DSLR purchase

[sara mom]

My husband got some Christmas money and has plans to upgrade to a DSLR. We have used Kodak point and shoots for years and are pretty much fed up with them. On our Disney cruise, we would take a picture 3 times, and all 3 pictures would come out differently (no flash, odd colors. whitewashed, etc). So we did some preliminary research and have found good reviews of into DSLR's. We are considering a Nikon D3000 or Canon EOS Rebel t3. Any opinions you might be able to give would be helpful. My husband loves his Canon d10 underwater, so we were leaning that direction until we found the Nikon.

 

We cruise or go to Disney every year and would use it mostly of taking pictures of the kids. (action shots....they are 7 and 5) I would love to be able to take a picture of one of our children and have the background be a bit blurry, while the child be more in focus. I am sure there is a technical name for that, but I haven't found it yet.

 

The budget would be $600...for camera body and lens.

 

TIA!

[pierces]

Both are fine cameras. Either would be more than sufficient for what you are asking as far as capabilities.

 

You may also want to consider the Sony NEX-C3 for DSLR quality images with a much smaller package ideal for travel.

 

I picked up a NEX last year and it may very well replace my DSLR on non-Alaska cruises. My first-impressions article if you want to take a look.

 

Dave

[awboater]

You cannot go wrong with either Canon or Nikon (although I prefer Nikon).

 

Be aware though that the D3000 has been replaced by the D3100, so any that you find will be close out priced. This is not a bad thing in itself though as the D3000 is still a fine camera, especially for a beginner DSLR. But just be aware that it is at the end of life-cycle as far as manufacturing goes.

 

The one thing you will want to decide on up front is you are buying into a system, so do you ever plan on buying additional lenses. And if so, are consumer-grade lenses good enough or do you want to ever jump to pro-grade?

 

Lenses, unlike cameras will likely last you 10, 20, or more years, as they don't go bad or become obsolete like cameras do. So a wrong decision here will be with you for a long time.

 

This may be important if you are considering a Nikon D3000.

 

The D3000 is considered an entry-level DSLR, so it does not have all of the functionality that higher model Nikon DSLRs have. This is not a problem in most cases, but one of the biggest differences is that it will not auto focus some Nikon lenses.

 

Nikon makes three kinds of lenses; consumer grade, legacy professional grade, and later model professional grade. The chief difference is price and performance. Consumer grade lenses are low cost - good performance, the legacy professional lenses are moderate cost - great performance, and the late-model professional lenses are high cost - greatest performance.

 

The D3000 will autofocus consumer grade and the late-model professional lenses, but not the legacy professional lenses. This may not be an issue for you, but if you want to fully use any of the legacy professional lenses, you won't be able to autofocus them with the D3000.

 

As an example, a popular telephoto zoom can be obtained in three lenses:

 

Consumer Grade: Nikon 55-200mm f/4~5.6 VR that costs about $250

Legacy Pro: Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 that costs about $1,100

Pro: Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR that costs about $2,400.

 

With the D3000, it would autofocus with either the $250 or $2.400 lens, but not the $1,100 lens.

 

Again, this may be a minor issue, and it depends on if and how you want to buy additional lenses in the future. And you may very well want to wait for a few years before getting into a camera that can have those capabilities - if ever. So a D3000 may be the right camera for you.

 

My son has a D3000 and he does a great job with it. In some respects, he is a better photographer than I am, and gets great results from his camera.

 

While he cannot use some of my legacy-pro lenses on his camera (and that is not all bad I suppose) - he does very well with the D3000 and the 3 lenses he has.

 

The only other issue with the D3000 is that it will not do video. If you want video, consider the D3100, which is the replacement for the D3000.

[chipmaster]

If you go Canikon you can't go wrong.

 

IMHO D3000 is getting long in tooth consider the D3100 or d5100 both are much better. The newer canon rebels are also good.

 

Underwater cameras are getting better but have all the same issues as most P&S less than best IQ and slow focus.

