Camera for Alaska and sports

[ljmandelbaum]

I think I'm finally going to get a DSLR.  We have an alaskan cruise planed.  Both my daughters play soccer and want me to get better pictures than my iphone.  Which camera do you think I should get?

 

 

 

[CameraHappy]

Here’s a suggestion. https://susanlakephotography.com/travel-blog/f/what’s-the-best-camera-to-take-traveling

[TheOldBear]

You may want to take a look at some of the guides over on DPReview 

 

As an example the 'sports and action' guide is https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-cameras-for-sports-and-action

 

 

[Crew News]

I take indoor youth sports (basketball) with my Olympus OMD EM-M1X and look forward to using it to capture eagles in flight at 30-60 fps.  Image stabilization and much lighter than a full-frame DSLR with heavy lenses.  Every button can be programmed to fit your needs.  Love back button focusing so can just tap the shutter button to take a photograph.

 

FWIW youth basketball players take a lot of shots with their eyes closed and their tongues out.

[AL3XCruise]

Any budget that you are looking at? 

Any particular types of photos you are trying to take in Alaska?

How important is image quality?  

 

[ljmandelbaum]

16 hours ago, AL3XCruise said:

Any budget that you are looking at? 

Any particular types of photos you are trying to take in Alaska?

How important is image quality?  

 

Not sure on budget yet I haven't gotten that far in my thinking.  I want to take pictures on our trip as well as getting nice shots of my daughters playing soccer.  Possible basketball if my daughter goes back to it.  Not to mention one of my girls is doing track so I would love to get good pictures of her during her events as well.

 

I want better pictures than I can get from my iphone 11.  

 

We are going on a helicopter to a glacier with dog sledding as well as a float plane.  

[TheOldBear]

3 hours ago, ljmandelbaum said:

Not sure on budget yet I haven't gotten that far in my thinking.  I want to take pictures on our trip as well as getting nice shots of my daughters playing soccer.  Possible basketball if my daughter goes back to it.  Not to mention one of my girls is doing track so I would love to get good pictures of her during her events as well.

 

I want better pictures than I can get from my iphone 11.  

 

We are going on a helicopter to a glacier with dog sledding as well as a float plane.  

 

With the dog sled and float plane mentions, you probably want to look at 'weather resistant' cameras - some examples include the Panasonic FZ-300 'bridge' camera, most Pentax SLRs and Olympus OMD M5 / M1 / M1X series [not all lens and body combos are weather sealed, even with a weather sealed body]

[AL3XCruise]

4 hours ago, ljmandelbaum said:

Not sure on budget yet I haven't gotten that far in my thinking.  I want to take pictures on our trip as well as getting nice shots of my daughters playing soccer.  Possible basketball if my daughter goes back to it.  Not to mention one of my girls is doing track so I would love to get good pictures of her during her events as well.

 

It sounds like one key requirement is zoom, which is one area where bridge cameras, DSLRs, and mirrorless cameras still have a big advantage over cell phones.

 

A bridge camera is something between a traditional point and shoot camera and a full-fledged DSLR or mirrorless camera.  They don't have interchangeable lenses, but the permanently attached lens often covers a wide range.  They tend to be lighter and cheaper than DSLR or mirrorless cameras.  They normally use smaller, cheaper sensors than bigger cameras.  This may not be a problem for Instagram and facebook sharing, but if you plan on fullscreen viewing on a high resolution monitor or printing you'll want to be careful.

 

The next step up is an APS-C camera, either a DSLR or mirrorless.  APS-C refers to the size of the sensor.  They are fairly common and can give great results.  APS-C is physically smaller than full-frame sensors, so the cameras (and the lenses) are typically smaller and cheaper for a comparable capability/quality.  In theory full-frame is better, but unless money and weight aren't an issue APS-C is probably a better fit as a step up from a phone.

