought all mine but I dunno how often the sony lenses come up
I actually want a decent telescopic lense and I was looking around for that 210mm lense that sony has. I can find some on ebay for 200-300 or so, but I was seeing if I can find others.
I ended up getting a brand new NEX 5N on ebay for $450 yesterday.
any recommendations for photo editing software?
Photoshop Elements is reasonably cheap and should cover anything us amateurs want/need. I bought it and barely spent 30 minutes using it in ~a year. Bummer =/
I would get a basic book on picture taking. Or some websites that teach the crap. Learning about shit like aperture and shudder speed and how they relate to one another to produce desired effects in pictures is invaluable. Also learning about basic shit like the rule of 3rds and other crap like that will make you 100% better at taking pictures.
Read the manual front to back. There's a lot of esoteric stuff in these cameras, so getting to know the ins and outs from the manufacturer is super helpful.
For the NEX5N, I just made sure I knew the how to switch between AF and MF and DMF, then display Apeture and shutter speed on bottom of the view screen. The rest is fluff as far as I know.
Also the 1080 video on this thing is amazing.
Lightroom it is, thanks! And they have a student/teacher edition... wonder if I can use my old graduate school ID that has no date on it. Or just have my wife register it since she's a teacher.
I'm a manual junkie so I was planning on reading it cover to cover anyways, but I'd take any book/website recommendations for learning more if you have them, mkopec.
I actually found a (at the time) free Kindle book by Tony Northrup titled "How to Create Stunning Digital Photography" which actually was a pretty good read. It really did a great job at helping me understand lighting in ways I never caught on to when I took classes. It may not be free now, but it was a good read.
As far as tackling your manual, what I find works really well for learning your camera is picking a feature and work on using it until it becomes second nature. Slowly work through the manual feature-by-feature this way. You should get to the point where you can adjust to whatever setting you want on the fly while never taking your eye off the viewfinder.
I just used to buy the books while I was at the book store fucking around, so if it looked good I bought it. There are also websites that teach the stuff, although it escapes me now since its been a while that I was into that kind of stuff.
Alot of the stuff you will simply not do, like take light meters along with you wen you are taking pictures. But just understanding the basic principles of how aperture and shutter speed affects the picture will make you a better photog. You dont necessarily have to be a master, it just exposes some of the "magic" that can be done with a camera at the right setting.
Here is one, just by a quick google search...
http://photo.net/learn/basic-photo-t...rect-exposure/ You can see just by the samples there, you can get a wide variety of effects by the correct use of aperture and shutter speed.
The great thing about digital is you get immediate results, with your settings attached to every image so you can see WTF you did to get the effect right there and then. If it didnt work like you expected it to, you can try again until you achieve the desired effect. Back in the day when I was trying to learn this stuff, digital was in its infancy so I had to wait for results from the film studio. Also taking notes on the different shots.... Which I never did...
Here is another one that deals with basic composition... http://digital-photography-school.co...mposition-tips Even taking 1/4 of what they say there and applying it to your photography will instantly make you a better picture taker.
Last edited by mkopec; 04-05-2013 at 07:10 PM.
One of the best ways to learn about photography, I found, was this course here:
It's the, "Fundamentals of Digital Photography," by John Greengo. Yeah, that's the legit version, but you could probably find a copy of it somewhere on the net if you tried. It's probably one of the quickest/most thorough courses you can take and you can easily do it within a week if your schedule permits.
After that it's just a matter of time before you decide what you like to shoot. Then you should have a pretty good idea of what type of lens you need to buy.
Incidentally, does anyone have experience with low-light photography?
Altering in what way? I do 95% of my post processing work in Lightroom. I do a little bit with elements but not a lot.
Forgive me for jumping over the first few pages of this thread, but I've been looking for a specific recommendation for awhile. I do quite a bit of web work and being able to take high resolution widescreen photos would make life easier.
I have a few friends who need to show off their work. Some of them are painters and others own cabins that they take reservations for in the summer. I need to be able to show up, snap the most professional looking photos that I can, and then either edit them myself or have the option of forwarding them to someone else.
So the real question is, what is the best camera right now for the money and what accessories do I need to take excellent landscape (widescreen) photos that show off scenery and some painting and woodworking. By wide I mean wider than 16x9.
