OT- Need advice on picking out new digital camera

My wife has a Canon digital camera. It is just the point and shoot with a little bit of zoom.

Lately at some of the activities my 7 year old boy is in, she wants to get a close up of his face. It would be nice to get something that will zoom-in for a face shot at 150-200 feet, and still take a regular shot when he is close up. We are willing to spend $550?????< Is this crazy cheap

Do they make cameras with one lens that will do this, or do you need a 8" long telephoto lens & change back to a regular lens for the close -ups? We looked at some of the photography sites and they talk in circles, and recommend a $1600 camera body and lenses at $600+ each.

Let me know. You guys always have the answers.

JAckal

You are not going to get a zoom lens that can give you face shots of your son at 150' for $550, or anywhere near that price.

It sounds like your son is playing soccer. I would recommend getting a DSLR camera and an 18-200mm zoom, but that will cost you more like $1,100. I have the Canon Xsi with the 18-55 and 55-250 lens kit and the 55-250 works well for soccer, the DSLR has a fast reaction time so you get the picture you want, and the newer models T1i or the T2i have a high enough resolution that you could crop the image to get closer to the face shots you want. One disadvantage of the entry level DSLR is the auto focus is not as good as the higher level cameras, so you will miss some shots when it can't follow your subject. That is the price you pay for the lower level camera.

I'll agree with what Mbensema describes as a minimum.

You get some help with a DSLR in that you can take many many pictures for "free" and discard most of them.

Lenses with image stabilization, (called IS, VR, etc.) can be very very helpful.

I did some poking around this morning and came up with something that fits your budget and might give you what you are looking for. The Canon SX20 has a wider zoom range then you will find with a DSLR and some of the features of the higher level DSLR, but I have not used one and don't know how well it will work for what you are planning in doing. The best thing would be to go to a camera store and take some pictures to simulate what you have in mind. This camera probably has more shutter lag then the DSLR, so you will want to take that into account if your subjects are moving.

Canon PowerShot SX20 IS Digital Camera 3633B001 - B&H Photo

I bought a DSLR and a little water and shock resistant camera. The DSLR hardly gets used now, when it does, it is for wide angle, long telephoto and fast movement, where I'd loose the shot waiting for the shutter delay on the little camera. The little camera has spent 4 1/2 years on my belt almost every day.

Something like an "old fashioned" Nikon D40 can still hold its own with image quality and they are reasonable price, but limit you to lenses with built in focus motors.

A good 5 year old D70, even better, the focus motor is in the body, allowing you to use a wider range of lenses. Its 6 MP will out perform a budget compact with a much higher pixel count.

Then there is film!
a 1970s compact 35mm with 100 iso film will out resolve a $15K Cannon 5D

Reading Jackal's requirements, I would suggest a digicam from the "superzoom" category--one with a non-interchangeble lens that goes from moderately wide angle to long telephoto. A relatively recent review is here:

'Super Zoom' Camera Group Test (Q2 2010) Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

The digicam market is very competitive and the cameras and lenses keep improving. I've had good luck with Canon and I'm very impressed with the offerings of Panasonic. I bought the their first generation superzoom (FZ-18) and loved it, and they've improved that model several times since. The Canon SX20IS got a nod here and they've just announced the SX30IS.

The good news is that your budget will buy you a lot of camera--more than enough for any of the superzooms I mentioned and you'll have the ability to shoot movies as well.

One tip that I'll offer is to pay attention to how wide the lens will go. I find that I'm often working in the wide end of the range and at times wishing I could go wider. If you're shooting people or interiors, wide is your friend. That's seldom the case with long end of the range, which is so long on these superzooms that I only use it for wildlife photography.

You can get an Olympus SP-800UZ for $350. It is a 30X WIDE-ANGLE OPTICAL ZOOM (F2.8–F5.6, 28–840MM EQUIVALENT)

SP-800UZ

If you don't need the newest and latest, consider a Sony F828. It's a 2005 camera, but there's nothing like it on the market today. Used ones are available for ~$300 with accessories, brand new ones still pop up on ebay for under $500. Once you use a swivel body camera, you will probably always want one. Downside compared to a new model would be no image stabilization. Here's a good review. Sony 828 Review

A good viewfinder is important on a long zoom, you can't hold a camera like that out at arms length and keep it still.

I do photography as a serious hobby. It always amuses me when folks say to me "Wow that's a big camera! It must take some great pictures" (I have an older Nikon D2H with 80-200F2.8 I use at sporting events) I'm tempted to answer back "Wow, that's one tiny point and shoot camera you have there! It must take some really crappy pictures! Truth is both work great if you know how to use them and know their limitations.

You are asking for:
" It would be nice to get something that will zoom-in for a face shot at 150-200 feet, and still take a regular shot when he is close up."