 

An APS-C camera with something like a 18-400mm lens is going to be a very versatile tool for everything from landscapes to wildlife and soccer games.  

 

All of the major brands have good products, with Canon and Nikon being the most common.  Because they are common, you generally have more options for lenses and accessories.  But I know people that are happy with Pentax, Sigma, and others.  Sony has been making major inroads lately. 

 

In my case, I started shooting Canon because my friends had Canon and we share lenses.  Now I have more money in Canon compatible lenses than I ever spent on the camera, so my next camera will probably be Canon too.  If you know anyone into photography and might be borrowing lenses from them... well, that might help choose what brand to get!

 

Canon's entry level DSLR are the "Rebels".  I'm not too familiar with them, but I don't think they have weather sealing on the market.  As @TheOldBearsaid that might be something to look for.  The 80D and 90D are probably the cheapest weather sealed Canon cameras, but they are getting up into the high end amateur/semi-pro range.  Nikon, of course, has a similar lineup. 

 

Sony's A6X00 series has been very popular lately.  It is a mirorrless camera and thus is lighter than a traditional DSLR but lacks the optical viewfinder.  I believe several folks on this board have used one and might be able to give you some info.

 

I don't have enough experience to issues specific recommendations, but I hope some of my ramblings can help you narrow down where to look!

[peety3]

It's not about the camera, it's about the lens. Zoom lenses are OK to start with, but you can get a heck of a lot of performance out of a "prime" (non-zoom, aka fixed focal length) lens for the same or less money. Sure, you've got to find the right focal length for your needs, but for outdoor sports, all too often, the limit is your wallet. Indoors, the spaces aren't big enough to gamble on focal length: you probably want to try with a zoom or ask others who've shot in similar spaces what lens they used (and if a zoom lens, what focal length it was at most of the time). In a nutshell, you want lenses with a low f/ number; this means it lets in a lot of light, and hence can capture the image in a shorter time. You want fast shutter speeds to freeze action and avoid blur. Something as simple as a "nifty fifty" (50mm f/1.8), often in the $125 range, can blow you away with what it can do on any DSLR, though it wouldn't be enough for soccer.

 

And yes, companies sell teleconverters that make your lens 1.4x, 1.5x, or 2x the focal length. LensRentals Blog Post on TCs Or in short, don't do it. If you're going to do it, you've got to have a screaming good lens to start with, or you'll just be disappointed.

[FlyingFlip]

On 1/22/2020 at 8:29 PM, ljmandelbaum said:

I think I'm finally going to get a DSLR.  We have an alaskan cruise planed.  Both my daughters play soccer and want me to get better pictures than my iphone.  Which camera do you think I should get?

 

 

Photography is full of trade-offs.  That includes every detail from equipment to settings to processing.  So a lot of what you'll want is going to be based on the trade-offs that you can most easily tolerate.  Most importantly, you can't avoid these trade-offs just by throwing more money at the problem.

 

Here are the things you'll want to consider:

1. Sensor size - The larger the sensor, the more light it will let in.  This will allow you to either take faster photos (e.g. sports or moving wildlife) or photos with less noise (i.e. less grainy looking).  However, the larger the sensor, the larger the camera, and the larger the lens (for the equivalent focal length).

2. Lens for scenery - You will want a lens for scenery and a lens for wildlife.  Most of your scenery shots will be wide angle (to some degree).  These will be shorter, smaller lenses.  Wider aperture (low f/ number) is nice for taking photos in low-light conditions.

3. Lens for wildlife (and probably soccer) - Get a zoom lens.  At your level of experience, you'll need to zoom out to find the target, then zoom in to get a closeup.  For wildlife, you will almost always end up wishing that your lens provided more magnification.  I would estimate that 90% of my bird/wildlife photos were taken at maximum magnification.  More magnification, however, means a larger lens.  Wider aperture allows for faster shutter speeds, which is great for moving targets.

