Camera Recommendations?

[joel.uejio]

Hey folks, I would like to get a new camera in the next few cycles. Don't need something over-the-top, but would like it to meet the following criteria:

1. Good for taking pics of tanks and fish
2. Good for taking sports pics (specifically ultimate frisbee which is a high-speed, outdoor sport)
3. Good for taking pics of terrariums
4. Tough

Can anyone make a recommendation?
Thanks!

 

[rich311k]

How much do you want to spend?

 

[joel.uejio]

Yes, good question...probably around $500 USD or less...

(BTW, glad to see that you've seen this thread, Rich. Your pics are tremendous!)

 

[Rallysman]

Would a quality used piece bother you? If not, I'd look into a used DSLR with a decent lens. The nice thing about doing it that way is that you can upgrade.

I've seen Nikon D50s (what I'm currently using) for as low as $250 used (sans lens)

 

[Sounguru]

Hey folks, I would like to get a new camera in the next few cycles. Don't need something over-the-top, but would like it to meet the following criteria:

1. Good for taking pics of tanks and fish
2. Good for taking sports pics (specifically ultimate frisbee which is a high-speed, outdoor sport)
3. Good for taking pics of terrariums
4. Tough

Can anyone make a recommendation?
Thanks!

Hitting those requirements for around $500 is gonna be tough, here's why.

#1 Off camera flash (2 to 3) required to do really good shots and so now you need to add the cost of the flashes into your equation.

#2 Is more dependent on the lens itself and a 70-200 2.8 or similar lens will cost you more than the camera for a good to high quality one. Plus factor in focusing speed of the camera itself and frames per second then the cost of the camera goes up.

#3 See #1

#4 Tough is related to cost the more it cost the heavier it is built. Compare the entry level Canon or Nikon and you will see the build difference as the price climbs.

I personally use a 40D by canon (now the 50D) but that runs in the $1000+ just for the body. Now add the flashes $300 each (you can go a little cheaper here) The Macro lens another $400. Sports Lens $2000 (70-200 2.8 w/1.4 teleconvertor) and you can see how it climbs in a hurry.

My camera and lens has taken a couple of direct hits and survived. I have also shot out in the rain with no worries because the body and lens are both water resistant.

If I were you I would find a good starter kit by Nikon or Canon and build over time for there. Spend as much as you can on the body as your base and you will be happier in the long run.

 

[Rallysman]

1 flash can get the job done if you diffuse the light correctly, but more is better

I shot this with 1 Nikon SB-600 and a $20 AC slave flash (D50, used 28-200)

.

These were shot with the same combination minus the flash

It's an inexpensive setup thats a few years old so better options are out there now.

 

[mozart]

Here is a picture my 9 year-old snapped with her/our new $150 Nikon CoolPix S570. And here is a picture I snapped with my new $700 SLR Nikon D5000. So as you can see , there isn't much difference in basic point + shoot. I only bought the more expensive stuff for 2 reasons. 1. I prefer a camera that acts likes a good old-fashioned film camera and 2. I plan to expand on the hobby as I did years ago with film. Oh yeah, 3. speed. If photography is going to become a hobby-invest up, otherwise some $200-$300 point & shoot cameras do some superior photos. The new digitals are truly amazing! Good luck deciding. Here is a review site http://www.dpreview.com/
cnet is good at directing you as well.
And don't assume that the great camera shop in your area will steer you towards the best. They will only steer you towards the best that they have in stock. I went hunting for a great all-weather/underwater camera here in DE, and not a single shop had the top 2. All tried to sell me their best, all of which had received mediocre reviews at best.

 

[Sounguru]

Here is a picture my 9 year-old snapped with her/our new $150 Nikon CoolPix S570. And here is a picture I snapped with my new $700 SLR Nikon D5000. So as you can see , there isn't much difference in basic point + shoot.

I can see a huge difference in the 2 shots.......

1 flash can get the job done if you diffuse the light correctly, but more is better

I shot this with 1 Nikon SB-600 and a $20 AC slave flash (D50, used 28-200)
.
These were shot with the same combination minus the flash

It's an inexpensive setup thats a few years old so better options are out there now.

Now put a 70 - 200 2.8 on that body and you would notice a huge difference.... (although if I remember right you can't)
A Slave flash is the cheaper option I mentioned. Would love to see that cichlid shot with the 105 macro....

There are a lot of schools of thought on cameras but you do get what you pay for if you know how to use it properly which is the hurdle that most people never overcome. Most people are the point and shoot crowd even if they have a DSLR. As long as you leave it in the auto modes you will get decent pics but if you really want to shine you need to learn how to control the piece of equipment you have. A sports car will get you from point a to b but if you never stomp the gas peddle you will never know how fast it can get you there.

 

[joel.uejio]

Thanks all for the detailed responses! I'm pretty sure that photography itself won't become a hobby of mine, so I think I'll probably look at a used DSLR, or maybe just a new p+s. My current camera is a Canon Powershot A95 (which is pretty old I think). So I bet even a standard current p+s would be an upgrade.

 

[mozart]

My 55-200 is on back order. I'm looking forward it! All Nikon AF lenses are compatible.