# Recommendations on a Digital SLR Camera



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

My wife and I are looking to purchase a new digital SLR camera. Our primary purpose for this camera is to better capture pictures of our child by being able to multiple pictures in quick succession. My sister has a digital SLR (a Canon I believe, but I am not sure of the model) that she uses for this purpose, and her great pictures is what has motivated us to go buy one. Her Canon is a few years old, so we are doing a bit of research to figure out what current models would best match our goals. We are not (and will never be) photography enthusiasts. We're not particularly senstive to cost within reason but we do want to make sure we are getting the right bang for our buck, and we don't want to pay a premium for features we won't use. For example, the ability to take video is irrelevant to us because we'll just use a video camera. Thanks for any input.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

A DSLR will generally offer several advantages over a p&s - greater control over focus and exposure, a choice of interchangeable lenses, reduced shutter lag, a larger sensor (which can have benefits in terms of minimizing depth of field and in reduced noise at high ISO settings), a RAW option (which can be very useful in post-shoot adjustment of the image), etc.

If you care about such advantages and are willing and able to take some advantage of them, then they may make it easier for you to get good quality pictures of your child. But if you don't care about such advantages and don't intend to make much use of them, then they will do little to enable you to get good quality photos.

Not everyone wants to be a photography enthusiast. Me? Photography's been a hobby of mine for 30+ years. I shoot film (these days, mostly medium format and 4x5) and lots of digital. There are times when I'll spend 20 minutes getting the composition just right, and another 3 hours in the darkroom or in Photoshop fine tuning the results.

But that's me. My sister, on the other hand, uses an inexpensive p&s to get snapshots of her children doing cute things. She cares nothing for the photographic process, and simply wants to point the camera, press the button, and get 4x6" prints with an absolute minimum of fuss.

I'm a better photographer than she is, but she's about as happy with the pictures she takes, as I am with the pictures I make. Yeah, when I do a portrait of my niece, it's technically superior to the picture my sister would take, and the lighting's probably more flattering, and compositionally it's likely to be better, and in all sort of other ways it's probably superior. But parents and grandparents don't really care too much about all that; they just want to see Rachel looking sweet and doing something cute. If there's a harsh shadow behind Rachel, they don't see it. If there's a distracting line behind her head, it doesn't register with them. Some highlights burnt out, and her hair so dark as to show no detail? Hey, they're not going to notice these problems.

To each his own, right?

Anyway, while I appreciate that children can be fast moving, it's unlikely that the key to getting good pictures of your child is a camera with a high frames per second rate - more likely, a short shutter lag is what you want (although there are ways to compensate for lag). However, if a high frames per second rate is want you want, you don't have to go to an SLR to get it. I understand Casio has some p&s cameras capable of 30+ fps. That's several times faster than most professional SLRs.

Also, don't worry about paying a premium for features you won't use. Now, I'm not telling you to drop $6000 on a top-of-the-line Nikon, but the thing is, very often you're better off with a consumer camera with features you don't need. See, by stuffing all those features into the camera, sales of the camera are greatly increased. And increased sales means the production cost per camera is reduced. So, ironically, the feature-rich camera may well sell for less than would a more minimal camera, and be a better buy. So long as you can shut off or ignore the features unimportant to you, there's little downside to having them in the camera. (I've had a Nikon D300 for several years, and have yet to make ANY use of several of its features, nor do I expect to ever use them. But hey, they're easily disabled or ignored, and they enabled Nikon to maximize sales, and so kept the per unit cost of the camera down to a level I could afford, so they don't really bother me.)

It could be argued that the key to getting good pictures of your child is to always have your camera with you. Such being the case, get a small p&s, not a larger and heavier DSLR. Heck, get a cell phone with a good built-in camera, for that matter.

You'd probably be better served visiting one or two of the better photography oriented websites, and reading what people have to say there. AAAC is a great resource, but discussions of choosing photographic equipment isn't really its strength.
-- 
Michael


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Suggest you look at Nikon D7000.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Any number of Canons, Nikons, Pentaxes can fill the bill, and for kids-in-action shots you will want a dslr (shutter lag issues with p&s cameras). For some good education, I reccomend www.photo.net beginner questions section. You don't need the newest or latest, and www.keh.com is a nationally known and highly respected used equipt. outfit. Their "good" rated gear is equivalent to others' "excellents", and you can get a fine set-up without breaking the bank.


----------



## Mr Jones (Mar 27, 2011)

They say the best camera is the one you have with you, and a big DSLR is most likely to be left at home when you take a walk to the playground. I'd second the recommendation of a phone with a good camera, a friend has a blog about raising her son, and the photos she takes with her iPhone 4S are amazingly good.