 

If you still want to go small but must have fast focus the newest mirrorless Nikon 1 has the fastest focus of the new mirrorless generation.

 

If you want kids in focus and background blurry you are talking fast lenses and or big money; 2.8 zooms run a grand plus, or you go fix focal length primes that are small and usually run a few hundred to a few thousand. If you go the prime route go canon, or you got to go Nikon d7000/d90 as many Nikon primes still require a body motor.

 

Happy shopping

My husband got some Christmas money and has plans to upgrade to a DSLR. We have used Kodak point and shoots for years and are pretty much fed up with them. On our Disney cruise, we would take a picture 3 times, and all 3 pictures would come out differently (no flash, odd colors. whitewashed, etc). So we did some preliminary research and have found good reviews of into DSLR's. We are considering a Nikon D3000 or Canon EOS Rebel t3. Any opinions you might be able to give would be helpful. My husband loves his Canon d10 underwater, so we were leaning that direction until we found the Nikon.

 

We cruise or go to Disney every year and would use it mostly of taking pictures of the kids. (action shots....they are 7 and 5) I would love to be able to take a picture of one of our children and have the background be a bit blurry, while the child be more in focus. I am sure there is a technical name for that, but I haven't found it yet.

 

The budget would be $600...for camera body and lens.

 

TIA!

[zackiedawg]

It might well be worth your time to take a look around at various models from all manufacturers as there are lots of excellent selections out there - the Nikon & Canon models you mention certainly fit that category, as do some excellent Sony and Pentax models that also would fit your price range. Besides the afformentioned Sony NEX-C3, you might also look around for Sony A55 or A35 deals, and Pentax KR deals. And similar to the NEX line are the Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4:3 lines - more compact and portable than DSLRs but still much bigger sensors than P&S cameras.

 

While lens selection and buying into camera 'families' and 'lines' is a valid point to consider, also consider that even the smallest DSLR lens collections from Pentax can offer nearly 100 current lenses and hundreds of older lenses on the used market - similarly Sony has well over 100 current lenses and 300-400 older autofocus lenses from the Sony & Minolta lines. So unless you think you'll be getting deeply committed to extreme professional photography needs where a specialized lens that one line doesn't have is crucial, or where you'll be buying a pro body ($3000+) and requiring international professional support (something you'll only get from Canon & Nikon), most other folks won't suffer lack of choice or ability with other camera lines too.

 

Consider key features that may matter to you as well - there may be something you like - optical vs electronic viewfinders, specific video capabilities, built-in stabilization systems, tilting LCDs, ability to shoot in 'live view' mode off the LCD rather than viewfinder, features to help take low light shots without tripods, flash system compatibilities, burst speed shooting ability, high ISO capabilities, etc. There are so many specifications to consider in making sure you get the right camera for you, including ergonomics - how does the camera feel and how do you like the controls and layout?

 

It's usually best when shopping for something new to consider all available models and brands, and start whittling down the list based on features, designs, handling, performance, and price...that's the best way to make sure that you get whatever model or brand ends up being best FOR YOU, rather than what's best for a professional, a reviewer, a friend, or another board member.

 

All DSLRs, SLTs, & mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (NEX, M4:3) will be capable of meeting your stated basic requirements, and DSLRs & SLTs will be slightly better than mirrorless cameras for low light moving kids & action shots. DSLRs & SLTs from Canon, Nikon, Sony, & Pentax will all have key lenses available to meet your needs, all will be capable of shooting and focusing on movement and action, all will be capable of producing nice shallow depth of field for those blurred backgrounds, and all will be capable of performing very well at high ISO for low light situations.

 

BTW - our vacations are quite similar - I cruise once a year, and also go to Disney World 5-6 times a year...just was up at Disney a few weeks ago, in fact!

[burchan]

Do not get Nikon D3000. I had the oportunity to use it and was disapointed at limitations. No focus motor, no display. Disapointing pictures in low light. D3100 could be better but get D5100 instead. Sometimes trying to save money is to waste it.

