DSLR Recommendation

Canon t2i or t3i or Nikon d5100 kit, and add the 70-300 would be a good starter sports kit for you, both will still be a little weak for school plays.

Remember a DSLR is a commitment to carry. But it's worth it. Don't skimp on the learning, editing or backing up parts of the equation. Investigate lightroom. Other older threads in this forum will have more great links and advice

This is a bit out of date, but much still holds up.
http://www.navesink.net/2009/12/my-advice-to-people-who-ask-me-about.html
Edited by Sam Posten - 9/14/11 at 6:27am

One of the best cameras on the market, in low light situations, without getting into the pro line, is the Nikon D7000. It's a little over your listed budget, especially with a lens: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+d7000&N=0&InitialSearch=yes It also has the quiet shutter mode (but not totally silent). Quote from Nikon's site:
Sam's suggestion of a 70-300mm lens is a good one. I got the Tamron 70-300mm VC lens. It's a very good lens, and cheaper than the Nikkor lens. At a Nikon forum I go to, a lot of the people there said that in the 200-300mm range, the Tamron is sharper than the Nikkor. I think Tamron is running rebates right now too. Amazon has it right now for $435 (free shipping): http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-70-300mm-4-0-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B003YH9DZE/ref=sr_1_5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1316009860&sr=1-5 as opposed to $520 + shipping, for Nikon's: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1316010003&sr=1-1

It also does 1080p video, if that's of any interest to you. Do a Google search for the D7000, and read the reviews for it.
If you can swing the extra bucks, it's well worth it. It's an awesome camera.
Good luck with whatever you decide.

I'll chime in on the Canon side only, as I've been using their DSLR's for several years (currently own a 7d), and have no experience with Nikon. The Tamron 70-300 lens mentioned above by the Nikon guys also gets very favorable reviews in it's Canon version. I used to own the comparable Canon 70-300mm IS lens, and was never satisfied with its performance. I ended up upgrading to a pair of Canon L telephoto lenses -- 70-200mm f/4 IS and 100-400mm IS -- but those are each more than your stated budget by themselves. With your budget, the Tamron would be a better choice than the equivalent Canon 70-300 and should do well for the outdoor sports.

For the indoor events you mentioned (choir, theater, etc.) you may want to consider a 85mm prime lens, depending on how far away you will be from the subjects. I own the Canon 85mm f/1.8, which runs under $500 new.

The Canon Rebel T3i has the same 18MP sensor as the 60D and 7D, so it should perform well in low light. I think one of the other Rebels also uses the same sensor, too. I can push my 7D to ISO 6400 and get very good results by applying just a little noise reduction in post processing.

As for brands, you cannot go wrong with either Canon or Nikon, IMO. Those two dominate the market, and offer the widest choices of lenses, flashes, etc. While Sony seems to be doing some interesting things, personally I would stick with one of the two giants. A DSLR is a long term commitment, and you will probably add more lenses and other items to your kit over time.

I've never used the Tamron but I have owned the Canon 70-300IS and it was horribly loud and not all that sharp. The Nikon 70-300 is the best bang for the buck lens they make and plenty sharp enough even at 300mm.

I also recommend the D7000 over the D5100 but it's twice as much money and entirely out of the budget listed before lenses.

Yes, the Canon's weaknesses from my experience were a softness at 300mm and a rather lackluster auto focus motor. It's not a true USM motor, which helps explain the relatively poor AF performance. Every Canon lens that I've used with a real USM motor has been a stellar AF performer. Meanwhile, the three lenses I've owned without USM -- the 70-300mm IS, 50mm f/1.8 and a Sigma 17-70mm -- have all been slow to auto focus.

As a D7000 owner, I say cash in the aluminum cans and go for it! On a technical level, it's far superior to my previous DSLR (Nikon D90.) Now if I could just improve my Achilles' heel...composition!

The Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DI VC USD lens I have is very sharp. The AF is fast, and the VC is very good too. All the pics in my "Some zoo pics" thread were taken with it, on my D7000. Some of the pics were taken through a thick piece of glass. You may can tell which ones.