4. Weight and bulk - Larger sensors and more magnification lead to a lot more mass and bulk to lug around.  If you're hiking (or even just packing), all that extra mass and bulk can become a real pain.  I went to Yellowstone last summer, and it was convenient to be carting around a couple compact cameras, rather than a DSLR + lenses.

5. Weatherproof/splashproof - Much of Alaska is a rain forest.  You'll probably want to take some photos in the rain.  I'm sure some of the soccer games are in the rain, also.  If you get a weatherproof body and weatherproof lenses, that will give you the opportunity to use the camera in more situations.

 

However, more important than any of those considerations ... PRACTICE.  Give yourself enough time to learn how to use your new camera before you go on vacation.  Take at least several hundred photos, so you can learn what works ... and what doesn't.

[UnorigionalName]

On 1/22/2020 at 6:29 PM, ljmandelbaum said:

I think I'm finally going to get a DSLR.  We have an alaskan cruise planed.  Both my daughters play soccer and want me to get better pictures than my iphone.  Which camera do you think I should get?

 

 

 

 

Mostly reiterating what others have said, but i don't consider myself a photographer and have a slightly different perspective.

 

The iphone 11s are remarkably good cameras.  You want to look at higher end cameras to do better than an iphone 11.  I wouldn't bother with a compact camera.  The iphone 11 is decently weather proof as it is.

 

The biggest issue is budget.  The upper limit is basically infinity.  The driver between how high you go is what purpose you are taking pictures for.  If you want pretty pictures that you can keep and show on a computer screen/tv screen vs, you want to make a 30" print of it and hang it on the wall.

 

DSLR are kind of going away... Mirrorless is all the rage now.  Either fixed lens or removable lens.  Photographers basically never consider form factor and tend to recommend the largest bulkiest stuff, but it is an important thing for me, and may be for you too.  I feel like photographers are also way too happy to push newcomers into DSLRs because they are afraid to see that market segment die.

 

You have to ask yourself how interested in photography you are and how much you think you will want to spend in the future.  Why do you want an interchangeable lens?  Do you want interchangeable lenses? 

 

I would mostly consider:

1) a super-zoom/bridge camera, on the super-zoom side of things (~$500-1000)

pros: great zoom.  all in one lens, no need to swap lenses

cons: resolution not as great.  Poor low light conditions (doesn't matter if alaska during sunlight or sports in sun), not very compact (but not as bad a equivalent zoom interchangeable lens).  Not as "bright" lenses, not as good at making those blurry backgrounds.

 

2) mid-range APS-C interchangeable lens mirrorless with kit lens and lower end zoom lens ($~1-2k)

pros: good-enough quality. Better sensor than super-zooms. The cheap kit lenses can make surprisingly decent pictures.  if you go for it, some brands have a remarkably small form factor to an almost-but-not-quite-unless-you-have-big-pockets pocketable with some lens choices.

cons: usually not as much zoom as the super-zooms.  The lower end affordable zoom lenses start out pretty zoomed in.  You will have to swap lenses if you want to go back and forth between like wildlife and indoors/scenery.

 

3) mid/high-range APS-C interchangeable lens mirrorless with one of those all purpose zoom lenses (~1500-2500k)

pros: don't need to change lenses

cons: about similar photo quality to the above option for more money

 

And then you get to real money:

4) mid/high-range APS-C with fancy zoom lenses ($$$)

pros: prettier pictures with nice bokeh

cons: pretty much price at this point on down.  Also gets progressively bulkier.  And get used to lens swapping.

 

5) Full frame with reasonably expensive lenses ($$$$)

pros: pretty

cons: light wallet. bulky.  For a fixed budget, better glass on an aps-c will probably make prettier pictures than cheaper glass on a full frame.

 

6) top of the line full frame with super fancy lenses ($$$$$)

pros: you can be the envy of all photographers on the same trip.

cons: will you be able to tell the difference in your photos?