I have a point and shoot Panasonic Lumix LX3 (the current model is LX5) that has a fantastic Leica lens and has served really well as a pocketable take-anywhere camera when I don't want to carry a big camera. The Canon s95 and the Fuji x10 are similar highly rated cameras. I'd look at the camera ratings for different types at www.dpreview.com


----------



## statboy (Sep 1, 2010)

Mr Jones said:


> a friend has a blog about raising her son, and the photos she takes with her iPhone 4S are amazingly good.


You mean for the <2 months that phone has been out? The camera phones are only decent if you don't have to do any zooming, then they do the digital zoom and get blurry.


----------



## Mr Jones (Mar 27, 2011)

statboy said:


> You mean for the <2 months that phone has been out? The camera phones are only decent if you don't have to do any zooming, then they do the digital zoom and get blurry.


Yes, I do mean that. She had a regular iPhone 4 before that, and those photos were quite good, but the improvement has been remarkable. I'm not saying that it's a perfect alternative to a DSLR, but if you make sure your phone has a good (or VERY good) camera, you'll ALWAYS be able to take an acceptable photo.


----------



## Bucksfan (May 25, 2008)

I was in your shoes about 4 years ago. We got a Canon Rebel XS - the entry-level Canon DSLR at the time. I think it was a hair shy of $500 with an included lens. Since then, we have taken in excess of 10,000 pictures of my two children using it. I am very happy with the decisions we made, both to go the DSLR route, and not to get a higher-end DSLR. We especially wanted a DSLR for the higher fps rate (ours is 3-3.5 fps I believe) and short shutter-lag time. 

The above comments are all right-on regarding the benefits and drawbacks of a DSLR. I have not gotten into the editing of photos (where the real benefits of RAW format comes into play, from what I understand). Practically speaking, it is not always possible to take your DSLR with you, but for birthdays, zoo trips, museum trips, sports, etc. it's really nice to have a camera that is capable of pretty much anything you would like it to do. For those times where it is not practical to carry a DSLR, an Iphone camera or the like is fine, but it has a long shutter lag time, no zooming, and a terrible fps rate, unless you are shooting video.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Canon has the largest selection of lenses. You can get a new camera body every few years but keep using the Canon lenses you own. Buy Canon.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

pleasehelp said:


> My wife and I are looking to purchase a new digital SLR camera. Our primary purpose for this camera is to better capture pictures of our child by being able to multiple pictures in quick succession. My sister has a digital SLR (a Canon I believe, but I am not sure of the model) that she uses for this purpose, and her great pictures is what has motivated us to go buy one. Her Canon is a few years old, so we are doing a bit of research to figure out what current models would best match our goals. We are not (and will never be) photography enthusiasts. We're not particularly senstive to cost within reason but we do want to make sure we are getting the right bang for our buck, and we don't want to pay a premium for features we won't use. For example, the ability to take video is irrelevant to us because we'll just use a video camera. Thanks for any input.


I would urge you to consider one of the new so-called "prosumer" cameras that are a hybrid between a digital SLR camera and a point-and-shoot. Most offer the same capability as a digital SLR camera, including the large sensor (which is more important than the number of megapixels) and an interchangeable lens. The only real difference is the size, which is significantly smaller and more compact because they do not have a mirror inside for an optical viewfinder. The best of these are probably the Olympus or Panasonic micro four-thirds cameras. I'd recommend an Olympus Pen, which I currently own. The newest model -- the E-P3 -- was released recently, but the older models (between 6 and 16 months old) are still very good cameras and can be found for between $200 and $500 right now depending on the lens package. I saw Ritz was selling the E-PL1, a very good camera that came out in the spring of 2010, for $200 on Black Friday and it included, if I recall, a very decent lens too.

For camera reviews, I recommend this website: https://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

thanks for the input


----------



## bblizzard (Nov 21, 2011)

I'd go for Canon too. A friend of mine is using a Canon 7D. You just need to invest on lenses.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Nikon or Pentax. Canon as third option. Nikon if you can afford it, otherwise Pentax. 

There's quite enough lenses to get with either. Breaks the bank. 

There's a third option to a dslr or point and shoot; like the Nikon 1. It has the advantages of lens change and (i guess) raw but less bulk. However, I usually go dslr if I'm shooting something special and iPhone 4 for everything else. 

If you're shooting in poor light conditions, check that the camera performs well with higher ISO settings, a lot of pics are lost to high noise. 

