What camera fits my STRINGENT requirements (easy)?

[StageLeft]

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.

Thanks. if I get it from walmart they do have a $99 long zoom lens I could get with it. Only drawbacks I see for it are that it takes a custom lipo battery (I prefer AA) and no image stabilization, but otherwise it's probably a good pic although there are higher up olympus available for maybe $30-40 more like the 520.

 

[twistedlogic]

Only drawbacks I see for it are that it takes a custom lipo battery (I prefer AA) and no image stabilization, but otherwise it's probably a good pic although there are higher up olympus available for maybe $30-40 more like the 520.

Yeah I'd rather have the E-520 with IS.

The custom battery is actually pretty good with D-SLRs. There not like p&s that need to power the LCD constantly, they last pretty long. One sight I read said the e-420s battery should last up to 650 shots.

 

[smitbret]

Most DSLRs take proprietary batteries, so that's not unusual. For me it would be worth the IS to jump up $40, but many people wouldn't notice it. On the smaller zooms it's not really noticeable, but if you get the longer lens, it could make a pretty big difference for you.

 

[StageLeft]

Mrs said, when I gave some options, "I want it to say "SLR". I don't care about video whatsoever. Just want quickness with pictures and fabulous quality. It's going to become my new hobby. I also don't care about size. "

So I am definitely getting an SLR. I will get a step up from the e420 so that I can get image stabilization. I may try and score a telephoto or zoom lens from my 'rents for my birthday gift in Jan, so I'll be ok with a standard lens for a couple of weeks.

EDIT: Narrowing down to the e520. I def. want image stabilization and its live view for good measure. It's $430 with the 14-42 lens or $500 with that one and 40-150. I guess the first is best for macro shots of them. What would the "optical zoom equivalent" be on that 40-150, if that's possible to compare? There is also an Opteka 500-1000 lens for $110 that fits this camera, it looks ridiculous like a telescope, but I do want something I can "monitor" neighborhood activity with to make sure no criminals and all that I mean taking pictures of birds far away.

 

[smitbret]

LOL. The Opteka is most likely just a mirror lens with a fixed aperture. It's good for monitoring the neighborhood for prowlers, but not much else and definitely not at night. If you are serious about any optical quality, pass on that one. It's really not a photographer's lens. I've never even heard of that brand. If she is serious about it as a hobby, then she's best to stick with lenses from just a handful of manufacturers (Zuiko, Tamron, Sigma, Olympus). Get ready for sticker shock! If you are feeling brave, head over to www.bhphotovideo.com and get a feel for how expensive this hobby can be. A lot of the equipment is just for equipment collectors, though. A good photographer can get by with nothing more than 2 or 3 lenses and a good flash. The 520 is a solid choice.

As far as optical zoom calculations go, it's just simple math, high/low; in this case 150/40, so just about 3.5x. When you add it to the kit lens though, you have 150/14, so between the two it's about a 10x. That's just dumbing it down. With the Olympus 4/3rds system, I think something in the range of 24-28mm is what is considered "normal" (someone correct me if I'm wrong). "Normal" is how the human eye perceives the world. So, at 14mm, the camera is capturing more of the view than your eye would (zooming out) and at 150mm the camera is zooming in about 6x closer than the human eye.

If she gets serious about portraiture and things like that, the next thing she'll want is an external flash, so be ready for that. Good luck.

 

[StageLeft]

LOL. The Opteka is most likely just a mirror lens with a fixed aperture. It's good for monitoring the neighborhood for prowlers, but not much else and definitely not at night. If you are serious about any optical quality, pass on that one. It's really not a photographer's lens. I've never even heard of that brand. If she is serious about it as a hobby, then she's best to stick with lenses from just a handful of manufacturers (Zuiko, Tamron, Sigma, Olympus). Get ready for sticker shock! If you are feeling brave, head over to www.bhphotovideo.com and get a feel for how expensive this hobby can be. A lot of the equipment is just for equipment collectors, though. A good photographer can get by with nothing more than 2 or 3 lenses and a good flash. The 520 is a solid choice.

As far as optical zoom calculations go, it's just simple math, high/low; in this case 150/40, so just about 3.5x. When you add it to the kit lens though, you have 150/14, so between the two it's about a 10x. That's just dumbing it down. With the Olympus 4/3rds system, I think something in the range of 24-28mm is what is considered "normal" (someone correct me if I'm wrong). "Normal" is how the human eye perceives the world. So, at 14mm, the camera is capturing more of the view than your eye would (zooming out) and at 150mm the camera is zooming in about 6x closer than the human eye.

If she gets serious about portraiture and things like that, the next thing she'll want is an external flash, so be ready for that. Good luck.

Thanks, you're probably right about that cheap lens, I found some others who were bad mouthing the inexpensive ones like that and I saw some example pics, which were rather unfortunate

OK it's decided. Olympus e520 from Amazon and an Extreme III CF card. The last thing I need to decide is whether it's worth spending the extra $70 for the 40-150mm lens combo (then I get that and the 14-42) or if I should wait a while and buy the 70-300 down the road.

 

[smitbret]

I vote for wait and get the 70-300mm. She'll let you know if she thinks she even needs it, plus, it's probably gonna be a better lens in general.

 

[StageLeft]

I did get the e520. It's 10 F out so I threw some boiling water. This is just simple sport mode, I let the camera do whatever it wanted.

 

[Lemon law]

To me, the telling Skoorb remark is, "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."

The point being, you already have two decent point and shoot cameras, and all a slightly better and more modern point and shoot Camera would do is to obsolete the ones you already have.

The point being, point and shoot cameras have certain advantages and certain limitations. The point being, you are better off expanding to a digital SLR which gives two tools instead of just one.

And when the certain advantages of a point and shoot camera is the right tool, use the point and shoot, but when the limitations of a point and shoot camera is the problem, the use of a digital SLR becomes the tool of choice.

And having two tools is always better than having only just one. And the other point to make, is the lens of a digital SLR tend to be much better than their smaller point and shoot cousins and they can gather many more photons.

Whats in your wallet? Why not have both.