I'm glad the Heavenwood has worked out for you all these years, Mike. I am still using the club I replaced it with -- a Callaway Heavenwood 3 hybrid (I also added a 4 hybrid later to replace my 4 iron). I gave the 3 and 5 woods to my dad, who put senior-flex shafts on them.

  Ah.  it's all clear to me now!

 

I was wondering what kind of photo gear a "Heavenwood" was! 

 

  No kidding.  I guess we just can't stick to lens lust around here...

 

 

 

RE: the camera gear recs, (the other) Mike, I think you probably want to decide on how serious you want to be about the photos (and lugging of gear) before deciding on which way to go, eg. cropped format vs full frame, expensive, heftier, better glass vs reasonably affordable, lessor glass, etc.

 

For instance, the Nikon D7000 would probably be optimal for your needs, except it'll completely break your budget 2-3x over *and* be heftier than most casual shooters would care to lug.  And if you're not expecting to make very sizeable enlargements of those low light photos from the theater, indoor/nighttime sports, etc., you probably don't actually need to go full frame to be satisfied w/ the results -- you can always apply some NR on the occasional shots you want to enlarge, etc. to help that.  Personally, I often like to see some "grain" in my low light shots anyway, but YMMV on that I guess.

 

Another thing to consider is that since both you and your wife are interested in using a DSLR, you might consider just starting out w/ the more affordable options and then add something like the D7000 later, if/when you do find the need.  Then, you'll have one body for each of you for most uses -- and defer to the full frame body when the best low light quality is needed.

 

And yeah, I agree the Nikon 70-300VR is a very nice, fairly affordable telezoom.  Hard to beat it w/out spending a whole lot more, especially ever since both Canon and Nikon hiked their prices a good deal for their 70-200 f/2.8 IS/VR glass (and also the 70-200 f/4 IS in Canon's case).  Still, for your low light needs, the 70-300VR probably won't do (at least unless you're going for the D7000).

 

As some suggested, you'll probably want something like an 85 f/1.8 prime (as something affordable enough), if you can get close enough to the action.  On the Nikon side, you might also consider adding a used 180 f/2.8 prime for the long end, particularly if you go w/ the 70-300VR and the 85 f/1.8 -- or just go straight to the 70-200 f/2.8 glass, if you can make that budgetary reach.  Actually, if you're willing to consider the used market, you might also consider the popular, old Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 as well (whether the more expensive AFS model that's still a lot cheaper than the 70-200 f/2.8VR or the cheaper, old screw drive version, which supposedly isn't all that slow on focusing, but might be louder than you want).

 

_Man_

 

The D7000 isn't full-frame, it's a DX - albeit a very good one.

 

 

Cees
 

 

 

I took delivery of a D5100 kit (18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) a few days ago, along with a Nikon 35mm f/1.8G, a Hoya Digital-HMC circular polarizer filter and a couple of cheap Tiffen UVs, mainly for protection until the budget allows for better.
A D7000 or Canon equivalent is out of the question, unfortunately.

My tech-challenged brain is still tired after all the research I had to do to find the best I could to fit my budget - it never occurred to me to look for a thread like this!

The f/1.8 is the closest I could find for low-light shooting to fit my wallet.

Will my choices get me started on my intended goal to replace Ansell Adams for landscapes and Yousuf Karsh for portraits in the minds of photographers everywhere (or am I going to be told I need a million dollars worth of large-format cameras, twenty years of studying lighting under a master and something called talent to achieve that?...)

(In my ignorance, I've always been very leery of gear manufactured by others than the camera makers themselves, so it came as a surprise to read of filters by 'Hoya' and reports here of Tamron exceeding Nikon and Canon in the lens department - though I presume this last depends on a particular lens. I've known about Tamron for years but perceived them to be just a cheaper, lesser substitute for big-name brands. Trial and error in this field is a very expensive proposition!) (That same ignorance made me also think that Mike had gotten himself a lens so amazing that he wished he'd bought the whole group - or range - of those marvellous 'Heavenwoods'...)
Edited by marsnkc - 9/16/11 at 12:30am

Andrew,

 

Nothing wrong with your choices.