[zackiedawg]

Just FYI - the D3100 and 5100 do not have the focus motors either - that's something with Nikon that you have to go up to the enthusiast/pro models to get. Though the 5100 will perform notably better in low light/high ISO than the D3000...I'm guessing the OP had a budget requirement or desire which is what led to the T3 vs D3000. The D5100 will likely exceed the budget. The Sony A55, 35, and NEX-C3, as well as Pentax KR and Panasonic GF2 & GF3 all should be in the budget area. Also, some older models that can still be found on closeout might be worth serious consideration...some Nikon D90s, Sony A500s and A550s, Sony NEX3 and NEX5, Pentax KX, and several M4:3 models can still occasionally be found new for seriously low prices - well under $500...all will still be solid choices and excellent for the OP's needs.

[dileep]

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 might serve you well. It has a 24x zoom and takes HD movies. Priced at $400. A DSLR for less than $600 is not easy especially when you add all the different lenses that you might need.

[sara mom]

 

 

Consider key features that may matter to you as well - there may be something you like - optical vs electronic viewfinders, specific video capabilities, built-in stabilization systems, tilting LCDs, ability to shoot in 'live view' mode off the LCD rather than viewfinder, features to help take low light shots without tripods, flash system compatibilities, burst speed shooting ability, high ISO capabilities, etc. There are so many specifications to consider in making sure you get the right camera for you, including ergonomics - how does the camera feel and how do you like the controls and layout?

 

It's usually best when shopping for something new to consider all available models and brands, and start whittling down the list based on features, designs, handling, performance, and price...that's the best way to make sure that you get whatever model or brand ends up being best FOR YOU, rather than what's best for a professional, a reviewer, a friend, or another board member.

 

 

Thank you so much for this perspective. I made my list of things that were important to me and stopped at Best Buy (shudder) to talk to someone. Honestly, I believe my knowledge of DSLR's that I have collected in 2 days was more than that of the salesman. And I still have no idea about ISO's.

 

So thank you all for my crash course in DSLR's. Tomorrow I head to a local camera shop with my list.

[sara mom]

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 might serve you well. It has a 24x zoom and takes HD movies. Priced at $400. A DSLR for less than $600 is not easy especially when you add all the different lenses that you might need.

 

 

As of right now, I am planning on one lens (in addition to the one that comes in the box). Best Buy had a bundle for $650 on the Canon t3 with a lens (that I so don't recall much about). I did learn from B.B. that I need filters in addition to the lens.

[Turtles06]

As of right now, I am planning on one lens (in addition to the one that comes in the box).

 

Just making sure you know that you don't have to buy a lens with a camera body. Yes, the mfrs often package a body with a lens -- into a kit -- and you'll get a break on the price when you buy the two together. But you can buy the body independently, and you should consider that if the kit lens isn't exactly what you want.

 

And many good camera shops will give you a break on the price of a lens when you buy a new body.

 

Good luck with your shopping!

 

PS: You don't "need" lens filters, and certainly not filters plural. In fact, this has been the subject of some very recent discussions on here. Some folks don't put any filter on their lens, some like to have a UV (clear) filter as protection for the lens. Beyond that, really, you don't "need" filters. And if you get a filter, be sure to do the research and get a really good one, or else you are compromising your lens.

[awboater]

Some filters are useful, but none are mandatory.

 

I like ND filters and Circular Polarizers. When taking photos in the Caribbean, a Polarizer can help in cutting down on reflections off the water, shooting through a bus window, or reflections off a glass door, window, etc.

 

But determining what you need usually comes with experience. You can waste a lot of money on filters, so you will want to make sure what you need before you buy. Filters are a huge profit center for photo stores, so they tend to push them.

 

And at the very least, the last time I was in Best Buy, all they carried were junk filters; Sunpak and Polaroid, which I would avoid. It does no good to have a good lens and put a cheap filter on it. If you want a filter, stick with Hoya, B+W, or possibly Tiffen brands.

