New lens for T1i or new point & shoot?

[NAC]

I use cameras almost exclusively for snapshots of family and friends. Mostly just around the house or on vacation, but also of my daughters doing sports and dance. I am a point & shoot guy - not into apertures, ISO, etc. – I've played around a bit with it on my DSLR, but don't really know about camera settings so I leave things on manual 99% of the time. I plan to continue to do so 95% of the time. I also shoot quite a bit of video – again of the same things – family, friends, sometimes sports or events of my kids.

This is my current lineup:
Canon T1i with two lenses:
Cheap Tamron 28 – 200, originally from a film SLR
Cheap Canon 28 – 90, also originally from a film SLR.
Canon HF M300 camcorder
Canon PowerShot SD1000


I suspect that the Tamron lens may be broken, because in the past I was pretty happy with photos from it, but I've recognized that a lot of them from the past year are a little blurry. Perhaps the autofocus is broken? I will test it by manually focusing, just thought of that. It is clean. What else might cause blurriness? I currently never really use the other Canon lens but I will now until I upgrade.



My main question is – is it worth it to upgrade lenses, and what do you recommend. Or am I just as good off getting a new point & shoot. Let's say the budget is $600, although I'd just assume pay half of that. Ideally I'd like to get zoom up to about 200mm, but there is an option that if the Tamron still works on manual focus for long range I would consider still using that for sports & events, and get a higher quality lens for up to about 80mm. Is the T1i still a good DSLR and worthy of spending money on a better lens?

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Nikon 1 $299 @ B&H with 10-30 (27-80 equivalent) VRII lens. Add 30-110 (80-300 equivalent). Add flash. All for under $600. Craiglist for what you currently have, and you'll make most your money back.

 

[NAC]

Thanks for the advice. I hadn't thought of selling the SLR to pay for the upgrade. So the Nikon 1 should take better quality pictures than my T1i even with a new $200 lens?

 

[blastingcap]

I've played around a bit with it on my DSLR, but don't really know about camera settings so I leave things on manual 99% of the time. I plan to continue to do so 95% of the time.

I am confused; do you leave it on auto or do you use it on manual?

 

[Throckmorton]

He probably accidentally typed manual instead of auto.

Using auto is a waste. Switch the knob to "A" and set aperture based on what you're photographing. For a blurred background and low light situations (IE your daughters dancing) use the lowest aperture you can.

For sports, switch to shutter priority and set it to 1/1000

 

[NAC]

Sorry, yes - I meant to type that I'll leave it on auto.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Thanks for the advice. I hadn't thought of selling the SLR to pay for the upgrade. So the Nikon 1 should take better quality pictures than my T1i even with a new $200 lens?

Well, they are different beast. The Nikon V1 is brilliant and has the world's fastest autofocus. If you generally shoot on auto, the V1 will empower you to make shots you might otherwise miss. Here are a couple of examples. The first is a shot from The Battle of Newville, AL. The second is a shot of my daughter jumping over a crack in a rock. I set up for the first shot (in about 5 seconds), but the second was an opportunity shot made possible by the V1s super fast AF and how handy it is. Both shots were made in "auto" mode.

I have others, but it's a pain to have to upload them to a sharing site and link here...

 

[blastingcap]

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...e-sensor-and-love-the-camera-by-craig-litten/

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/...lens-review-for-the-1-series-by-craig-litten/

The above Nikon V1 reviews, combined with the current price of V1's at B&H, almost made me get a V1, but ultimately I got a RX100 because almost-pocketable isn't the same as pocketable, and for PDAF and speed I can get a DSLR instead. But I had to think hard about my decision, and truth be told, if I had to pay full price for the RX100 I might get the V1 at $300 instead (or with some other bundle that I could use, like with the flash and FT-1 adapter, since I already own plenty of Nikon F-mount glass). (I paid $450 for my RX100 via special combination of promotions that has expired.)

