Camera Questions

[Ronrocks!]

Greetings!

 

My family and I will be going on our first cruise this December. I am looking for a camera to take. I love to take pictures but I've never had anything more than your standard digital camera you can fit in your pocket. My two daughters are very active. One plays soccer and the other is into theatre. The problem I have with a current camera is when I take pictures at soccer games I can only take on picture...and have to wait a few seconds before I can take another. Often I miss the shot because by the time the camera goes off the person is gone. I've been looking at the Cannon Rebel XT and XTi, also the Nikon D-40x. I want something I can grow into and catch my teens life in High School. Not to mention Historical Downtown Charleston. Can anyone give me some pointers or recomendations on which one to buy? Thanks!!:confused:

[pierces]

Greetings!

 

My family and I will be going on our first cruise this December. I am looking for a camera to take. I love to take pictures but I've never had anything more than your standard digital camera you can fit in your pocket. My two daughters are very active. One plays soccer and the other is into theatre. The problem I have with a current camera is when I take pictures at soccer games I can only take on picture...and have to wait a few seconds before I can take another. Often I miss the shot because by the time the camera goes off the person is gone. I've been looking at the Cannon Rebel XT and XTi, also the Nikon D-40x. I want something I can grow into and catch my teens life in High School. Not to mention Historical Downtown Charleston. Can anyone give me some pointers or recomendations on which one to buy? Thanks!!:confused:

 

Admirable aspirations! This is a good time to start. And congratulations on asking for input here where there are some good, knowledgeable folks that will give you a lot better advice than the barely post-pubescent "expert" at Best Buy!;)

 

Of the three cameras you mentioned, my recommendation would be the Rebel XTi. The D40x is nice, but has limitations on what Nikon mount lenses it can use and the XT is a generation back. Unless you're dead set in the Canikon world, you may also want to check out the Sony A100 in the same price range. Since it uses sensor-based stabilization, even the inexpensive kit lenses that come with it are stabilized. Sony is also introducing several superb Carl Zeiss lenses to their line-up as well as their own Sony lenses based on the Minolta technology and lens mount that they absorbed last year. Sony is currently #3 in DSLR sales and has just introduced another more advanced model which is selling very well. Worth a look. (...says the old Minolta guy!:D )

 

Once you get a little deeper into the selection process, feel free to post specific questions if you have them. You will get some good answers based on experience with a wide range of equipment.

 

Good luck on your search!

 

Dave

 

I would also suggest that you go somewhere to pick one up and hold it, play with the controls and even snap a few pics on your own card.

[snowbird1]

Greetings!

 

My family and I will be going on our first cruise this December. I am looking for a camera to take. I love to take pictures but I've never had anything more than your standard digital camera you can fit in your pocket. My two daughters are very active. One plays soccer and the other is into theatre. The problem I have with a current camera is when I take pictures at soccer games I can only take on picture...and have to wait a few seconds before I can take another. Often I miss the shot because by the time the camera goes off the person is gone. I've been looking at the Cannon Rebel XT and XTi, also the Nikon D-40x. I want something I can grow into and catch my teens life in High School. Not to mention Historical Downtown Charleston. Can anyone give me some pointers or recomendations on which one to buy? Thanks!!:confused:

 

Both the Cannon Rebel XTi (just consider the XTi not the XT) and the Nikon D40X get good ratings. With either one of these you should be able to overcome the dreaded Shutter Lag. Once you get one, read the manual a time or two and get familiar with some of the neat things you can do with them to over come bad conditions and poor lighting. If you are thinking about the Cannon XTI, Costco had a pretty good package deal with a couple of lens and a nice bag for a pretty good price but of course you need to be a member. My DSLR is a Nikon but I realize Cannon makes a good product as well. I have an older Cannon G3 (not a DSLR but close) which has been a fantastic camera and has the ability to work in Manual so now that is a backup camera for me. Now Cannon has a G9 out just to show you how old the thing is and of course the DSLR is much better for sports and things that happen quickly.