[dileep]

I saw a Canon or Nikon DSLR with 2 lenses for under $800.

 

May have been what is on their website Canon T2i

 

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?prodid=11704153&whse=BC&topnav=&cm_sp=RichRelevance-_-itempageVerticalRight-_-PopularProductsInCategory&cm_vc=itempageVerticalRight|PopularProductsInCategory&SessionID=635e52a8-d31a-47e5-9ceb-f10eb19119c3

[chipmaster]

FWIW B.B. is not a good place to go get deep information, unless you are luck and find a photo buff working he camera section. Going to a local Ritz or other photo speciality store will yield much more.

 

As to lens, also be carefully what you choose, generally the kit lense is of limited range and what they sell you in addition is a consumer mid-range zoom. Most people that I know, me included, really like the superzooms. For DSLR those would be 18-105, 18-200 type range, one size fits all till you graduate to something more specialized.

 

Without a doubt filter is also something they will always push, the reality is unless you are shooting in really hazards places a filter is just a profit center for the companies.

 

As of right now, I am planning on one lens (in addition to the one that comes in the box). Best Buy had a bundle for $650 on the Canon t3 with a lens (that I so don't recall much about). I did learn from B.B. that I need filters in addition to the lens.

[sara mom]

 

Without a doubt filter is also something they will always push, the reality is unless you are shooting in really hazards places a filter is just a profit center for the companies.

 

Filters were the only thing the salesman knew anything about. That made me very skeptical.

[bukieco]

Even though I shoot Nikon, if given those two choices, I'd get a T3. I think the d3000 was a shot to try and get entry level users acquainted with dslr's; when they could have kept the D40, which was a better camera in my opinion. I have a d90 and love it, but it exceeds the OP's cost (unless you can find a used one with kit 18-105 lens; which you might be able to as they have been replaced with the d7000). Check out sam's club or costco, they might have a bundle for cheaper than that of BB, but maybe not. As other posters have said, the camera's you mentioned are entry level, and will not auto focus older lenses. You need a camera with a built in auto-focus motor for that.

 

I'm guessing the bundle has a 18-55 and 55-200 or so telephoto lens. These lenses are pretty good enough, especially for just starting. But beware of limitations too. In low light, you need to put your ISO up. This will make the sensor more sensitive to light, but will also produce a grain on your image. Sometimes, it's better to get a sharp image that is grainy, rather than a blurred image that isn't.

 

As for filters, lenses now days are coated, so UV filters are pretty much used to protect the front element from damage. If you are going to the beach, I'd suggest a polarizing filter (it's like sunglasses for your camera).

 

On camera flash sucks, so you might want to invest in a speed light, with directional head to bounce light off of walls or ceiling. But it's not necessary right away.

 

And from your first post, when you blur the background, and the subject stays sharp in the foreground, it's called bokeh.

[awboater]

From a terminology point of view, a blurry background is called shallow depth-of-field.

 

Bokeh describes the quality of the blur, not that the background is blury. Good bokeh is when the background is smooth like creme cheese, or harsh with hard edges to the objects. And what makes good bokeh is very subjective.

 

Shallow depth-of-field = blurry background.

Bokeh = the quality of the blurry background.

 

While the terminology is perhaps nitpicking a bit, the result is that if you google "shallow depth-of-field", you will get more "how-to" information than if you google bokeh.

 

So to get a blurry background, you want to have a shallow depth-of-field.

 

Depth-of-field is a measurement of how much distance in front of and behind the subject is in focus, and a shallow depth-of-field will result in a blurry background because the background will be out of focus.

 

There are three things you can do to obtain a shallow depth-of-field, and they all work in conjunction with each other:

 

1. moving your subject closer results in a shallower depth-of-field.

2. a longer focal length lens results in a shallower depth-of-field.

