Camera experts

[Hoopz]

I'm considering getting my wife a new camera for her birthday.  I need help please figuring out if I need to go with a budget DSLR camera or a higher end digital point and shoot style.  It's basically for pics of the kids so something that is easy for her to use and takes fairly nice pics (relatively quickly) . 

My budget is between $200-300.  Any suggestions on what to look for or what to avoid?

Thanks.

[Jammin0]

I am a fan of the DSLR cameras for speed and options.  The nice thing is that they all have automatic features too so that if you don't know how else to shoot and don't want to mess around with the settings too much, you can do everything that a point and shoot camera can do.  The only real difference is size and cost and of course that they can do a whole lot more. 

Are you looking to buy new or used?  If you want a new camera then you won't find a dslr for that price.  I've owned a Canon Digital Rebel XT and they are pretty nice and in your price range used.  An older Nikon would be nice too.

[methodical]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ has great prices, and if you're anywhere near Manhattan, their store is amazing.

[drventure]

I'm no digital camera expert, so take that into consideration.

However, I've taken photos with a number of different makes and Canon, for whatever reason, seems to take more "filmlike" pictures than the other makes I've tried (Panasonic, Sony, Nikon, Olympus).

I used a powershot s40 for years (point and shoot with some degree of options). My dad has a Canon a650 and it takes great photos. Plus, the a650 uses 4 plain ol' AA batteries (and can go for months on a set to boot). You can get them around 160 on ebay, but they are a little older and a little lower resolution.

For , my next camera, if I can swing it at all, whatever it is will use plain ol batteries and not some ridiculously overpriced rechargeable proprietary pack.

Finally, unless you're looking to do large format stuff or a lot of custom exposure stuff, a point and shoot is probably the better alternative if for no other reason than it's not +near+ as bulky as a DSLR. But some people don't mind the bulk, so there's that.

[shmokes]

Why the ---fudgesicle--- would anyone be recommending a DSLR for your purpose or price range. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you can go all the way up to $300, have a look at the Canon s90. You won't do better for digital point and shoot, which is clearly what you are after, despite what the fanatics will have you think.

If you want to go beyond that in terms of picture quality check out the Sony Nex cameras. The new Nex 5 looks amazing. Well, the Nex 7 does too, but the Nex 5 strikes me as the sweet spot for price/quality.

[philharris]

I agree with shmokes  - a DSLR is not the way to go. As well as being bigger and much more expensive, changing lenses is a nusciance and it is not practical for family photos. As drventure says, you also need a camera that takes AA batteries, and if you have other cameras in the house it would be helpful if they all use the same memory cards (eg SD/Compact flash).

Other than the s90, the other thing to consider is an extended zoom camera - this gives you more zoom, which may or may not be of interest, but it will be bigger and heavier. I had a fuji s5700 a while back and the replacement model seems to be this:
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Fujifilm-FUJIFILM-S2940/15819289
which is $169 in Walmart.

[stu33]

I'm a semi-pro photographer, my other hobby besides this one.  As much as I love my Canon DSLRs (currently a 7D and a Rebel XT as a backup), I would second the point and shoot recommendation.  Unless you're looking to seriously get into photography as a hobby and plan on spending a huuuuuge amount of cash on it over time, go with a p+s.  Trust me, once you get into DSLR, it's a slippery slope, and dropping 530 bucks on a flash and 1300 for a 17-40mm L lens will not seem like a big deal to you pretty quickly.

Just make sure to read as many reviews as you can, and really think about what type of photos you're going to be taking most often.  If your focus will be indoors, you're going to want something quite a bit different than if you're planning on shooting a bunch of outdoor sports.

And stick with a major manufacturer.  Canon, Nikon, Sony (although I would never buy a Sony, personally...but that's another story) are all good ones.  Fuji makes some really good p+s shoot models too.  Their Fuji S700 for a looong time was a very nice p+s.

[TopJimmyCooks]

To help the OP:  read Kenrockwell.com on recommended cameras and why.  If I had to stick to $300 I agree with the S90 recommendation above.  I think it's S95 now but some 90's are still for sale.  

However, if you really want good action pics of your kids, a low end dslr like a Nikon 3100 will be way better to shoot.  low light ability, no shutter lag (i.e. on some point/shoots you hit the button and it takes half a sec before capturing), large cache (on point/shoots it takes half a sec before it will take another pic due to writing to the card) all make it way easier to shoot kids, sports, events, parties and not miss your capture.  you never have to change lenses if you don't want to, and it's full auto if you want it that way.  The dslr batteries are good for a week at disneyworld/1200 pics without recharging, that's better than buying a 2 pack of AA's from mickey for $11.  For a point/shoot, AA's are the way to go.  If you go SD card for storage (recommended) you have the option of wirelessly transmitting your pics to your computer which is cool.