 

Good work acquiring a UV filter at once. I myself switched to the Hoya HD UV filters for mechanical protection recently. Buying a UV filter along with your new lens is a very good idea indeed (I have one on each lens all the time), but on rare occasions they can cause irritating reflections. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 is an example of a lens tending to that with its deeper lying front-lens.The HD version of Hoya is much better in this respect, although a bit more expensive.

 

The 18-55 DX is a very cost-effective lens, very sharp and reasonably corrected for geometric errors and vignetting when used on a modern Nikon body. In the future you may want an additional zoom- or fixed lens in the larger range as well (e.g. 70-200mm). Unfortunately, they're realitively more expensive.

 

Have much fun with your new toys!

 

 

Cees

 

My bad.  I confused it w/ the D700.   Had thought others were talking about the D700 instead.

 

_Man_

 

RE: using filters for protection, I generally only bother to do that if the front lens element can be easily swiped at or if I'm shooting in windy conditions w/ fair amount of debris, sand and such, eg. at the beach.  For the former, a lens hood often does the trick if the front element is not deeply recessed into the lens body, which is usually the case for wideangle lenses.  Still, I do keep one permanently mounted on my 35 f/2 since the lens hood I use for it (designed for 50mm lenses) doesn't offer quite enough protection for my tastes.

 

 

And congrats, Andrew, on your new purchase of the D5100 kit, etc.  The 35 f/1.8DX probably makes a great option for you -- I'd probably get one too, if I didn't already have the old 35 f/2 and a 17-55 f/2.8.  Must be having great fun w/ the new "toy".

 

_Man_

 

I am another anti- UV filter person. I only use them in very harsh environments, and cannot remember the last time I actually used one. I took one along to Yellowstone this summer to use in the geothermal areas, but ended up using a circular polarizer in those areas for effect, so didn't need the UV filter for protection against the gases. I always use a lens hood for protection, though.

Andrew, always remember that the most important item in your photography kit are the pieces that attach to your viewfinder -- your eye and brain! Ansel Adams could create masterpieces with an Instamatic camera, while my neighbor (who takes horrible snapshots) couldn't take a good photo with a Hassleblad large format system.

I cannot believe all of you photography gurus never heard of the famed Callaway Heavenwood lenses.

I have. They're great sport lenses. I use them to photograph smaller golf balls.

 

 

 

  

 

 

Cees

 

 

Come on, Cees. Being from Holland, I would expect to see a windmill in that shot.

Mike,

 

That shop and salesman sounds like a keeper.

 

_Man_

 

Yes, it sounds like you found a winner of a camera shop, Mike. We used to have a similar shop around this area called Adray -- they were a local fixture in Dearborn, MI for decades. I purchased a couple of film cameras from them, as well as my first DSLR setup. Unfortunately, they went out of business a couple of years ago. The Internet stores such as B&H and Adorama are my only reliable options now, with no more "try before you buy".

 

Scott,

 

No problemo!

 

 

   

 

(Although... it was actually on a cruise ship.)

 

 

Cees

You guys are as funny as you are generous (and also, apparently, rich...). Thanks a million.

Scott's idea of Ansel Adams with an instamatic made me think of Cartier-Bresson with his ever-present camera. I always thought he carried a small pocket job for those instant moments, but Wikipedia says it was a Leica (the silver parts of which he black-taped to be less conspicuous!) This with David Lean's famous love affair with the Leica makes me wonder how that iconic brand stands today in relation to your Nikons and Canons, since I remember it being once pre-eminent. Are the latter just as good (or better) but less expensive because of the comparatively huge volume they sell, or does each company build for different markets?

Awesome, have fun!

Sounds good, Mike. The only thing I would be concerned about are those two UV filters for $20. They must be cheap filters for that price. Personally, I wouldn't put a low grade filter in front of any lens I own. It can only degrade image quality.

I prefer Hoya and B+W filters, but they are usually pricey. Try yours out and if you don't like the results, you're not out anything because it was free.