3. a larger aperture opening results in a shallower depth-of-field.

 

And of course, the opposite is also true (i.e. a shorter focal length results in a deeper depth-of-field).

 

And for #1, the further you can get the background from the subject helps when your camera/lens/settings combination is less than ideal to create the effect you want.

 

For #2, Since longer focal lengths result in shallower depth-of-field, APS and full frame DSLRs are vastly superior to compact cameras, 4/3rds, Nikon 1, or any small sensor cameras, as those cameras use shorter focal length lenses (as they have higher crop factors).

 

There is a lot of trade off here when messing around with shallow depth-of-field, and unfortunately you cannot always tell what it will be from looking in your viewfinder. One reason is virtually all DSLRs these days let in the maximum amount of light through the lens when composing the camera, by keeping the aperture fully open.

 

But when you take the photo, in addition to moving the mirror out of the way, the lens stops down to the specified aperture.

 

But there is a function on most cameras, oddly enough usually called "depth-of-field preview", that will force the lens to stop down to it's set aperture, which helps you to see the in-focus area (which will increase when you stop down if the aperture is not at maximum).

 

However, I have found the depth-of-field preview button to be of pretty limited value, and what I use is a free iPhone/iPad app called "Simple DoF" by "IndeFilmGear". This app is easy and quick to use, and you can dial in your camera type (sensor size), as well as the focal length of the lens, the distance your subject is away, and the aperture setting, and it will give you the total depth-of-field, as well as the distance in front of, and behind the subject that will be in focus.

 

After using this app for awhile, you will get some idea of what settings work well for your camera. In fact with a telephoto lens, especially if it is a fast f/2.8, you can run into trouble with too shallow of a depth-of-field. I shot some butterflies a few months ago just after getting my 80-200mm f/2.8 lens, and found that at 15ft @ 200mm, the depth-of-field was only a couple of inches. I had to actually increase the aperture a bit to obtain a deeper depth-of-field to get some good shots of the butterflies.

 

Bokeh itself is a different story, and is determined more or less by lens design and construction. Some lenses are just better at producing good bokeh. Generally, a lens having more blades on the aperture diaphragm will result in better bokeh. I have some lenses that are 7 blade as well as 9 blade, and the 9 blade lenses seem to indeed be better.

 

The worst kind of lens for good bokeh is a mirror lens, and produces very harsh bokeh. Fortunately, there are not many of these around any more. And perhaps the best lens for bokeh is the Nikon 135mm DC (Defocus Control) lens. There is an extra element in this lens that can be adjusted to blur the foreground or background. But at $1,100, the lens probably is not enough of an improvement to justify it's purchase for anyone but a professional.

 

So anyway, experiment with the three settings I outlined above to obtain a shallow depth-of-field. Even with a compact camera, you can get some semblance of this effect, but with a DSLR, and especially a fast lens, it will really be easy to do.

 

In that regard, you may wish to look into a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens, as they are really inexpensive (well under $200), and when used on a cropped camera, they mimic a 75mm lens, which is pretty much an ideal distance for portraiture. And it never hurts to have a low-light lens either. For the high quality, low cost, and light weight of the ubiquitous 50mm f/1.8 lens, everyone that owns a DSLR should have one.

[ikirumata]

I just bought my first DSLR this month so I was in the same boat as yall. My budget was also around $600. My family is a Nikon family. I grew up around Nikons, however, after several trips to the electronics store, I ended up with a Canon T2i (amazon has them for around $600 with the 18-55mm lens kit). The number one reason was:

 

Ergonomics. Changing settings (aperature, shutter speed, ISO, etc...) is much easier on the Canon T2i (vs the Nikon D3100). You can either navigate the LCD screen using the arrows, or you can push a button and move the index finger wheel. In manual mode, the finger wheel defaults to setting the shutter speed...there are two buttons you can press to adjust Aperature or ISO. On the Nikon, changing settings is a little...painful? Dropping into different menus, upon menus, upon menus was a little frustrating for me as I was learning the whole DSLR thing. In fact, I was so put off by this antiquated system that I did not get a chance to see if there were any 'finger wheel' shortcuts like on the Canon.