It's a complex decision-do some research, read some reviews, carry around some type of borrowed camera for a while and see what you think.  Good news is the standard of quality and function for cameras is pretty high right now so it's tough to make a bad decision on hardware.  

[stu33]

Agree on Kenrockwell site.  Very good reviews.  I also like steves-digicams.com.

[bishmasterb]

Third the kenwrockwell.com recommendation. He saved me hundreds of dollars when I bought my camera.

[Hoopz]

I appreciate all the information and suggestions.  I'm still researching it so if there are other things that I should take into consideration, just let me know.

 

[Jammin0]

I might get knocked for saying this but oh well.  As soon as I switched to DSLR, I sold my nice point and shoot and never went back.  I believe the arguments have all been made but I will just second the fact that delay is a huge factor to me.  If I can take 5 or 10 pictures in the time that it takes me to take one on a point and shoot, I can keep only the best.  Not to mention that with little kids, the moment usually only lasts for a second or two.

Point and shoot cameras usually have some features for low light conditions but a DSLR does so much better in my opinion.  Even using the automatic modes, the pictures seem to come out better.

Finally, the comment about battery life.  I understand wanting to have AA batteries but my experience with compact point and shoot cameras was that the batteries would seldom hold up with regular use.  Under normal conditions I usually don't charge my DSLR batteries except every couple of months(I'm a pretty casual user).  I have owned mostly Sony compact cameras and I can remember not even getting through one event (birthday, wedding, etc.) without having to swap batteries.

Now having said all that, there are times when I take pictures with my cellphone because it is a lot easier then hulking out the beefier camera, however until cellphones do as good as high end compact cameras my opinion is that a second device is a second device.

Not to mention that you look pretty gangster with a beefy DSLR around your neck, every one gets out of your way because they think you are a real photographer.

Just my opinion on it.

[lordnacho]

Hoopz,
How old are you kids?  My two are young, so it's sometimes really hard to lug my dslr around around with stroller/diaper bag/etc. 
My wife likes the dslr, but sometimes takes the worst photos.  Blurred faces, crystal clear background 

[Hoopz]

Not to mention that with little kids, the moment usually only lasts for a second or two.

This.  My wife has a Droid 3 and it takes her a year to snap a picture.  We were out last night trick or treating with another family and the two moms were trying to take pics.  It was a Droid 3, Iphone 4, and I used my Incredible 2.  I took about a dozen before the two moms got their two shots taken.     Trying to wait for the perfect picture with a bunch of kids is not always the right choice.  I just take as many as I can in a short amount of time and pray that one looks ok. 

Do higher end point and shoots snap pictures more quickly than a cheaper one?  I would assume so but I don't know much about cameras.

Hoopz,
How old are you kids?  My two are young, so it's sometimes really hard to lug my dslr around around with stroller/diaper bag/etc. 
My wife likes the dslr, but sometimes takes the worst photos.  Blurred faces, crystal clear background 

Stepson is 12 and my daughters are 9, 7, 3 & 3.  Its the twin 3 year olds that cause the most issues.   

If I went with a budget dslr, I doubt we would ever get different lenses or upgrade anything.  I thought it was overkill to consider it but I wanted to ask for others opinions and experiences since I'm not a camera guy. 

[wp34]

have a look at the Canon s90. You won't do better for digital point and shoot, which is clearly what you are after, despite what the fanatics will have you think.

We've had one about 18 months and I absolutely love it.  The digital zoom is even surprisingly decent.  I rarely use my Droid X for pictures because the Canon is so much faster and takes better pictures.  It is not as fast as a DSLR nor do you get the zoom but it meets 90% of my needs and slips in my pocket to boot.

[Vigo]

Stepson is 12 and my daughters are 9, 7, 3 & 3.  Its the twin 3 year olds that cause the most issues.   

If I went with a budget dslr, I doubt we would ever get different lenses or upgrade anything.  I thought it was overkill to consider it but I wanted to ask for others opinions and experiences since I'm not a camera guy. 

Jeez, how do you find the time for these forums, Hoopz?  You got a whole clan under your roof. 


My wife is the camera expert, so I don't know how much help I could be, but we both have been satisfied with most every Canon DSLR we touched. Not so much with Fuji or Sony. If you are going with a budget models, make sure it is a real DSLR, there are a few "DSLR style" cameras hiding in the lower price rungs. Huge difference.

