What camera fits my STRINGENT requirements (easy)?

[StageLeft]

Price range $150-350. Mrsskoorb wants a camera that with a main requirement of a very fast shutter speed. Ideally SLR speeds, but I said that's not possible without an SLR camera, which is out of the price range.

Zoom is nice, even up to the megazoom like 20X would be awesome for me because I have a lot of neighbors I'd like to spy on. Size is fine if it's a larger one but mainly we want shutter speed!!

EDIT: Shutter speed is the wrong word. I want something that we can just take pictures quickly with--i.e. short period of time between pics.

 

[jpeyton]

$350 will easily buy you a good used DSLR with kit lens. There are plenty of options; Nikon D40/D50/D70, Canon XT/XTi.

 

[StageLeft]

$350 will easily buy you a good used DSLR with kit lens. There are plenty of options; Nikon D40/D50/D70, Canon XT/XTi.

I don't think homey is going to play a used camera for a Christmas gift, though, so really I need something new. I also am concerned that having a DSLR is a bit poseur for somebody who's just taking pics of the kids and things of that nature. I don't think either of us want to figure out how to properly manually focus or whatever else, plus they are bulky.

 

[jpeyton]

Ask your wife if she would rather have a brand new camera in retail packaging, or great pictures of her kids.

It's an understatement to say that even a 3 year old used DSLR will take noticeably better photos of children than any new point-and-shoot on the market.

If I was in my living room photographing my kid's birthday party, or on the playground taking pictures of my kids running around, and I had to choose between the best brand new point-and-shoot camera on the market (Canon G11 ~$500) or a used 3-year-old Nikon D40 (~$300), I would pick the D40 every time.

 

[StageLeft]

Thing is, I really can't buy a used electronic like that without any kind of a warranty, not to mention if there is a learning curve with a DSLR (no idea), I don't want to climb it. I appreciate the input, though

 

[jpeyton]

It's definitely a leap of faith. I've bought dozens of used DSLRs over the past few years; none have failed.

All consumer DSLRs have a automatic mode that only requires you to point-and-shoot.

I'm sure you'll be happy with whatever camera you buy. I'll just leave you with a few parting images:

Here is what an excellent $300 Canon point-and-shoot looks like at ISO1600: http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/SX200IS/FULLRES/SX200IShSLI1600.JPG

Here is what an old cruddy D40 looks like at ISO1600: http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/ND40/FULLRES/ND40hSLI1600.JPG

Despite having lower resolution, the D40 captures more detail. And it does so a lot faster.

Plus I can add a cheap hot-shoe flash to the D40 for even better indoor pictures. Your point-and-shoot will give you great "deer-in-the-headlights" indoor portraits.

 

[StageLeft]

Is there something wrong with that Canon? I am sure its quality is worse than the two old cameras I have. I have noticed that the fuji pocket 6 megapixel camera I have takes nicer shots than my older (but larger) 3 megapixel S3000 fuji, but that the old one takes much better indoor pics; I've never had the deer in the headlight, but I do get that with the smaller camera.

That D40 pic is insanely clean, though. I do know there is much more to a camera than megapixels.

 

[jpeyton]

There's nothing wrong with the Canon; all modern point-and-shoots besides 2-3 high end models (Canon S90/G11 and Panasonic LX3) do poorly above ISO400. Even the best ones do poorly above ISO800. And while their contrast-detect AF systems are an improvement over older models, they can't touch the speed of a DSLR's phase-detect AF (especially in less than perfect light).

 

[StageLeft]

There's nothing wrong with the Canon; all modern point-and-shoots besides 2-3 high end models (Canon S90/G11 and Panasonic LX3) do poorly above ISO400. Even the best ones do poorly above ISO800. And while their contrast-detect AF systems are an improvement over older models, they can't touch the speed of a DSLR's phase-detect AF (especially in less than perfect light).

Ah it was the ISO setting that did it then. FWIW I am going to look more into them

 

[ElFenix]

Thing is, I really can't buy a used electronic like that without any kind of a warranty, not to mention if there is a learning curve with a DSLR (no idea), I don't want to climb it. I appreciate the input, though

there is no learning curve with an SLR if you don't want a learning curve. they've had green box full auto everything mode for a couple decades now. it's no more difficult than firing off one of the cigarette pack sized cameras.

