Please help me select a camera/lens

[Syborg1211]

You stated "A better camera maybe could have focussed differently and had a brighter image to start" in reference to your flower image, and I stated my reasons to you why a better camera wouldn't have resulted in a better image. I don't see how that makes me sound like a fool.

I apologize for assuming that you were using Auto mode. Most people using point and shoots don't use manual settings, and I was just trying to warn you that manual control is the only way to make any camera take better pictures. Lots of people come in here complaining about point and shoots, buy a DSLR, then start complaining about the DSLRs not being any better.

 

[dullard]

You stated "A better camera maybe could have focussed differently and had a brighter image to start" in reference to your flower image, and I stated my reasons to you why a better camera wouldn't have resulted in a better image. I don't see how that makes me sound like a fool.

I apologize for assuming that you were using Auto mode. Most people using point and shoots don't use manual settings, and I was just trying to warn you that manual control is the only way to make any camera take better pictures. Lots of people come in here complaining about point and shoots, buy a DSLR, then start complaining about the DSLRs not being any better.

Apology accepted.

Yes, I can certainly do better with the camera that I have. Yes, I am certainly not a great photographer. Yes, I know very little about photography equipment. However, I have ran into many situations where the camera that I have does not take photos like I would like in any manual setting. Saying over and over again to turn off auto mode (multiple times in multiple posts), saying advice like I was a 12 year old (use a cell phone flash), and saying things that I already said (I mentioned that the problem with that photo was a short shutter time and your response was that I should use a longer exposure) did not come off the way you intended.

So, let me restart.

The S110 is normally quite acceptable for most shots. But I have ran into situations where the S110 does not give sufficient control over which part of the photo is in focus. I assumed a different camera/lens can help me with that. If I am incorrect with this assumption then please educate me.

I have ran into situations where the S110 is not fast enough to get fleeting images. Probably a faster brain/finger would be the best of all, but that is unlikely to occur. The S110 image burst mode helps, but by the time that is set up the fleeting image is often gone. I assumed that a different camera could be faster. If I am incorrect with this assumption then please educate me.

I have ran into situations where I want to photograph even smaller details on even smaller items than what I can get the S110 to do. I assumed that a different camera/lens could be better. If I am incorrect with this assumption then please educate me.

I have ran into situations where the S110 does not collect enough light (in any setting) and I assumed that a larger image sensor would help. If I am incorrect with this assumption then please educate me.

Is there a camera/lens that you would suggest for a novice who wants a faster camera, with better ability to photograph minute details, with lower light levels, etc?

 

[iGas]

You could consider a Pentax K50 and two lens kit for ~$600

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/982535-REG

Or the body only + DA 35mm f2.4 or DA 50mm f1.8.

Great sensor and the weather sealing is a nice feature at that price point.

No better than the LS1 combo that the OP linked above, and it cost more as well as bigger, heavier, and the cruncher here is that Pentax have poor lens and accessories support (Sony also have horrible lens and accessory support).

Weather seal doesn't mean that it is water proof, and pretty much a moot point because any camera can handle a few drops of water on it, and those "weather sealed" cameras warranty do not cover water damage. I've shot all kinds of cameras from cheap point-n-shoot, to 1/2 frame minox, to 35mm, to medium formats, to large format outside in the rain (it rain practically year round on the West Coast of Canada), and they all work perfectly (various 35mm and point-n-shoot in heavy down poor. Canon F1 & AV-1, and Pentax K1000 under water inside a plastic bag).

IMHO, you are splitting hair if any when compare same generation sensors between manufactures. The current crop of Sony sensor dynamic range is better than Canon at low ISO, but in real life situation you will rarely need it, unless you constantly screw up your exposure and need to recover blown out highlights and/or under exposed shadows. And, HDR is the what you need to use for those rare contrasty situations (or, use Magic Lantern dual ISO on most Canon bodies to extend dynamic range for the entire usable ISO range of 100-12800 instead of the limited 100-400 ISO).

Are Nikon DSLR sensors actually better than Canon's?

The measured results are very close, which is exactly what you'd expect if noise is photon limited since two sensors of equal size will capture the same number of photons. Signal to noise ratio isn't the only concern and people will often qualitatively pick one over the other. But the fact remains low light noise performance is similar.