 

Good luck.

[Ronrocks!]

Admirable aspirations! This is a good time to start. And congratulations on asking for input here where there are some good, knowledgeable folks that will give you a lot better advice than the barely post-pubescent "expert" at Best Buy!;)

 

Of the three cameras you mentioned, my recommendation would be the Rebel XTi. The D40x is nice, but has limitations on what Nikon mount lenses it can use and the XT is a generation back. Unless you're dead set in the Canikon world, you may also want to check out the Sony A100 in the same price range. Since it uses sensor-based stabilization, even the inexpensive kit lenses that come with it are stabilized. Sony is also introducing several superb Carl Zeiss lenses to their line-up as well as their own Sony lenses based on the Minolta technology and lens mount that they absorbed last year. Sony is currently #3 in DSLR sales and has just introduced another more advanced model which is selling very well. Worth a look. (...says the old Minolta guy!:D )

 

Once you get a little deeper into the selection process, feel free to post specific questions if you have them. You will get some good answers based on experience with a wide range of equipment.

 

Good luck on your search!

 

Dave

 

I would also suggest that you go somewhere to pick one up and hold it, play with the controls and even snap a few pics on your own card.

 

WOW!! You are good! Thank you so much for the input! Yes, I agree with you about Best Buy. I went there last night and did what you suggested. I had two different kids tell me two different things. I was looking at a lesser expensive Cannon, one kid said it was an SLR and the other said it wasn't. The camera was only $200.00 so I don't think it was. Then I saw the display case where they had all the SLR's. They had the XT, XTi, and the Nikon. No Sony.:( They would not let me hold the camera unless I was going to buy it. So I suppose I will do a little more research before I go into buy. At the moment I must buy from them because I have thier credit card and I am saving the rest of my funds for the cruise. Our first vacation ever and I want to take plenty of pictures! I need something that is user friendly. More of a point and shoot. I don't want to have to worry about the light, focus, and all those things for now. Once we come back to from the cruise and I have time I am going to look into taking a photography class. I do have one question at the moment. Is there a big difference in 8 pixels and 10? Will I be able to see the difference? It seems to make a big differenc in the price.

[Ronrocks!]

Just looked at the A100K. Much better price for the MP. Has great reviews too! Will the lens that comes with it be good enough for the cruise???

[pierces]

Just looked at the A100K. Much better price for the MP. Has great reviews too! Will the lens that comes with it be good enough for the cruise???

 

Two posts with one stone...

 

The Sony 18-70 kit zoom is a pretty good lens. In fact, most of the kit lenses are pretty good these days. I doubt that it will disappoint. 18-70 also covers the focal lengths used by about 90% of general photos taken, FYI.

 

8MP vs. 10MP is not a huge difference. Unlikely to notice it on an 8x10 print. If you're referring to the difference between the XT and the XTi, my preference is based on the XTi having a newer sensor, better features and a much larger LCD on the back.

 

As I said earlier, having image stabilization takes away the biggest cause of blurry pictures. It's built into the camera body on the Sonys, but if you end up with a Canon, seriously consider getting an IS lens instead of the kit lens.

 

Dave

[Ronrocks!]

Two posts with one stone...

 

The Sony 18-70 kit zoom is a pretty good lens. In fact, most of the kit lenses are pretty good these days. I doubt that it will disappoint. 18-70 also covers the focal lengths used by about 90% of general photos taken, FYI.

 

8MP vs. 10MP is not a huge difference. Unlikely to notice it on an 8x10 print. If you're referring to the difference between the XT and the XTi, my preference is based on the XTi having a newer sensor, better features and a much larger LCD on the back.

 

As I said earlier, having image stabilization takes away the biggest cause of blurry pictures. It's built into the camera body on the Sonys, but if you end up with a Canon, seriously consider getting an IS lens instead of the kit lens.