 

[dennilfloss]

Panasonic FZ35. I love mine. Set to Intelligent Auto and take pics/HD movies. That simple.

 

[shortylickens]

What kind of shutter are you looking for?
In Point & Shoots, a max shutter of 1/500 is common. Some are available in 1/1000 or even 1/2000. But those are the onces with SLR size sensors and they usually cost just about as much.

Here, try this:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyh7/
Its one of the cheapest cameras with a manual shutter mode and a max shutter of 1/4000. However, as bulky as it is you are now close to SLR territory. But I dont think you can find a compact with good shutter speeds.

 

[drebo]

The Canon SX series are fan-freaking-tastic. The SX110 I bought for my wife has low-light image stablization, as well as a host of other things. Shutter speed goes to 1/2000, it does continuous shoot, and has a 10x optical zoom. It's got the features if you want to use them, but it can be as simple as a point-and-shoot if you don't.

 

[StageLeft]

Panasonic FZ35. I love mine. Set to Intelligent Auto and take pics/HD movies. That simple.

I see reading that this thing can take up to 2 pictures per second--is that your experience? IE it can fully focus and take the full resolution images that quickly? The review said in low light it goes from .4 per second to a slower .9. Another guy said that on full zoom with manual focus set to infinite the camera almost takes pics as fast as a dslr.

What kind of shutter are you looking for?

I mispoke in the first post originally. I meant shutter as in picture speed not the amount of time it's open, so I don't really know what real shutter speed I need Probably standard fare is ok.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

www.google.com/m?q=casio+ex+fc100+review

 

[StageLeft]

Still on fence really. I played with a digital rebel at Staples today. It takes pics crazy fast but its stock lens has only a few zoom. How can auto-focus work on something like that? Since it's manually adjusted at the front, if I blurred it right out at the front how can the auto-focus overcome that?

I know this can't be a breakdown of everything DSLR but:
1) Is one brand the biggest/best overall? I presume that any canon SLR lens, for example, can fit on any canon SLR camera. Is that so? Are there any cross-brand compatible lenses?

There is a $450 Sony A230L new. Well rated but I can't help but think this is all overkill for what we basically want which is primarily indoor pics of the kids and the like. Also this camera lacks "live view" on the LCD screen. Is that common with DSLR that they lack it? I think I'd often hate to not have that, even if it's necessary for "ideal" picture-taking.

 

[Tip3r]

Still on fence really. I played with a digital rebel at Staples today. It takes pics crazy fast but its stock lens has only a few zoom. How can auto-focus work on something like that? Since it's manually adjusted at the front, if I blurred it right out at the front how can the auto-focus overcome that?

It just can. Rebels are actually slower than higher end DSLRs.

1) Is one brand the biggest/best overall? I presume that any canon SLR lens, for example, can fit on any canon SLR camera. Is that so? Are there any cross-brand compatible lenses?

There is no one best brand. Canon and Nikon stand out. You can use almost any canon lens on the rebel series. You can't use EF-S lenses on full-frame DSLRs though. However, FFs are way out of your price range.

There is a $450 Sony A230L new. Well rated but I can't help but think this is all overkill for what we basically want which is primarily indoor pics of the kids and the like. Also this camera lacks "live view" on the LCD screen. Is that common with DSLR that they lack it? I think I'd often hate to not have that, even if it's necessary for "ideal" picture-taking.

DSLRs are great. But I wouldn't buy my GF one as a present because she'll look at it and say...meh. But she would be jumping up and down if I bought her a pink cybershot T.

You can find good deals on Sony DSLRs. Girls like them too for some reason. I haven't ever even held any Sony DSLR in my hand though, so no comment on the A230.

 

[alexruiz]

Well rated but I can't help but think this is all overkill for what we basically want which is primarily indoor pics of the kids and the like.....