No one camera and/or lens can do everything and do it well (though some mfg's try to convince you that they can)

Yes - you can get a Point and Shoot camera that will do that, but you won't be happy with the quality. That's why there are "pro" camera bodies and lenses designed for certain uses.

People also say to me "My BangWhiz camera can do video and my camera has 10Megapixels and etc, etc. Does yours?" No, but what mine does do it does EXTREMELY well and 50X better than yours. Sorta like buying a cheapo Mill-Drill. You can do a lot with it but not a good as dedicated machines.

Some other things to consider:

• Not all megapixels are created equal. I've seen cameras with 4MP that produce better photos than ones touted with 8+MP.
• Digital Zoom - Unless there is a Cray super computer inside doing pixel interpolation - these gimmicks are just that. A good optical zoom outperforms digital zoom any day.
• Ease of use. DO you need to drill 3 menu levels deep to switch to closeup or just do that with a single button?

Everyone has given you some great advice - the hard part now is sifting thru it and making a decision.

Walt

PS Alpacca Fortyfive - you've reminded me that it's time to give my film cameras their yearly check-up

Thanks for all of the advice. We are sifting through all of this and taking down notes. Next will be a trip to a "camera only" store to check out those ones that are on the list. She went to Best Buy about a week ago, and no one even asked if they could help her.

We have been talking about the compromise of having a "one does it all' camera. That's pretty much what the "point and shoot" digital is now. I think she is a little nervous about changing a lens out in a crowd and dropping it or getting dust in the camera.

Right now most of the pics are still shots ( inside of the building) of our son in plays and assemblies. But, the action shots of sports activities won't be too far off.

Thanks again, and any additional input is appreciated.

JAckal

I bought a Nikon D5000 last year for around $1200 It has been one of the best purchases I have ever made. Yes my wife was scared of it at first and the learning curve on it was a little steep but it does have that "auto" feature which will give you great pictures just like that little point and shoot. It will also do video, with good quality. It came with the 18-55 lens and a 55-200 both with the vibration resistant feature built in.
Have your wife sign up for a photography class online and help her with it. It was a wonderful experience and now my wife takes better shots than I do. When we go to the grandkids games we put the big lens on before we go and it takes care of everything there.
We use it in the business quite a bit and are taking a lot of our own product shots for the webpage. Think business expense.
Aside from looking like a professsional tourist everywhere you go its a great way to go.
I bought nikon but there are others that are just as good i would imagine.
I have had mine for 11 months and have taken almost 4000 shots with it.

I don't like Olympus. My kid had a 1.3 MP and I loved the pics. I bought a 3.1 and a 7.1, and the pics suck.

One kid had a Sony with the twist body, she loved it, I didn't, BUT, it took damned good pics, I think 5 MP. She replaced that with a Konica Minolta, don't know the MP, but she loves it, too, and has shot a few weddings with it. Very good pics.

2 other daughters have Nikon DSLRs, 30 or 3000 or something, DX's, the 10 MP models, with both the standard and the up to 200 MM lenses. Fabulous cameras, fabulous shots.

I would like to buy a new camera, but I don't take enough pictures to spend for a DSLR, and the point and shoots no longer have viewfinders, all have the damnable LCDs that you cannot see anything in after the sun comes over the horizon. Nor can you see what the result was unless you stick it under your jacket on a 90 degree day, to keep it out of the Sun.

To reiterate, I will NOT buy another Olympus.

Cheers,

George

Oh, the Nikons were in the 500 neighborhood, long lens was about 150, 200 more.

If your trying to shoot fast moving objects like kids don't even consider anything other than a DSLR in the $600+ price range, no small superzoom type point and shoot can keep up with kids. Stick with Nikon or Canon DSLR's, although some others are almost as good.

To put some numbers on your spec, consider you numbers:
- Face filling shot at 150 feet. Let's call a face filling shot one foot, horizontally. This is 0.38 degrees. This is a 5526 mm focal length lens (35mm equivalent system). You won't find this in a camera.
- A regular shot at close up would be something like 35mm (54 degrees, horizontal). You'll find this in any point and shoot, likely wider.

Since you aren't going to get the 5526 mm on the long end, let's see what you can get. 850 mm ish is doable these days in the newest super zooms. That's about 6 feet, horizontally at 150 feet. Not so bad. Maybe that will work? The Olympus mentioned above and the Canon SX30 will do this. Both are under the $550 target.

gmatov said:

I don't like Olympus. My kid had a 1.3 MP and I loved the pics. I bought a 3.1 and a 7.1, and the pics suck.



To reiterate, I will NOT buy another Olympus.

Click to expand...