 

Dave

 

Thanks Dave!

 

At think I am leaning towards the sony! Thanks for all your help!

[pierces]

Thanks Dave!

 

At think I am leaning towards the sony! Thanks for all your help!

 

 

Once the choice is made and you get a camera. Spend some serious time with it before you trip. Read the manual and play with the settings. "Film" is free and the more familiar you are with the camera, the better your chance of getting the shot you want.

 

I have an article on resolution and how to figure out how much memory to take on a trip here: http://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/VivaLaResolution.htm

 

It's newbie-friendly and I've gotten a lot of positive responses from it.

 

There are some more articles that cover organization, renaming and pretty soon, an article on choosing the right lens when you're ready to expand your system. Here: http://www.pptphoto.com/Galleries.htm

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[dmz]

( full disclosure: I own a Canon DSLR )

 

 

The beauty of an SLR is that you can get multiple lenses for different purposes. When you think about it that way, it's really about the lenses, and not the camera. Part of the reason I went with Canon was that I know a number of people (including two photographers) that own Canon equipment. It's great for swapping stuff around. If you have any close friends with SLRs, keep that in mind. (Just don't be offended if someone won't lend you a $2000 lens ;) )

 

Note on Image Stabilization (IS): the lens-based systems typically work better than the in-camera systems.

 

 

All that being said, here are a few recommendations on Canon gear (that isn't obscenely priced):

 

 

Standard Zoom:

- Canon EF-s 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 lens (the kit lens)

- Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS lens (just came out)

- Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 (a nice, reasonably priced 3rd party lens)

- Canon EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS USM

 

Telephoto Zoom:

- Canon EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS (coming soon, is a mate to the new 18-55)

- Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM (very nice consumer telephoto zoom)

- Canon EF 70-200 f/4L USM (pro series telephoto zoom)

 

Prime Lens:

 

Most prime lenses (prime = non-zooming) are quite expensive, with the exception of the Canon 50mm f/1.8. (I've seen it for less than $70 brand new.) The large maximum aperture (f/1.8) lets you shoot in low-light, and also lets you create that blurred background effect that is nearly impossible to do with a point-and-shoot. For the price, everyone should have this lens.

 

 

Good / reputable internet store: www.bhphotovideo.com

User reviews on camera equipment: www.fredmiranda.com

[zackiedawg]

Advice above is great - so I won't refute any of it! But I thought I'd plant one small thing to consider in your head, especially based on your camera experience level that you mentioned.

 

DSLRs work just like film SLR cameras have for decades - you have a through-the-lens viewfinder which gives you much more detailed and accurate focus ability, but at the same time DOESN'T show you what the actual output of your shot will look like with regards to all of the various settings used - aperture, shutter, ISO, white balance, etc. Photographers who already understand optimal shutter settings for certain situations, know what aperture to use in different lighting and for varying depth-of-field needs, and an awareness of what ISO is needed to achieve the aperture-shutter combo desired in that lighting environment, have no problem with this at all...and once you get that knowledge, there are advantages inherent in this type of setup (faster and more accurate focus, ability to focus in dark situations, improved manual focus control, etc).

 

However, photographers without as much knowledge with the settings, people who learned basic photography from a point-and-shoot digital camera, and some people who just prefer it, may have a steep learning curve to get the best results with their DSLR. Point-and-shoot cameras provide a live view on their LCD screens or electronic viewfinders which shows you the exact output of the camera when you take the shot, direct from the sensor. You will see if the white balance is off, you will see if the shot will be too dark because the aperture isn't opened enough or the shutter is too fast, you will see the histogram to tell you if you are properly metered. This live view is a convenience for novice photographers, hobbyists who enjoy photography but don't take it to deep professional levels, and folks who haven't really learned how all of the functions of the camera come together to produce the shot. Pro photographers and long-time DSLR users will call it a crutch, or just plain garbage - they prefer the superior optical through-the-lens view for accurate focus - but there are alot of folks, especially those who grew up with digital cameras only, who just prefer it as a convenience or something they're accustomed to.