What is not similar nor open to interpretation is the gulf in shadow noise at low ISO. Canon are invested in sensor production so lack the ability to "shop around" for the best model, so it's unclear when they will be in a position to turn the situation around. Low ISO dynamic range is just one on many factors that make a good sensor (or camera) but if it is important to you then it may be worthwhile switching, as Canon have not moved on this front for quite a few years now, they are either unable to improve (due to manufacturing limitations or patent issues) or don't regard it as a priority (or both).

 

[iGas]

Looking at those it feels like she definitely wants to get photographs, not snapshots, so the entry-level DSLR/mirrorless is the right direction.

I have the SL1 with the kit lens and the 55-250 IS II, and both my wife and I use it regularly. My wife is about 5'1" with smaller hands to match and she really liked the feel of the camera in her hands compared to larger DSLRs, especially the touchscreen which was very intuitive to her coming from an iPhone.

For me, I have been quite happy with the image quality and portability. You can rummage through my photobucket library and look at the pictures we've taken on it.

As it stands my wife is asking about another camera for Christmas (so we're not sharing the SL1) and it's hard not to just get another given how satisfied we've been with it.

I would definitely look around for deals with the EF-S 55-250 bundled if you're wanting a telephoto, and consider the 24mm f/2.8 pancake if you're looking for something slim and good for general purpose use (I stopped by the photo shop a while back and tested it, I can easily slip the SL1 and pancake in a jacket pocket, or even my pants pocket, though I'm 6'3" with bigger pockets.)

I agree that it look like the OP wife is ready to step up to a mirrorless or DSLR, however it seems as if she is into macro photography and would really appreciate a DSLR and an excellent used third party macro prime lens from Sigma/Tamron/Tokina.

[add]
To answer to OP, yes it is definitely worth it to get a DSLR body + 2 lenses for a mere $450.

 

[radhak]

OP, I think the others have given you excellent advice, with more technical background than I could muster, but I can add to it with personal experience.

We have he S110, and the wife uses it. She has no time to worry about (or wish for) an extraordinary quality of picture, and the S110 more than suffices for her. As you observed, it's a great piece of gear.

But if your wife is (or you are) already examining its pictures with a critical eye, then it clearly implies that she/you are ready to move on to a DSLR, as I was at a certain stage. Even in auto mode, an entry level DSLR will pop your eyes out, particularly in less than optimum situations (late dusk, indoors, a mix of bright-sunlight-and-deep-shadows, etc).

But the real beauty is that once you have a DSLR, the improvement in quality of pictures is in your hands - just keep using the camera and reading up on it, and it becomes a love affair.

I love my Canon P&S, and I love my Nikon DSLRs, which are very tempting, particularly recently with all their additions; but almost any DSLR should be good. The only advice I can give about purchasing one is - TRY IT BEFORE YOU BUY IT! Go to the store, pick up each line of DSLRs, and get a feel for it, and pick by comfort of handling. You'll be good to go.

 

[taiwa58]

sony cameras are very good

 

[AkumaX]

Either the NEX-6 or a6000, paired with the 35mm f/1.8 OSS

 

[Belegost]

Just a note to the op - the other half of getting the great pictures is learning to get the most out of the camera. I have found a lot of good advice at digital-photography-school.com, both from the articles and forums there.

 

[Imp]

Almost two weeks late, but the SL1 wouldn't be a bad option.

I did a bunch of research on Canon SLRs before picking up my first SLR (I eventually went mirrorless) and found that Canon APS-C cameras were competitive in terms of image quality. I couldn't see a big difference between an SL1 and 70D from sample shots online. However, the two cameras had big differences in regards to auto-focusing ability, shooting speed, flip-out screen, control interface, size, battery life, and other things I can't remember. Whether those features are worth the extra couple hundred bucks is up to you.

P.S. The SL1 and 70D were at the top of my list, just behind a 6D. I actually bought a SL1 and returned it without opening the box because I "had to" have full-frame. However, the price and competitive image quality won me over -- initially. Loved the pancake STM lenses too.

 

[dullard]

I have selected the SL1 as the most likely camera for me to buy. Would this lens be a good companion to that camera for portraits (mostly kids) and macro photos?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Ca...tt/CA10028MEFQ

Would we need another lens if we had that lens? If so, my budget doesn't really allow for two decent lenses. The SL1 often comes with the EF-S 18-55mm IS STM lens for $100 more. Would that be worth it if I also got the lens above (or a similar one) for the occasional group photo?