[stu33]

Also might want to look into the ILC ranges, Olympus does these, I believe.

[Blanka]

At the moment there is just 1 entry level DSLR that stands lonely at the top: the Nikon D5100.
This rig is so friggin good, it beats the crap out of professional D3's, 600D, digital Rebel, 7D, 5dMKii in terms of basic out of the camera JPEG image quality.

Why is that?
- Nikon is the only brand that manages to deliver perfect aberation correction. You NEVER have purple or green edges, how bad the lens is you put on your camera. The quality of this repair is better than you can get with the average pro raw converter: it beats lightroom, PS CS5 and aperture!
- New feature of the D5100 is total removal of all lens distortion in-camera. Again at a better level than pro RAW converters, as the lenses are measured and store their own faults.
- Excellent 720p and 1080p movie recording.
- The highest dynamic range of any camera, 14 stops of light: you never had this much highlight and shadow detail. To top it even higher, it also has an excellent 2-shot automatic HDR mode.
- a top DXOmark, a rating for camera sensors that is reflecting image quality on equal size prints. It beats all the models I mentioned above!
- 25600 iso is USABLE. It is more fuzzy than the output from the 3Ds, 3D or the 5DmkII, but it has NO color smearing and hot pixels, this makes 25600 iso images from the pro bodys often unusable, or you need a lot of manual polishing. The 5100 just delivers usable content at 25600! Also with MOVIES! Combine that with 4 stops of shake reduction in the kit-lens, and damn this baby is good at night shots!
- There is a damn fine Photoshop inside the camera already. All basic adjustments can be done inside the camera: pushing shadow detail, rotate, crop, colour correction, filter effects etc. And really fast too. On the PC you need a Core i7 for similar speed.
The 5100 is plasticy, it is small and light, but with a 500€ kit you can beat the pro's that spent 4k!

[crashwg]

In my experience, cameras that use regular (AA, AAA) batteries eat them up at an annoying rate.  As much of a pain it is to have the proprietary rechargeables charged and ready to go (a second battery is essential in my opinion) they will give you a significant amount of more pictures per battery change.

I would also like to caution against Sony digi-cams.  I've owned one in the past and my sister has one currently.  In almost all the shooting modes the flash goes off three times and by the time the picture is taken everyone has their eyes closed.

[TopJimmyCooks]

Stepson is 12 and my daughters are 9, 7, 3 & 3.  Its the twin 3 year olds that cause the most issues.   

I've got 2 five year olds, and they ain't twins!



 . . . . just kidding!  back to normal arcade mame it vs restore it camera dslr v/s point shoot dialogue!

[Donkey_Kong]

If you want to go beyond that in terms of picture quality check out the Sony Nex cameras. The new Nex 5 looks amazing. Well, the Nex 7 does too, but the Nex 5 strikes me as the sweet spot for price/quality.

I had no idea these even existed, they look pretty nice. All kinds of lense options, powerful yet compact. Wish i would have known about them a couple months ago when I bought a Canon Rebel T2i , thinking I was all cutting edge. heh!

[ChadTower]

All I have to add is to avoid Kodak.  I used to work on the software they packaged with their cameras as well as a little bit on the firmware.  Did tons and tons of testing on their cameras vs similar competitors' models.  Kodaks came up short every single time. The hardware is just cheaper.  They used to make up for it with retail endcap placement and higher shelf placement and bigger color posters in the stores.  Somehow all that marketing garbage actually sold crappier cameras for higher prices.   

[Vigo]

Yeah, Kodak does suck, IMO as well. I once asked a lady I worked with why she bought a Kodak. Her response was that "The camera came in purple"

[Dartful Dodger]

If she's into photography or wants to get into it, buy a DLRS. To a photographer there will be a huge difference and she'll regret having a point a shoot, no matter how good it is.

Whichever you get, make sure it takes HD video. For personal use, digital camera's take video as well as any personal video camera. If you have kids you'll be taking video and you don't want to be fumbling around with two devices, when one can do both jobs equally well.

[Ed_McCarron]

I took about a dozen before the two moms got their two shots taken.     Trying to wait for the perfect picture with a bunch of kids is not always the right choice.  I just take as many as I can in a short amount of time and pray that one looks ok. 

What he said.  I've swung to a Canon T1i, and may never go back.  I take pics for our cub pack.  It's not uncommon for me to come back from a 3 hour outing with 500 pictures taken -- including 20 taken while 8 other moms with point and shoot cameras were trying to get the kids to smile.  At least one of mine will come out, and I delete the rest.  Plus, shooting north of 15MP lets you crop the hell out of it.  My year old Sony PHD won't take pics at that res at more than one every 4 or 5 seconds... The Canon will churn out 3 a second at that res.