 

So the long slow wind up to the fast pitch is: Some newer DSLRs can offer you the best of both worlds! The latest Nikon D300 and the latest Canon 40D, as well as the last two Olympus DSLR models, are completely normal DSLRs with all of the functions and abilities, which have also added a Live View option. When used in Live View mode, the speed advantages of the DSLR will be slightly reduced, as the camera actually switches to a live sensor view to show you the 'end result' before flipping the mirror back into place for the shot. But the advantage can be huge for a novice photographer who wants to grow with and learn photography. You can use the live view as a tester...to try different settings and see what it does to the shot on live view. This will help learn what effect each settings change has on the output. Eventually, you should be able to use live view less and less. You can get to the point where you never use it again, and you'll still have a top-of-the-line fully featured DSLR. But you can always switch over to the live view mode anytime you are unsure or want to use it.

 

Just something to consider!! You can't go wrong nowadays between the Nikon, Canon, and Sony DSLRs. But just make sure you know whether or not you would be more comfortable with the new cameras that offer the live view option before you decide!

[Ronrocks!]

Once the choice is made and you get a camera. Spend some serious time with it before you trip. Read the manual and play with the settings. "Film" is free and the more familiar you are with the camera, the better your chance of getting the shot you want.

 

I have an article on resolution and how to figure out how much memory to take on a trip here: http://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/VivaLaResolution.htm

 

It's newbie-friendly and I've gotten a lot of positive responses from it.

 

There are some more articles that cover organization, renaming and pretty soon, an article on choosing the right lens when you're ready to expand your system. Here: http://www.pptphoto.com/Galleries.htm

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

 

Great article! I was going to ask you how big of a memory card I should buy.

[pierces]

...The latest Nikon D300 and the latest Canon 40D, as well as the last two Olympus DSLR models, are completely normal DSLRs with all of the functions and abilities, which have also added a Live View option. When used in Live View mode, the speed advantages of the DSLR will be slightly reduced, as the camera actually switches to a live sensor view to show you the 'end result' before flipping the mirror back into place for the shot. But the advantage can be huge for a novice photographer who wants to grow with and learn photography...

 

Justin: Nothing says "I just bought a DSLR with live-view to replace my point & shoot" like someone composing a shot by holding their new 40D at arms length rather than using the viewfinder!:D :D

 

Live-view is great for critical macro focusing and composing product set-ups or still-life while tethered to a computer (which is what I use it for on my A2 and what both Nikon and Canon have stated as it's intended function), but squinting at a LCD in bright sunlight rather than using a DSLRs bright, clear, viewfinder just doesn't make sense to me.

 

I'm not being disagreeable (;)), I'm just stating that unless you plan on using it in situations like I mentioned above, live-view would be of marginal value to the general photographer.

 

Another 2¢...

 

Dave

[Ronrocks!]

Advice above is great - so I won't refute any of it! But I thought I'd plant one small thing to consider in your head, especially based on your camera experience level that you mentioned.

 

DSLRs work just like film SLR cameras have for decades - you have a through-the-lens viewfinder which gives you much more detailed and accurate focus ability, but at the same time DOESN'T show you what the actual output of your shot will look like with regards to all of the various settings used - aperture, shutter, ISO, white balance, etc. Photographers who already understand optimal shutter settings for certain situations, know what aperture to use in different lighting and for varying depth-of-field needs, and an awareness of what ISO is needed to achieve the aperture-shutter combo desired in that lighting environment, have no problem with this at all...and once you get that knowledge, there are advantages inherent in this type of setup (faster and more accurate focus, ability to focus in dark situations, improved manual focus control, etc).