That is EXACTLY the best use of a DSLR, to take GOOD pictures of people.
A good P&S will do great in the outdoors, but will struggle inside...

 

[smitbret]

The Sony DSLR you mentioned will do the job very well. I think the problem you are trying to overcome most is what's called "Shutter Lag". That's just the amount of time it takes from when you push the button to when the picture is actually taken. ANY SLR will give you the performance you need with that, due to the structure of the camera. I've actually shot several weddings with the Sony A2** cameras and had great results. The green square mode and the in-body IS make them almost dummy proof.

 

[StageLeft]

That is EXACTLY the best use of a DSLR, to take GOOD pictures of people.
A good P&S will do great in the outdoors, but will struggle inside...

Cool. One reviewer for the sony said its lens was not great for indoors and without the shoe flash it had deer in headlight issues. I presume it will still be better than a point and shoot, though. Maybe he was talking from a highly specific level of quality.

The Sony DSLR you mentioned will do the job very well. I think the problem you are trying to overcome most is what's called "Shutter Lag". That's just the amount of time it takes from when you push the button to when the picture is actually taken. ANY SLR will give you the performance you need with that, due to the structure of the camera. I've actually shot several weddings with the Sony A2** cameras and had great results. The green square mode and the in-body IS make them almost dummy proof.

Shutter lag is annoying but I think the greater annoyance is the great amount of time it seems to take cameras to save to the memory after a picture is taken. So during that process they are focusing and then saving and many cameras it just takes a few seconds to do, which is annoying.

 

[smitbret]

The kit lens is not good for indoors...... when compared to other DSLR lenses that cost a lot more money. It's the f-stop that matters. I think the sony kit lens is an f3.5-5.6. That means that the more you zoom in, the less light gets in. It's similar to point & shoots with a similar zoom range. you can spend more to get a lens that's f2.8-4 or just f2.8, but for your needs, it won't be worth it. Since the flash is on-board, you run the risk of red-eye, just like a point and shoot.

 

[StageLeft]

The kit lens is not good for indoors...... when compared to other DSLR lenses that cost a lot more money. It's the f-stop that matters. I think the sony kit lens is an f3.5-5.6. That means that the more you zoom in, the less light gets in. It's similar to point & shoots with a similar zoom range. you can spend more to get a lens that's f2.8-4 or just f2.8, but for your needs, it won't be worth it. Since the flash is on-board, you run the risk of red-eye, just like a point and shoot.

Thanks. I can honestly say that with my 5 year old fuji s5000 (point and shoot 3 megapixel) with its red-eye mode I'm not certain I've ever had a red-eye issue! I assume this would be at least as good as that for this kind of thing.

 

[smitbret]

Thanks. I can honestly say that with my 5 year old fuji s5000 (point and shoot 3 megapixel) with its red-eye mode I'm not certain I've ever had a red-eye issue! I assume this would be at least as good as that for this kind of thing.

Yep, they all come with red-eye reduction that you can turn on and off. Eventually, you may discover that an external flash might be a good thing to invest in, then the problem is even less severe.

 

[StageLeft]

Hmm, wow walmart has a well-rated (per amazon reviews) olympus 10 mp digital SLR that claims to be the smallest one for only $399 AND it has live view. Has a 14-42mm. Not sure yet what the means. Even comes with a 2GB card, though, too.

 

[smitbret]

Also a good camera. Off hand, I can't think of an SLR that really wouldn't fit your needs. Olympus uses a what they call the "4/3 system" in their cameras. It's actually a smaller sensor than what you'll get form Canon, Nikon, Sony or Pentax but still bigger than P&S cameras. The only real difference it will make for you is the lens focal range. The smaller the sensor, the greater the zooming effect. For instance the 14-42mm range on the Olympus is about the same as the 18-55mm you'll find on the others. It's still a great sensor, so don't worry about that. The women LOVE Live-View, too. This is probably your answer. Keep in mind that you're going to be using what amounts to a 3x zoom. If you plan on taking photos of the kids outdoors a lot when the weather gets better, then you might wanna think about saving a couple hundred bucks for a good 55-200mm or 70-300mm lens, too.