That said, the Canon falls apart above 800 ASA.  1600 is so grainy it's useless.  Plan on a big flash if shooting indoors.

(PHD - Push here, dummy.) 

[Dartful Dodger]

I've swung to a Canon T1i, and may never go back.

I've got a T1i too.

What quality to you use for photos?

I've been leaving my compressions set to raw. But I fill up my SD card really quickly and not being able to see the thumbnails is also a pain in the butt. I have yet to take a picture I want to print.  I just view my photos on the computer and I think the higher quality photos look compressed and blurry when looking at them on a monitor.

I've been thinking about just using a high quality jpeg. Just curious what setting/resolution you (and others) are using.

[stu33]

I can chime in here.  RAW mode is EXACTLY what the sensor sees, only adjusted for white balance.  JPEG shots will always have copious amounts of brightness/contrast/etc..plus sharpening done in-camera.  That being said, I only shoot in RAW, and looooooove (I can't say this enough) Adobe Lightroom.  99% of my editing /processing is done in Lightroom, with Photoshop only used for special things, artful type stuff.

If you're going to shoot in RAW, be ready to put some work into processing, where with the JPEG settings, this is already done for you in-camera.

[Ed_McCarron]

Until I invest in more cards (4G says it'll hold like 100 raw shots...) I shoot 15mp.  My stuff only ends up on websites anyway.  I just like being able to crop out the 50% of the pic I don't want to get a decent shot.

The few I have printed (at a whopping 4x6...  ) came out beautiful, even with the jpg compression.

[Blanka]

That being said, I only shoot in RAW, and looooooove (I can't say this enough) Adobe Lightroom.  99% of my editing /processing is done in Lightroom, with Photoshop only used for special things, artful type stuff.

Just for your interest:
With Lightroom and a Nikon, you have worse quality after processing the RAW then when you go with the JPEG output. The only programs capable of equal quality to the in-house JPEG processing of a Nikon are NX2 (the Nikon RAW program, sucky in UI, but unbeaten in quality), and CaptureOne.
With Canon, you don't even know what quality of prepossessing you are missing when using one with Lightroom. (I forgot, you can turn a Canon image to 16-bit TIF and then get it through NX2 for equal quality)

[stu33]

I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat on Canon vs. Nikon.  I've seen those arguments reach the pseudo-religious fervor that Mac vs. Windows arguments achieve.  I'm sure everyone has their favorite ways, and there are good and bad features for both.  I'm a Canon user as my first DSLR was a Canon.  I've bought into that system.  If my first had been Nikon, I'd be a Nikon guy.  You learn to work within the quirks.  Like, for instance, when Nikon moved their auto-focus motors from inside the lenses to inside the camera body on the more consumer-minded models...I can't imagine making a call like that, basically removing auto-focus capabilities from every single established lens that you've already sold.  But for a Nikon user, that probably wasn't a big deal.  As a Canon user, the complete crap that was Canon's higher-ISO quality was a serious PITA for me for a very long time, and made me actually very good with Photoshop at mitigating the noise effects, although they've since improved that considerably.  My 7D is usable at least to 16800 (I haven't tried anything at 32000 yet).

As for in-camera jpeg quality, personally, I will almost never use in-camera jpeg for anything (except for high-volume wedding shooting, and only on the secondary camera), I just like to use Lightroom for processing, plus the amazing ease with which you can publish/export/catalog the pictures, and it's integration with Photoshop, which I enjoy.  I also don't use jpeg for anything but pictures being posted to the web, I keep everything else in tiff.  You can see, then, how jpeg quality isn't really important to me. 

This same Lightroom/Photoshop process would work with ANY CAMERA.  Lightroom and Photoshop are camera agnostic.  If Lightroom/Photoshop feel particularly daunting, Google's Picasa is a great gateway drug to computer photo processing, and can handle most camera RAW formats.  It is quite simple and capable for beginners.

[ark_ader]

I would get her a medium format camera.

They are very easy to use, take wonderful pictures.

They are quite expensive, but your wife will love you for it. 

[shmokes]

My budget is between $200-300. 

Why are we discussing anything other than point-and-shoots right now? 

[Blanka]

You can see, then, how jpeg quality isn't really important to me.  

This same Lightroom/Photoshop process would work with ANY CAMERA.