 

However, photographers without as much knowledge with the settings, people who learned basic photography from a point-and-shoot digital camera, and some people who just prefer it, may have a steep learning curve to get the best results with their DSLR. Point-and-shoot cameras provide a live view on their LCD screens or electronic viewfinders which shows you the exact output of the camera when you take the shot, direct from the sensor. You will see if the white balance is off, you will see if the shot will be too dark because the aperture isn't opened enough or the shutter is too fast, you will see the histogram to tell you if you are properly metered. This live view is a convenience for novice photographers, hobbyists who enjoy photography but don't take it to deep professional levels, and folks who haven't really learned how all of the functions of the camera come together to produce the shot. Pro photographers and long-time DSLR users will call it a crutch, or just plain garbage - they prefer the superior optical through-the-lens view for accurate focus - but there are alot of folks, especially those who grew up with digital cameras only, who just prefer it as a convenience or something they're accustomed to.

 

So the long slow wind up to the fast pitch is: Some newer DSLRs can offer you the best of both worlds! The latest Nikon D300 and the latest Canon 40D, as well as the last two Olympus DSLR models, are completely normal DSLRs with all of the functions and abilities, which have also added a Live View option. When used in Live View mode, the speed advantages of the DSLR will be slightly reduced, as the camera actually switches to a live sensor view to show you the 'end result' before flipping the mirror back into place for the shot. But the advantage can be huge for a novice photographer who wants to grow with and learn photography. You can use the live view as a tester...to try different settings and see what it does to the shot on live view. This will help learn what effect each settings change has on the output. Eventually, you should be able to use live view less and less. You can get to the point where you never use it again, and you'll still have a top-of-the-line fully featured DSLR. But you can always switch over to the live view mode anytime you are unsure or want to use it.

 

Just something to consider!! You can't go wrong nowadays between the Nikon, Canon, and Sony DSLRs. But just make sure you know whether or not you would be more comfortable with the new cameras that offer the live view option before you decide!

 

OK now my head is starting to hurt. I didn't realize this was going to be so hard! So I think I have it narrowed down to 3. The Canon XTi, The Sony A100K, and the Canon XT. I looked at the others you mentioned but those are just way too far out of my price range. I would be sleeping on the couch for a month if I brought one of those home. That is if I didn't have to sell my couch to buy the camera. My budget is between $700.00-$800.00 at most. Anymore ideas?

[Ronrocks!]

Chances are I'll be taking a lot of action shots with the camera. Soccer, Plays, Races, etc. So would the view finder be better for that? And I want to be able to take multiple pictures pretty fast.

[pierces]

Note on Image Stabilization (IS): the lens-based systems typically work better than the in-camera systems.

 

 

 

Note on Note: While it's true that lens-based stabilization slightly trumps sensor-based systems, the latest sensor-based cameras have narrowed that gap to the point where it's a virtual toss-up.

 

When sensor-based systems first appeared, the technology was summarily dismissed by Canon and Nikon since telephotos were already available with stabilization and the only advantage they could possibly offer is stabilization on normal and wide-angle lenses where it wasn't needed. Fast-forward three years to where three major manufacturers are using it and the stabilized lenses from the others now include wide-angle offerings.

 

Understand that I'm not knocking Canon! They are #1 in DSLR sales because of excellent services provided to professionals, quality products and very effective marketing. If Sony hadn't done such a nice job on the A700, I might have sold my 7D and Minolta glass and went with a 40D or a 5D and rebuilt my system. I am just adding that, while lens-based stabilization on most lenses is a bit better than sensor-based, both systems work very well. Sony wouldn't have jumped to #3 with just the one model if sensor-based stabilization wasn't a viable technology that offered value.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that with the exception of two or three models, stabilized lenses are unavailable from the third-party manufacturers.

 

The best news for someone new to the world of DSLRs it that you really can't buy a bad camera. It all boils down to what works for you.

 

Happy shooting!