I am not an expert but I would assume that the landscape issue is just a matter of lens choice regardless of what camera you pick. That said if DSLR is what you are looking for I would assume any canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, etc would do you just fine. If are totally uninterested in taking short video and you don't want to drop thousands of dollars then go for a Canon t3i. 100$ less and you can get a Rebel XS which would be just fine for you also. Or if you want Nikon get a d3200.
As for the lenses you will need someone with the experience I don't have to advise you.
If you shoot in RAW keep in mind that the RAW converter you use affects the look of the picture. My favorite is Photo Ninja; compared to ACR (lightroom), it is able to bring out alot more color detail from shadows and highlights.
I'm not sure how relevant my question is, but I wanted just a decent entry level camera for vacation photos. I picked up a brand new Nikon Coolpix P510 for $150 today. Decent?
However, you can get away with a lot cheaper of a body then the D800, but one thing you shouldn't cheap out on is the lens.
D7100 is a GREAT camera for the money, probably the best bang for the buck on the market right now, and it's just over $1,000. If you want to go cheaper still, then just get a Canon Rebel T3i or something, those a cool little cameras that will probably do everything you want. That or a D3200 if you would prefer Nikon. If the Zeiss or manual focus is out of your league, then get something like these:
Don't use a kit lens, those things are junk and they sound like chainsaws when they struggle for 10 seconds to focus.
Last edited by Illuziun; 05-14-2013 at 01:01 AM.
After the wife totally surprised with my a MS Surface tablet for my birthday, I'm going to surprise her with a brand new camera. She has some photography experience, and wanted to really get her something she'd enjoy all the bells and whistles, but also stay under $1000. The Nikon D5200 was listed on Cnet as the best DSLR under $1000, but of course I understand that could easily be biased, but it seemed like a good camera?
Was going to get this "kit" that came with a pretty cool lens I think.
There's also this package, but packages I feel are rarely worth it.
Any thoughts on the D5200? A friend has a Nikon and lens' and told me we could borrow some of his depending on the shots, so that's an advantage, as the lens' are all interchangeable in the Nikon line?
Really appreciate any thoughts or comments!
When she has expierence with DSLRs you should find out what lenses she used before and choose the camera body that way she can still possibly use her old lenses / equipment and not throw it in the bin.
eg: we can still use out old Minolta or Zeiss lenses with a new digital Sony body DSLR.
Good point. She has a Sony camera, butiI don't remember her having any lenses for it. Maybe she just had one lens so she never removed it so I never noticed.
Will have to do some secret research so I don't tip her off!
Last edited by The Dauntless One; 07-07-2013 at 06:37 AM.
I know this is the DSLR thread so can take this elsewhere if you all want, but I recently picked up the Cannon Eos M (mirorless) since I know dick about cameras elsewhere figured i didn't need to spend the money on a DSLR, but i read they were almost as good for beginners and were more portable. This is my first camera with changeable lenses and i got the EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens since the EF-M 22mm f/2 STM Lens was sold out. Can anyone explain the difference between the two lenses and I guess with the adapter didn't can use other dslr lenses but no idea what to use, I got this since the wife wanted a good camera when the baby gets here.
Just got my Sony Nex5R and this thing is hella small. Some people complain about the resistive touch screen but I have no problems with it. It's quite responsive. I think being able to use the touch screen with gloves outweighs it being a slightly inferior resistive touch screen.
Last edited by The Dauntless One; 07-16-2013 at 06:14 AM.
Its funny how far digital photography has gotten in the past 10-15 yrs. You don't even see film anymore. This must of been the swiftest death of a medium ever. I remember my first digital being a sony with 1.5 mp. and a diskette. There was like a 1 second lag from when you pushed the button to when the picture was actually taken.
So, I have a 18-55 zoom lens, and a 50mm/1.8 prime lens, and I was wondering what I should get after that? I was thinking a 55-300mm telephoto, but it's quite expensive. I use the camera for general usage, but find that the 18-55mm doesn't quite have the zoom that I'd like for some things. Are there other good general purpose telephoto lenses that you'd recommend?
Find one in your price range and then read a review or two. Just don't expect to buy a high performance lens for 300 dollars.
Last edited by The Dauntless One; 07-19-2013 at 12:13 AM.
Canon > Naikon > Other
in that order
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)