I have 6 Olympus cameras, 4 of them digital. They have always taken excellent pictures, especially if you have them set properly. I have friends and relatives with Canon's, Sony's, Konica's, Nikon's, etc. All of them have their issues. Nothing personal, but like most other things, it's the operator, not the equipment (at least most of the time).

WOW guys! Thanks for the good info. I will tell her about the online classes. She bought some photography books to help her understand the camera terms and functions.

Usually I am running the camcorder, so having the video option is not important on a camera. One thing that is a must would be the "image stabilization"???? < Is this what eliminates the hand shaking and blur from your pics?

Thanks again and keep the info coming.

JAckal

Image stabilization is what helps you take pictures at slower shutter speeds without the blur from camera shake. If you will be taking pictures in low light, that will help a lot, but it will not help any if your subject is moving and your shutter speed is too low.

B&H Photo has a number of video training seminars on their website conducted by the different camera manufacturers that you and your wife might find useful. You can see the list here:

B&H Photo Online Videos | Podcasts

Jackal,

The great sports coverage on TV is a product of many years of experience, many thousands of dollars, and several camera persons feeding into a console. When one of the camera people loses the subject or focus, another one is switched on the air.

Same goes for print sports photographers, they just delete the not so good ones. Ten good shots out of a hundred is a good game.

I would pick from the above list of long lensed cameras and go to your favorite discount store and look through one at the longest focal length. Try to follow a person walking across the room.

I'm a retired photographer who still takes photos for fun. I find it difficult holding on a still or moving subject with a 300mm equivalent lens. Longer than that, a big movie tripod with a real fluid head is almost a necessity.

With 400 & longer I find it hard to keep the subject in the frame. With a 300 you can tighten up the image in the computer.

A big monopod helps.

You want a mash up against the face viewfinder, image stabilization, as big an aperture as you can afford (f stop, f4 is twice as fast as f5.6, the smaller the f number the bigger the hole).

A camera that will track focus automatically is nice, but may not be in your price range.

With action photography at long distance, everything is working against the photographer.

Subject is moving, need high shutter speed.
Longer lens shows camera movement, needs high shutter speed.
High shutter speed needs bigger aperture.
Bigger aperture makes bigger lens and rapidly escalating $.
With the bigger aperture you get less depth of field so fast auto focus is helpful.

Big aperture, image stabilization, razor sharp, big $.
Nikon 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF II AF-S VR (Vibration Reduction) Telephoto Auto Focus Nikkor Lens - Refurbished by Nikon U.S.A.
$4,429.95

Here is a zoom but 2 stops slower at 300mm than the above:

Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR (Vibration Reduction) Zoom Nikkor Lens - with 5 Year U.S.A. Warranty
$519.95

In sunlight or bright overcast f 5.6 is enough at 400 "film" speed, 800 speed gets you another stop and does not start picking up "grain". At 1600 speed most cameras start getting grainy images, except the top of the line Nikon & Canon DSLRs. In the range of $5000 & up.

I have a Nikon D70 bought used with lenses ranging from 12 - 24 zoom to 400 mm.

My take everywhere camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS1, with a 25 to 300mm equivalent lens. It does not have a look through viewfinder, but on a monopod it would be stable enough to photograph sports. It is about the size of an I phone, or half again as big as a king size pack of cigarettes. It cost $240 and I have seen them for less. The time from press the shutter to click is almost instantaneous.

Good luck with your search.

Paul

For $550 there will be serious limitations to the quality you can expect. But then again, any picture is better then no picture at all.

A key issue is the light levels where you want to take photos? With lots of light you can get away with smaller cameras/ sensors and far less expensive lenses. (Any lens stopped down to F8 - F11 is usually good, so if you have enough light that would a budget option much more viable).

Do you want to be able to do video as well? High resolution at that?

Should the camera be for special occasions or general carry along? I got a Ricoh GX3 and a Canon 5DII SLR, and unless I have something particular in mind the Canon stays at home...

(Filling a frame with a childs face at 60' is actually a pretty decent length zoom - as in amazingly expensive or crappy.)

All of this is good info that you've already gotten. I will just pile onto the Nikon DSLR bandwagon; I bought a D70 some years ago, and bought a number of used, high-quality lenses that were available at various times. As noted, the 6MP CCD imager in the D70 is capable of giving higher-quality images than most of the 10-12MP imagers in smaller cameras now available. This is due to pixel size and electron-well depth, which results in higher signal-to-noise ratio. I suspect you could find used D70s for $400-500, and maybe stretch your budget to get a couple of lenses.
If I were buying a new compact digital camera today, I would look for something with 10X optical zoom. Digital zoom is useless. And remember, all those pixels in a 10 or 12 MP image can make your image handling in the computer much more demanding.