 

Dave

[dmz]

I often hesitate jumping into threads like this... It's really difficult to give useful advice to a random person without knowing very much about his/her needs.

 

I see a lot of people make the move to DSLRs for the wrong reason. They will buy a basic camera+kit lens. And nothing else. And shoot in full automatic mode (e.g., Canon's "green square" mode). I can't help but think that these people would be better served by a high-end point-and-shoot camera.

 

The original poster mentioned soccer, and theatre. In theatre, you're probably dealing with a darkened environment, and you probably can't use a flash. To deal with these constraints, you'd need a "fast lens" (i.e., large maximum aperture). For soccer, while you probably will have better lighting, you're going to need a fairly fast shutter speed to freeze the action. Again, this will require a "fast lens". Image stabilization might help you in a theatre (where movement is slower), but it won't help (very much) in soccer.

 

If I had to pick 1 lens to cover both of these activities, it would be the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L. It's one of Canon's top-rated lenses, and you will be able to take shots that no point-and-shoot would even begin to approach. But it's expensive. And it's large. And it's heavy. The lens sells for around $1100. The image stabilized version is closer to $1600. Not something you buy on a whim. This is a lens you would use for 10+ years. It works on any Canon SLR made in the last 20 years, and anything in the foreseeable future. And there really isn't *anything* better in this range.

 

Pictures taken with the 70-200 f/2.8: http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_28u .

 

Pictures taken with the 70-200 f/2.8 Image Stabilized:

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_70200_28is

 

To me, getting an SLR is all about getting access to the good lenses. It's about doing something you can't do with a point-and-shoot. I would hate to talk someone out of an SLR, but I think it's important to examine the reasons for wanting one. Soccer and theatre are two activities that are actually quite difficult to take (good) photographs of. But if you have the right tool, and learn how to use it, you'll have magazine quality pictures of your kids, where other parents will have a dark, blurry mess.

[pierces]

Chances are I'll be taking a lot of action shots with the camera. Soccer, Plays, Races, etc. So would the view finder be better for that? And I want to be able to take multiple pictures pretty fast.

 

 

Another twofer...

 

 

For action, the viewfinder is the only viable option. You will never see a photog on the sidelines holding his camera with the big white lens at arm's length using the live-view!

 

The Sony and the XTi (in the $700-$800 range that you stated as budget) both shoot at 3 frames/sec., which will do nicely for your purpose. The XTi will shoot 27 frames before it needs to pause to write to the card and the A100 can shoot until the card is full. In reality, either would serve you sin in shooting high-school football for years, I've seldom if ever shot more than 10-15 frames in a row and usually 4-5.

 

I would concentrate on those two since the XTi is a significantly better camera than the XT with an insignificant price increase.

 

You may want to stretch your budget to include an inexpensive 75-300 zoom if you plan on being a sideline shooter at soccer games. (Maybe after the cruise...to stay off the couch!:D )

 

Dave

[dmz]

Note on Note: While it's true that lens-based stabilization slightly trumps sensor-based systems, the latest sensor-based cameras have narrowed that gap to the point where it's a virtual toss-up.

 

I'm curious what your experience with the A700 has been... Canon 30D with a 70-200 f/4 IS... I can handhold 200mm (effectively 320mm considering the 1.6x crop) at 1/15 of a second every time. At 1/10 of a second, more than half are sharp. That alone sold me on lens-based IS. Nothing else of mine has IS.

 

(sorry if this is getting off topic)

[dmz]

Plays / Theatre. This is the one that concerns me, but it's based on a lot of assumptions:

- indoors, low light

- no flash allowed

- sitting in the audience (i.e., some distance)

 

 

This is difficult to do well. For outdoor sports, you can get away with a cheap telephoto zoom if you have bright light. But for indoor stuff like this...