For someone like OP who just wants to point at something cool and shoot, the Nikon V1 is really hard to beat at its current price level. It even comes with an EVF. The burst rate is phenomenal, and the lens selection but slowly but surely expanding. It's small and light, more fun to use that many entry-level DSLRs apparently, and with an autofocus system that various people have said beats any DSLR less than $1000.

There are some cons, though, chiefly depth of field. The 18.5mm f/1.8 is okay but keep in mind that it's effectively a 50mm f/4.9 lens wide open, compared to the equally-priced, but for Nikon DX DSLRs, 35mm f/1.8 lens, which is effectively 50mm f/2.7 wide open. f/2.7 to f/4.9 is significant... that's like a stop and a half slower and thus allows less control of out-of-focus blur. For its price point and typical user, though, the 18.5mm f/1.8 is probably just fine as a street photography lens or for some types of portraits.

Also, dynamic range is merely good, and there is no built-in flash (gotta buy bounce flashes separately). And at 10MP it is good for up to 16x20" at base ISO, any more than that and you are asking too much of a 10MP sensor... also doesn't leave as much room to crop.

If you do not mind extra bulk and worse autofocus, you could get an entry-to-midrange DSLR and get a bigger sensor with more depth of field control and probably more room to crop and print a somewhat larger than 16x20, but it will cost more than $299.

If you want that in a smaller, mirrorless bundle than a DSLR (but still much larger than a Nikon 1, due to the size of the lenses even if the bodies are small), your only alternative is the NEX-6 which costs three times as much but does have other advantages like a built-in flash, higher specs on the sensor like DSLRs, higher dynamic range, more DoF control, more room to crop, etc. However I've heard mixed things about the NEX-6's autofocus speed and it is probable that the Nikon V1 is still faster. If you can do without an EVF the NEX-5r is an alternative and has a touchscreen to boot, but it still costs nearly three times what the basic V1 package does.

Considering you already have a DSLR I'd get the 50mm f/1.8 for about $100 and see how that goes.

 

[NAC]

Thanks for the advice. I have wife acceptance. I just ordered the Nikon 1 with 10-30 and 30-100 lenses. I could sell the Canon, but feel that I'd regret it. So instead – I'll keep the Canon and I ordered a 50mm 1.8 lens for it. And a book on photography, it is about time I learned.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

If you really want to learn photography, start using the "A" setting and that 50mm f/1.8 lens and you will blow yourself away with some artistic stuff.

Use the Nikon 1 for family snapshots. Best of both worlds

 

[NAC]

Thanks, I will!

I got the Nikon 1 v1 and the 50mm lens for the Canon yesterday. I don't think I've ever made such an impulsive purchase in my life, but it really bugged me to have spent hundreds on camera equipment and yet use pictures from a friend's iPhone because they look better. I've informed Santa that I desire a book on photography. I look forward to a long hobby of learning what I'm doing behind the viewfinder.

 

[randomrogue]

Read the manual. Read a book about exposure. Read a book about drawing with light. Practice. Later learn how to post process in Lightroom and Photoshop.

It's a tool but you need to know how to use this tool to get good results.

 

[NAC]

Read the shortened manual on the train, and downloaded the full manual.

And post processing - can't forget about that.

Another reason I got this urge now was because I scanned family photos from me as a kid (and before), and tried my best to process with Lightroom. For some pictures, I was able to make a nice and noticable difference. But others were hopeless - especially the out of focus ones. Seems so pointless to take a bad picture which is basically unusable. It is excusable for those old photos since they were film and you never knew until development. Not it is not even excusable if you can afford a decent camera.

 

[NAC]

By the way, the Nikon 1 v1 with 10-30 and 30-110 lenses is now down $46. It is 399 at B&H.

 

[blastingcap]

If you want, call B&H and ask for a partial refund. If they won't do it, re-order at the new price and refuse shipment of the original order.