Guess you did not read my post. I'm a professional photographer and I am a nitpic to the last pixel. I can tell you: PS/Lightroom is NOT ABLE TO GET THE SAME QUALITY FROM ANY RAW (NIKON, CANON, SONY whatever, even LEICA) A NIKON POOPS OUT IN JPEG ALREADY!!!
PS/Lightroom/Aperture = LESS QUALITY IMAGES FROM RAWS THAN NIKON out the camera JPEGS, even when a NIKON RAW is used in LR/PS. I love Photoshop to retouch my RAW->TIF output of NX2, but for the RAW conversion itself it just plain sucks. NX2 is horrible for UI, but if I have to deliver the best image quality possible, there is no other way. I even pull 5DmkII images through NX2!
Nikon purchased some really crazy good software from NIK, and incorporated it into their camera, or into NX2 for RAW processing.
With their D5100 they went even further: now the camera also removes every distortion in any D-lens. So that means NO aberation, NO vignetting, NO distortion. PS and LR are horrible in removing aberation, and distortion removal is so/so too. NX2 treats each channel (R,G,B) seperate so that the different bending of the colours of light is compensated. With PS/LR distortion control is just an adapted sphere transformation, and aberation removal is just local pixel shift between RGB layers: it never works for the whole image.

I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat on Canon vs. Nikon.  I've seen those arguments reach the pseudo-religious fervor that Mac vs. Windows arguments achieve.

In camera RAW-JPEG in a Nikon just makes a lens better than it is by carefully matching the 3 layers (RGB) to get the best image possible. There is no other camera brand doing this.

It is nothing Nikon vs Canon or Windows vs Mac. Both camera's are nice. I just tell that just one brand has put software in a camera that is actually able to correct flaws in a way that does right to physic laws. It would compare to Windows vs Mac vs Linux when Windows and Linux would not offer scalable type and just run on bitmap fonts. It is a fundamental design difference.

When I was new to my camera I used Adobe DNG converter to make all my first 3 months RAW's into DNG's for better future compatibly. It was the worst I ever did to my "negatives". PS just makes crap out of these DNG's. Later I discovered there is a way to get the quality I produce with my current workflow. Use PS for a plain unaltered DNG->16 bit TIF conversion. Then run NX2 over that 16 bit TIF again. I still miss the highlight recovery options then, but it is better than nothing.

[Blanka]

Why are we discussing anything other than point-and-shoots right now? 

Ever heard about second hand?

[crashwg]

Ever heard about second hand?

wife a new camera for her birthday

Who buys second hand (other than antiques) for their wife's birthday?

[Blanka]

No problem with that. Especially with the woman that are keen on the impact from mass consumption on the earth.
It is just a matter of the pink ribbon you tie around it.
Other than flowers, I hardly buy new stuff for my wife.

[shmokes]

Even if price were not an issue, it is silly to operate as though SLR is right for everyone. The average person will not be happy with an SLR as their primary camera just as the average person doesn't want to carry around a 12 lbs. gaming laptop as their primary computer. Those bulky, heavy items are for enthusiasts and professionals. It is implicit in the OP that this lady has no interest in shooting in RAW and post processing in Adobe Lightroom. She's never even heard of that product. She just wants to take some decent snaps of her kids. Fitting in a purse is a far more useful feature for some people than quick access to aperture adjustments.

[Vigo]

That is assuming that she doesn't already have a nice compact camera. I personally have multiple styles of cameras, and for certain occasions, yes, I bring the compact. For occasions where I want more memorable photos, it is not a huge pain to bring a bulkier camera along. And, after a certain point where you are lugging around tons of bags of emergency kids stuff on every outing, having a camera around your neck strangely becomes more convenient than in a purse or bag.

Just my 2 cents, but I would say that a DSLR isn't exclusive to professionals or enthusiasts. The difference in Lens quality alone and the results it will produce is incentive enough for a lot of people. Great for anyone who wants to create their own family portraits, or often take photos in settings that a compact simply cannot get a good shot in. Quick shots as well. I think just about everyone has gone through the agony of waiting for a compact to go through it's focus cycle and eventually coughing up the shot needed about 5 seconds too late.

[shmokes]

It's a highly warranted assumption based on the information provided in the original post. She doesn't already have a nice compact camera or the original post would have stated as much, and pointed out that as a result he is looking specifically for a DSLR or micro four thirds or something. Moreover, the OP would have clarified this fact by now, based on the discussion so far. He hasn't. It is safe to say, pretty much with complete certainty, that she does not already have a nice compact camera.

[Dartful Dodger]

My budget is between $200-300.

Why are we discussing anything other than point-and-shoots right now? 

Because his budget is over $200.

His price range is too much for a point and shoot and too little for a DSLR.