 

I know I threw out the big, bad, expensive option a few posts back. That really is "the best". Factoring in a reasonable budget, I think my next choice would probably be a Canon 85mm f/1.8 prime. The downside to this lens is that you can't zoom in and out. The upside is that it's an amazing lens when you use it for what it's good for. If you're shooting a play, choose your seats based on how much "zoom" you want. This lens will be fantastic in low-light. [edit: Canon 85mm f/1.8 is around $330]

 

I don't know the Sony / Minolta side... I think someone else here might though ;)

 

So Dave / pierces, shooting in a theatre, on a budget... what's your weapon?

[donaldsc]

Couple of thoughts -

 

First, unless you are a pro, you can take good photos with any dSLR. The limitations will be your ability as a photographer, not your equipment. The biggest differences between the dSLRs is how they feel in your hand, not what they do. Therefore, try-before-you-buy is important. Go to a shop that has several different cameras and will let you take them out of the case and play with them. I have noticed that many of the big box stores do not even have batteries in their cameras. How can you try a camera that you can not turn on? Also, buy a memory card and take it with you in the store. Take a bunch of pictures and look at them on your computer so you can see if you are happy with the results. If the shop will not let you do these things, walk out.

 

Second, when you buy a dSLR, you are not just buying a camera but a system. Eventually, you will have more money invested in lenses and accessories than in the camera. This is a plus, not a minus, as you can use the same accessories and lenses when you upgrade your camera body. However, you need to evaluate the entire system before you buy as you are committing to the system.

 

Third, asking most camera owners (including me) what is the best camera is almost a waste of time. I have a Nikon so this means that I have bought into the Nikon system. I am happy with my Nikon but I can not compare it with a Canon, Olympus, or Sony as I do not own either of these cameras. I am a long time Canon owner and until I bought my nikon dSLR, the only cameraa that I had ever owned were Canons. However, the Nikon felt better to me when I played with it so bought it.

 

Finally, there are a lot a review sites on the WEB that will give you a lot more information than any user can give you. Check them out.

 

Hope this helps.

 

DON

[dmz]

... when you buy a dSLR, you are not just buying a camera but a system.

 

 

Absolutely. The lenses I've bought, I'll be using 10 years from now. But I'll probably have a different (Canon) camera body. Heck, I still have a 20 year old Canon film SLR that I sometimes break out when I'm feeling "old school". (And it's compatible with all of my lenses.)

 

As for reviews:

 

www.dpreview.com has in-depth reviews of all the cameras we've been talking about.

www.fredmiranda.com has thousands of users-reviews on cameras and lenses.

Both sites have forums that talk about nothing but cameras.

[Ronrocks!]

Thanks to everyone for thier advice and input. I have enjoyed reading and learning about the cameras. I never thought these things were so complicated. My wife will be the first to tell you that I am not the sharpest crayon in the box so whatever I get better be dummy proof. Her reasoning is that I once ran into burning buildings for a living. Most of the assumptions I've read about my needs are correct. I will be on the side lines taking photos of the soccer team. While I would love a cheaper camera, I don't think it would go over well if I asked the girls to stop in the middle of a break away so I can get a picture. So yes I will need something that can take multiple shots. I can't ever see me taking more than 15 shots in one sequence. The theatre is very dark and most of my shots will be from 30 to 50 yards or more. The shots will be from pitch black to the stage with all the lights. As far as the cruise I will of course be taking still shots on formal night, around the pool, etc. I hope to get some beautiful shots of the sunset and sunrise. Or perhaps the moon off the water. Will this be possible with the standard lens that comes with either the Sony, Nikon, or Canon? You have all been great!

[Ronrocks!]

Another twofer...

 

 

For action, the viewfinder is the only viable option. You will never see a photog on the sidelines holding his camera with the big white lens at arm's length using the live-view!

 

The Sony and the XTi (in the $700-$800 range that you stated as budget) both shoot at 3 frames/sec., which will do nicely for your purpose. The XTi will shoot 27 frames before it needs to pause to write to the card and the A100 can shoot until the card is full. In reality, either would serve you sin in shooting high-school football for years, I've seldom if ever shot more than 10-15 frames in a row and usually 4-5.