 

[iGas]

18-55mm is a good zoom range for general photography, however the aperture isn't fast enough to melt/blur the background away. But, it is more than adequate for the majority of general and macro photography (1:2.55 life size at 55mm).

If you want to stick with Canon lens then the 100mm macro is the best bang for your money, but Tamron SP 90mm is 35% cheaper that is just as sharp, or Tamron/Sigma IS macro lens that are just as sharp for the same price as Canon non IS macro.

IMHO, it make more sense getting the 18-55mm for now, and pick up a dedicated macro and/or portrait lens later if the need arise. Another way to go is pick up the 50mm f1.8 along with the 18-55mm and see how she like a fixed focal length lens.

PS. In the past I use the 100L lens on my 5D mkii as a portraits lens (similar optic to the 100mm f/2.8 macro), but I now rarely use it after owning the 70-200L f/4 IS and 70-200L f/2.8 IS II.

 

[Belegost]

I have selected the SL1 as the most likely camera for me to buy. Would this lens be a good companion to that camera for portraits (mostly kids) and macro photos?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Ca...tt/CA10028MEFQ

Would we need another lens if we had that lens? If so, my budget doesn't really allow for two decent lenses. The SL1 often comes with the EF-S 18-55mm IS STM lens for $100 more. Would that be worth it if I also got the lens above (or a similar one) for the occasional group photo?

The only thing about the 100mm is that the SL1 is an APS-C sensor, so the effective focal length of the 100mm on it is more like 160mm - a bit on the long side. My suggestion for a portrait lens on the crop sensor is the 85mm f/1.8, comes out at a very nice 136mm effective, plus a little faster on the aperture, and a little less expensive.

Also, getting the 18-55 kit lens is worth it for flexibility for things other than portraits. It's a pretty versatile lens, and well worth the small cost when bundled with the body.

Also, for holiday deals right now I've seen the cost on the SL1+18-55 down at 549 or less. Or the body + 18-55 + 55-250 IS II at 650. The 55-250 is quite a nice lens for the money.

 

[dullard]

The only thing about the 100mm is that the SL1 is an APS-C sensor, so the effective focal length of the 100mm on it is more like 160mm - a bit on the long side. My suggestion for a portrait lens on the crop sensor is the 85mm f/1.8, comes out at a very nice 136mm effective, plus a little faster on the aperture, and a little less expensive.

Also, getting the 18-55 kit lens is worth it for flexibility for things other than portraits. It's a pretty versatile lens, and well worth the small cost when bundled with the body.

Also, for holiday deals right now I've seen the cost on the SL1+18-55 down at 549 or less. Or the body + 18-55 + 55-250 IS II at 650. The 55-250 is quite a nice lens for the money.

Thanks, I have been looking athe the "body + 18-55 + 55-250 IS II" bundle. I just hate the idea of getting cheap lenses and then turning around and replacing them with better lenses. My choice probably comes down to the "body + 18-55 + 55-250 IS II" option or the "body + 18-55 + one good macro lens option".

 

[dullard]

18-55mm is a good zoom range for general photography, however the aperture isn't fast enough to melt/blur the background away. But, it is more than adequate for the majority of general and macro photography (1:2.55 life size at 55mm).

If you want to stick with Canon lens then the 100mm macro is the best bang for your money, but Tamron SP 90mm is 35% cheaper that is just as sharp, or Tamron/Sigma IS macro lens that are just as sharp for the same price as Canon non IS macro.

IMHO, it make more sense getting the 18-55mm for now, and pick up a dedicated macro and/or portrait lens later if the need arise. Another way to go is pick up the 50mm f1.8 along with the 18-55mm and see how she like a fixed focal length lens.

PS. In the past I use the 100L lens on my 5D mkii as a portraits lens (similar optic to the 100mm f/2.8 macro), but I now rarely use it after owning the 70-200L f/4 IS and 70-200L f/2.8 IS II.

Thanks for the advice. I'll look into the Tamron lens as a possibility.

 

[Imp]

When I bought the SL1 (returned it, but still), I decided that the kit lens was worth the minor cost relative to buying just the body alone. The STM version, apparently, isn't bad according to comments online.

I have a full-frame (no crop factor) with a 28-70mm lens and the 70mm side is plenty of zoom for most of my indoor stuff -- 100mm at 1.6 (?) feels a bit far. My original plan was to get the 18-55, use it for a while, and then figure out what I wanted next. The two STM pancakes and the 50mm f/1.8 were on my "must" list, but they go for $150 or less each on sale.