 

[NAC]

Sorry for the wall of text, but want to share my experiences so far with the new camera:

I've had the NIkon v1 for a few days now. I was starting to have buyers remorse, thinking that I should have spent the money on better lenses for my Canon T1i. After all, I can only use one camera at once. The Nikon is about 60% lighter, but it doesn't feel like it. It is also not much smaller than my Canon SLR. Well, at least with the Canon lenses collapsed it isn't. And the Canon is nicer to hold with the right hand grip. Ugh, well - I figured I can still return the Nikon.

So I took some test photos last night. I figured that the Canon would perform better indoors at night. I setup a tripod in front of my Christmas tree and played around with exposure and aperture, using both Nikon lenses and all three Canon lenses. The room has perhaps 50w of compact florescent bulbs on, and the Christmas tree lights. So it is fine to read in, but not bright.

By default, the Canon shots were much less exposed than the Nikon. Nikon's were perhaps a tad overexposed, Canon's were underexposed. I took more shots to correct it.

Color was the first noticeable difference. The ornaments have more color on the Canon than the Nikon. For example you can see the red belt on a gingerbread man. But the tree itself is much greener on the Nikon. The tree looks actually too green and bright with the Nikon. But at first glance, the Nikon pictures simply look prettier. Perhaps not as accurate, but prettier.

Second item of notice - the Tamron lens and cheap Canon both seem to have a haze. The entire photo is just a little hazy.

Detail. The Nikon JPEGs look like a photo-shopped picture with sharpness turned up. The Canon looks more natural. I think the Canon has more detail actually, but at first glance, the Nikon seems to.

Focus. The Tamron auto-focus is indeed broken. But I was able to manually focus without a problem.

Bluriness. Even mounted on a tripod, several of my Canon shots came out blurry. I thought I was carefully pressing the button. It is a cheap tripod, but still I was disappointed. I tried some on 2 second delay. No problem with any of my Nikon shots.

In summary, the Nikon shots all came out looking very pretty and nice without any effort. The Canon shots require more effort of changing exposure, making sure I didn't shake the tripod. Shots with the 50mm f/1.8 were clearly superior to all others in every way. But I'd give Nikon the second vote, and shots with the cheap Canon and Tamron lenses last because of that haze.

First lesson - I should have bought better lenses long ago! It is a waste to use such a good DSLR with cheap lenses. And I should have started learning some basics of photography.

Second lesson - for a casual photographer on a budget, the Nikon v1 is indeed a much better buy than my Canon T1i. And this was indoors with basically low lighting - a place where the Nikon should be weakest. With movement and more light, I think the Nikon should be able to strut it's stuff.


So I tried again this morning with the Christmas tree again. Took a dozen shots with the Canon and 50mm f/1.8. Took two shots with the Nikon (trying to keep shutter count down in case I want to return it). Half the Canon shots were no good due to framing of the shot or shaking. I had to shoot between balusters of my stair case because I couldn't zoom out. Both Nikon shots were pretty darn good. I dialed back exposure a tad, dialed back saturation a tad.

I picked the best Canon shot and best Nikon and compared JPEGs. And the Nikon won! I compared RAW. Nikon won! I compared the Nikon JPEG to Canon RAW. Nikon won!

Now, as I said I am just learning this stuff, so a more skilled photographer would get a better shots out of both cameras, and quite possibly better shots out of the Canon than the Nikon. But for my needs, I'm feeling quite a bit better with my purchase.

So I tried again - this time some shots next to a nearby river. Took six shots with the Nikon, every one came out good. Took a bunch more with the Canon. Not all came out well - even with the 50mm f/1.8 lens. As with the Christmas tree, the Tamron lens simply can't compete with the Nikon. From a half a mile away, the Nikon can show furniture on the balconies of an apt building. The Canon with the Tamron lens is substantially blurrier.

Cliffs:
I had regrets on making an impulse purchase of a Nikon 1 v1. I took 3 rounds of test shots between the Nikon and my Canon T1i with two cheap lenses and a Canon 50mm f/1.8. The Nikon shots were consistent and good, and came out on top in almost all cases. I no longer have buyer's remorse, will probably be returning the Canon 50mm and ebaying the rest as JohnnyRebel suggested in post #2.