 

7) medium format

pros: you can mock the #6 person as a peasant.  

cons: photos probably not better for most purposes.

 

I would think about the options. then ask again in a certain category and get more specific brand recommendations.  or between a couple categories at a specified budget.  

 

Edited February 3, 2020 by UnorigionalName

[AL3XCruise]

On 2/3/2020 at 11:38 AM, peety3 said:

Zoom lenses are OK to start with, but you can get a heck of a lot of performance out of a "prime" (non-zoom, aka fixed focal length) lens for the same or less money.

 

With longer lenses, the zooms tend to be cheaper than the primes.  Most long primes are fast, heavy lenses that will provide exceptional results, but unless the OP has a strong arm and open checkbook they will likely find a well regarded telephoto zoom to be cheaper and more practical.  In addition, even when primes are cheaper you either need to give up flexibility or buy more of them and hope you are an environment where you can swap them out as needed.  

 

21 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

The iphone 11s are remarkably good cameras.  You want to look at higher end cameras to do better than an iphone 11.  I wouldn't bother with a compact camera.  The iphone 11 is decently weather proof as it is.

 

The biggest issue is budget.  The upper limit is basically infinity.  The driver between how high you go is what purpose you are taking pictures for.  If you want pretty pictures that you can keep and show on a computer screen/tv screen vs, you want to make a 30" print of it and hang it on the wall.

 

DSLR are kind of going away... Mirrorless is all the rage now.  Either fixed lens or removable lens.  Photographers basically never consider form factor and tend to recommend the largest bulkiest stuff, but it is an important thing for me, and may be for you too.  I feel like photographers are also way too happy to push newcomers into DSLRs because they are afraid to see that market segment die.

 

The OP has a specific need for telephoto performance, which is probably the weakest area of a modern smart phone.  I doubt it will be hard to find a camera with an optical zoom that can outperform the phone; landscapes will be much closer.

 

I have found that the quality of images from my phone is great for viewing on the phone and most small tablets and screen (assuming no cropping, good light, and no digital zoom).  Monitors larger than 15" start to show some hints of quality issues, and, of course, large prints and really big TVs will not give great results.  The latest iPhone is probably better, and some of the issues I don't like may be tolerable to others, but I think most people will find a Mirrorless/DSLR will be noticeably better before you get to supersized prints.  Still, I think the latest crop of phones are more than adequate for most purposes if the final product is meant to be share via social media.

 

As far as photographers pushing bulky stuff, that hasn't been my experience.  Some only care about optics and 10+ pounds of lens is nothing to them, but others want a balance between size, price, and quality.  The mirorrless camera, especially the Sony ones, have really seemed to appeal to this group.  I shoot Canon full frame because that's what my friends were shooting when I got into photography.  While I really like the quality I get, I have often wondered if I would have been better off going with APS-C.  I'd have a lighter camera, a heavier wallet, and the photos would look extremely similar!

 

As you said, there are always tradeoffs.  Money can solve a lot of the issues, but not all.  A full frame camera with a big telephotos will never be lightweight no matter how much cash you spend!

[chipmaster]

On 1/22/2020 at 6:29 PM, ljmandelbaum said:

I think I'm finally going to get a DSLR.  We have an alaskan cruise planed.  Both my daughters play soccer and want me to get better pictures than my iphone.  Which camera do you think I should get?

 

 

 

 

As others said sports/actions is pricey business especially for field sports where you'll need probably 200-400mm focal length.  If these are daytime and good light you can likely give a go with any entry level consumer DLSR and variable zoom lens to 300mm will yield results far more amazing than the other soccer mom/dads with their iPhones.

That investment can be had for very cheap, BUY USED, last generation and you will get 50% discount and best value, should be under 600 dollars or so.

 

The next step up can easily be north of a 3 thousand even used for a high end fast focus, fast frame rate and a good fixed 200-400F4 lens.  That would yield pro level pictures, with practice!