Also, decent post processing software is good. Aperture or lightroom for example.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

If you're not a photography enthusiast and you're mainly interested in candid snapshots as opposed to posed pictures, are you sure you really need an SLR? It sounds like your main concern is quick recovery time, not the ability to change lenses or shoot RAW photos. If you're worried about paying for features you're not going to use, the ability to change lenses is probably one of the most expensive "options" you can add, especially when you add in the price of the lenses themselves.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

My DSLR recommendation is any from the Nikon D series. For ease of use and mobility, I'd say go with one of the hybrids aka "prosumer" ones hockeyinsider suggested.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hockeyinsider said:


> I would urge you to consider one of the new so-called "prosumer" cameras that are a hybrid between a digital SLR camera and a point-and-shoot. Most offer the same capability as a digital SLR camera, including the large sensor (which is more important than the number of megapixels) and an interchangeable lens. The only real difference is the size, which is significantly smaller and more compact because they do not have a mirror inside for an optical viewfinder. The best of these are probably the Olympus or Panasonic micro four-thirds cameras. I'd recommend an Olympus Pen, which I currently own. The newest model -- the E-P3 -- was released recently, but the older models (between 6 and 16 months old) are still very good cameras and can be found for between $200 and $500 right now depending on the lens package. I saw Ritz was selling the E-PL1, a very good camera that came out in the spring of 2010, for $200 on Black Friday and it included, if I recall, a very decent lens too.
> 
> For camera reviews, I recommend this website: https://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom


I missed this post before posting, strange... Totally agree.

Panasonic cooperates with Leica for lenses, so it's probably good stuff.

I have a smaller prosumer Leica that I really like. Paid an extra 100£ for the red logo and black look but boy is it pretty...


----------



## Mr Jones (Mar 27, 2011)

The Panasonic/Leica Lumix LX5 is currently the best selling compact point-and-shoot (second in cameras overall) on Amazon. Very well reviewed and discounted to $300 right now. The similar Canon s95 is around the same price.

I was going to sell my LX3 when I upgraded to an interchangeable lens camera, but it makes such a great travel/snapshot camera that I can't part with it.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> There's a third option to a dslr or point and shoot; like the Nikon 1. It has the advantages of lens change and (i guess) raw but less bulk. .


The new Nikon isn't nearly as good as the micro four-thirds standard.



hockeyinsider said:


> I would urge you to consider one of the new so-called "prosumer" cameras that are a hybrid between a digital SLR camera and a point-and-shoot. Most offer the same capability as a digital SLR camera, including the large sensor (which is more important than the number of megapixels) and an interchangeable lens. The only real difference is the size, which is significantly smaller and more compact because they do not have a mirror inside for an optical viewfinder. The best of these are probably the Olympus or Panasonic micro four-thirds cameras. I'd recommend an Olympus Pen, which I currently own. The newest model -- the E-P3 -- was released recently, but the older models (between 6 and 16 months old) are still very good cameras and can be found for between $200 and $500 right now depending on the lens package. I saw Ritz was selling the E-PL1, a very good camera that came out in the spring of 2010, for $200 on Black Friday and it included, if I recall, a very decent lens too.
> 
> For camera reviews, I recommend this website: https://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hockeyinsider said:


> The new Nikon isn't nearly as good as the micro four-thirds standard.


I haven't tried it, what's your take?


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

+1 to everybody who suggested getting a base model Canon Rebel series Camera. They're in my opinion, the best SLR camera for the beginning photographer. Plus, you can get there lenses on the cheap or use Tamron lenses.

-Zach

One More Thing: Right now you can get a good deal on used SLR cameras if you buy from B&H video. link:https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Brand_Canon&ci=15488&N=4294182649+4291570227


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> I haven't tried it, what's your take?


I've only seen it in the stores, but what I have read from the trusted reviewers hasn't been good at least with respect to the camera's sensor. Too many people worry about the number of megapixels. While that is somewhat important, the size of the sensor is even more important. I'd go with a Panasonic or Olympic micro four-thirds camera if you want digital SLR quality and capability with the convenience of point-and-shoot.


----------



## bblizzard (Nov 21, 2011)

*My friend is using Canon EOS Rebel T3 (1100D), i also want to try it but for me it's quite expensive.. Maybe i'll just try Nikon D3100 *


----------



## Paul Sherman (Dec 1, 2011)

Regillus said:


> Suggest you look at Nikon D7000.


I second that! Its been an exceptional camera for me, and very user friendly. Google Ken Rockwell...he does many reviews of camera's and camera equipment with an unbiased opinion.


----------