 

I knew that both cameras would shoot really good shots, so ergonomics was high on my list. Canon T2i won hands down over the Nikon D3100.

 

Other things that I preferred over the Nikon.

 

Video. Canon has a rich history in the video department. The T2i video is pretty good and there is a wealth of online knowledge in that department for Canon (i.e. Magic Lantern).

 

Autofocus drive motor on the body. The Canon had the drive on the body. This was a big deal for me as this would make the equivalent Nikon lenses more expensive. My reasoning is that since you have to put more into the lens, you either have to charge more or cut corners in other places.

 

Feel. The T2i just felt right in my hands. I dont have monster hands, but the body felt light and I was able to securely hold it. The grip for your thumb was a nice touch on the T2i. My only gripe here is that I wish that the grip stuck out a tiny bit more.

 

On the flip side, some things I liked about the Nikon:

 

1. Bigger buffer. If taking lots of shots in succession is important to you, then the Nikon will be better as the Canon fills its buffer quickly and has to pause a moment to write to memory.

 

2. On camera editing. The Nikon has a lot more options for on camera effects/editing. If you are someone that is not going to spend a lot of time touching up photos, but needs a bit of touch up anyway, the Nikon is a good buy. There is one 'neat' video mode on the Nikon that you can set it to where you can select a color and all other colors are in black and white.

 

In the end, I suggest you pick up both cameras, take some shots with them, and really get a feel for how they operate.

 

Good luck!

 

Here is a couple shots I took the first day I got my camera (shot with a 50mm f1.8 lens).

 

 

 

 

[bukieco]

I stand corrected on the terminology.

[awboater]

I stand corrected on the terminology.

 

I only mentioned it because if you search on dof, the OP will probably get more info. I hope it wasn't too mean of me to do so.

[tanner1449]

I have a Nikon D3100 and love it. If you have not ever had a DSLR camera before, you can't go wrong with this one. Its great..This is my first one and I'm glad I bought it.

[Blueboss]

Very informative thread. I, too, am making the jump to DSLR. I have done months of research and learning and have decided to go with the Nikon D3100 with the kit lens. Will add the 55-200 lens, 35mm lens and a speedlight down the road. I was debating the 35mm, but like the low light aspect of it. I don't expect to add any other lenses. I want really nice pictures of the offbeat things we see in our travels or family events. My budget for everything, with DH's approval, is $2000 or less. That includes body, lenses, and all the little stuff like bag, strap, batteries, memory, card, etc. I'm trying my best to stay in that price range.

[dileep]

Very informative thread. I, too, am making the jump to DSLR. I have done months of research and learning and have decided to go with the Nikon D3100 with the kit lens. Will add the 55-200 lens, 35mm lens and a speedlight down the road. I was debating the 35mm, but like the low light aspect of it. I don't expect to add any other lenses. I want really nice pictures of the offbeat things we see in our travels or family events. My budget for everything, with DH's approval, is $2000 or less. That includes body, lenses, and all the little stuff like bag, strap, batteries, memory, card, etc. I'm trying my best to stay in that price range.

 

I think I saw a Nikon D3100 with 2 lenses for $800 at Costco.

[awboater]

You should be able to stay well within the $2000 price range with a fully outfitted D3100.

[Blueboss]

You should be able to stay well within the $2000 price range with a fully outfitted D3100.

 

My DH will be greatly relieved! His sister was a photographer years ago and he remembers what she paid for her equipment. I am by no means a photographer, do not need the pro grade equipment, nor do my abilities warrant the need for such. I have always been interested in photography, but raising the kids, never had the extra money for it. Kids are grown, support themselves and I'm ready to get started on a new hobby. I have already had one of my photos published in the local newspaper! I was excited when I found out they were using it!