 

I would concentrate on those two since the XTi is a significantly better camera than the XT with an insignificant price increase.

 

You may want to stretch your budget to include an inexpensive 75-300 zoom if you plan on being a sideline shooter at soccer games. (Maybe after the cruise...to stay off the couch!:D )

 

Dave

 

Define inexpensive???:o

[pierces]

I'm curious what your experience with the A700 has been... Canon 30D with a 70-200 f/4 IS... I can handhold 200mm (effectively 320mm considering the 1.6x crop) at 1/15 of a second every time. At 1/10 of a second, more than half are sharp. That alone sold me on lens-based IS. Nothing else of mine has IS.

 

(sorry if this is getting off topic)

 

Not really off-topic...it's all information!

 

Shooting with the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma, I have handheld down to 1/25 consistently. I really haven't had the camera long enough to run into a situation where I had to go slower. With the 28-75, I've had consistent results at as low as 1/5 with hit and miss down to 1/2. (A note for other readers, the A700 has improved stabilization over the A100 and Minolta cameras.) 1/2 sec is easy with the 11-18 but, again, I haven't hit a situation where I had to go slower than that.

 

My biggest issue is remembering to turn it back on after using a tripod!:o

 

 

Just an FYI: Industry prognosticators feel that sensor-based will be used in virtually all bodies in the next few years because of cost savings over lens-based at entry level. The higher-end models will be able to coordinate the body and lens-based stabilization with phenomenal results.

 

It's a good time to be a photographer.

 

Addendum: I agree with your hesitation concerning advice. I always ask what kind of shooting they plan on doing and what the budget is. I also try not to sell my preferences beyond relating personal experience. I'll happily recommend a Nikon if their friend or relative has an extensive and there's an opportunity for try-before-you-buy. Camera brand loyalty can be nearly as bad as it is with the Windows/MAC crusaders. It's pretty mild here and most people are polite and helpful. I've stopped posting over in the regular photography forums because of the rudeness and disdain shown to anyone stupid enough not to buy a [fill in the brand]! You don't get a lot of gear collectors here. It's usually just nice people who love to travel and want to take better pictures.

 

Dave

[Ronrocks!]

Not really off-topic...it's all information!

 

Shooting with the 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma, I have handheld down to 1/25 consistently. I really haven't had the camera long enough to run into a situation where I had to go slower. With the 28-75, I've had consistent results at as low as 1/5 with hit and miss down to 1/2. (A note for other readers, the A700 has improved stabilization over the A100 and Minolta cameras.) 1/2 sec is easy with the 11-18 but, again, I haven't hit a situation where I had to go slower than that.

 

My biggest issue is remembering to turn it back on after using a tripod!:o

 

 

Just an FYI: Industry prognosticators feel that sensor-based will be used in virtually all bodies in the next few years because of cost savings over lens-based at entry level. The higher-end models will be able to coordinate the body and lens-based stabilization with phenomenal results.

 

It's a good time to be a photographer.

 

Addendum: I agree with your hesitation concerning advice. I always ask what kind of shooting they plan on doing and what the budget is. I also try not to sell my preferences beyond relating personal experience. I'll happily recommend a Nikon if their friend or relative has an extensive and there's an opportunity for try-before-you-buy. Camera brand loyalty can be nearly as bad as it is with the Windows/MAC crusaders. It's pretty mild here and most people are polite and helpful. I've stopped posting over in the regular photography forums because of the rudeness and disdain shown to anyone stupid enough not to buy a [fill in the brand]! You don't get a lot of gear collectors here. It's usually just nice people who love to travel and want to take better pictures.

 

Dave

 

Well said! That's all I want. A way to capture my girls first vacation ever and thier high school times.