New camera advice...

[bjornolf]

I'm looking into getting a new camera for taking shots of the kids. I love my current one, but it's getting a little beat up and old and only has 4.0 MP. I'm looking at a Nikon D60. I ran across the D300 and the D5000 when searching. I don't know a lot about digital cameras, so I was wondering for the experts, why the heck does the D5000 cost $400 more than the D60, and more interestingly, why the heck does the D300 cost over $1000 more than the D5000? I mean, I get that it gets 2 more MP of resolution, but that hardly seems like it would more than triple the price of the product. I mean, I'm not looking to make wall murals with these things. :rolleyes:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d300/overview.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d5000/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d60/index.htm

Thanks.

[Indoor66]

I'm looking into getting a new camera for taking shots of the kids. I love my current one, but it's getting a little beat up and old and only has 4.0 MP. I'm looking at a Nikon D60. I ran across the D300 and the D5000 when searching. I don't know a lot about digital cameras, so I was wondering for the experts, why the heck does the D5000 cost $400 more than the D60, and more interestingly, why the heck does the D300 cost over $1000 more than the D5000? I mean, I get that it gets 2 more MP of resolution, but that hardly seems like it would more than triple the price of the product. I mean, I'm not looking to make wall murals with these things. :rolleyes:

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/d300/overview.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d5000/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d60/index.htm

Thanks.

I understand your frustration. I face the same quandry. I guess it depends on how "professional" you wish to get. At what point are there deminishing returns on your investment?

I find this site (http://www.ritzcamera.com/nikon.htm?n-state=http://www.live.nikonus.webcollage.net/www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Digital-SLR/index.page.html~~~G!06E052DBD26F!KYeb3Q843NNzo%252 bUWRXI%3d~~~~@http://www.live.nikonus.webcollage.net/server/ritzcamera/nikonus-showcase) to make it easy to compare the differences.

[Ggallagher]

The D300 is a professional grade camera - it's not meant for casual family snapshots. A web site I like for camera reviews is:

http://www.dpreview.com/

The also have a side by side comparison of the D60 and D5000 so you can see how their features compare. You can also see the specifications - along with reviews, and sample photos for each of these Nikon cameras - as well as about anything else that's available for sale now.

Glen

[cspan37421]

Sensor size matters more than megapixels. Google David Pogue's Megapixel Challenge, for example.

My latest choice in a non-ultra compact camera was based in part on sites such as dpreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q109superzoomgroup/

and

digitalcamerareview.com

I chose this one:

http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3951

but I see you're looking at DSLRs, which are a bit higher in price. Very possibly you'll get a better sensor for that. I was happy with the price/performance of what I got though, and I've seen it as low as $200.

[hurleyfor3]

Might want to check out kenrockwell.com. He's a big fan of the D40, perhaps surprisingly. Personally I'd buy the D90 over the 300 or 5000, but any of these are probably more firepower than you need. Or I need, at least for now. I still shoot film. I shot a whole roll today!

[bjornolf]

I love film cameras personally, but with kids, you get one good picture for every ten you take, just cause they never stop moving and stuff. Since I don't have my own darkroom, I get only a couple keepers per roll, and that's a big waste of money for me. With digital, I can pick which ones I want to print. My dad has a D70s, and he loves it. But he's REALLY into photography. I like the D40 and D60 cause they're SO much lighter than the D90 and above. For lugging around all day to the zoo or something like that, that weight hanging on your neck when also chasing around after children can make a big difference, not to mention the price point being anywhere from 1/2 to 1/4.

But I am into photography enough that I can appreciate the features and quality that an SLR brings over the consumer models. Plus, I have situations that I've yet to find one of those models can handle. My son's shows at school are a perfect example. The lighting in their gym is awful, so all the consumer cameras want to use their flashes, but he's way too far away, so it just ends up being dark. If I turn off the flash, I CANNOT hold the camera still enough (or the kids move) to get anything but blurs. With a better sensor and higher MP, I can get a little more light and maybe take it without zooming ALL the way in, then just crop it to get what I need. I also have more freedom to fiddle with the various settings to get a more ideal situation in that case.

[bluebutton]

But I am into photography enough that I can appreciate the features and quality that an SLR brings over the consumer models. Plus, I have situations that I've yet to find one of those models can handle. My son's shows at school are a perfect example. The lighting in their gym is awful, so all the consumer cameras want to use their flashes, but he's way too far away, so it just ends up being dark.

This helps a lot. It sounds like two things are important to you:
1) Keeping weight reasonable
2) Handling low-light situations from a distance

As a woman with wrist problems I've worked really hard to figure out the weight problem, originally shooting with a Canon 10D which is a solid camera but heavy even with a light prime lens on it. To solve this problem, I recommend the entry level DSLR from any brand. People tend to complain that the bodies feel "cheaper", but unlike tanks of old (I still shoot with a 1970s Nikon FT2 on occasion) it's unlikely you'd even want these cameras in 10 years. There are a few less bells and whistles like not having a PC jack for off camera flashes, but you don't sound like you're looking for that capability. So for #1, I recommend the Canon Rebel XSi or Nikon D60 (even a generation back would be fine (XTi and D40).

For low-light situations from a distance, two things that help are low f-stop (like f2.8) and image stabilization (IS). Low f-stop means the maximum aperture of the lens is larger and can let in more light. Unfortunately, low f-stop and zoom work at cross-purposes to light weight. IS is new nifty technology that tries to counter-act the shaking from trying to hold a camera still while the shutter is open for a long time--like in your low-light conditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization. Canon and Nikon handle image stabilization on a lens by lens basis. Canon lenses are labeled "IS" and Nikon "VR" (vibration reduction) when they can handle it.

I'd recommend
for the Nikon:
The Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8D AF lens. No image stabilization, but will work better in low light than the standard kit lens and zoom a bit further.
Or the Nikon 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR. Has image stabilization and will zoom much further than the kit lens. Not as well-reviewed on Fred Miranda http://www.fredmiranda.com, but those folk are VERY particular.

for the Canon:
Canon 2.8 zooms without IS are expensive. In a school performance situation, I would shoot with my 85mm f-1.8 fixed-focus "prime" lens, but I hesitate to recommend a prime lens because you sound like you'd like the flexibility offered by a zoom. I love my 85mm which is the only reason why I even keep a Canon camera body around.
The Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is similar to the recommended Nikon VR lens but a bit pricier.

From what you've mentioned, I recommend the Nikon D60. It's lighter than the D70 and with your dad into Nikons you can test his lenses to see what they're like (assuming he's the kind of person willing to lend a lens). All my friends shoot with Canon's and it's great to be able to try out other lenses without sinking a whole lot into them. Also with Canon's and Nikon's you can rent lenses.

That said, I regularly shoot with the Olympus E-410 because it is even smaller and I shoot with a 25mm f2.8"pancake" lens that is about half an inch thick. Set up this way, it is really light. It meets my needs of taking photos of my newborn daughter indoors without flash; it wouldn't do school gyms real well. By the time she gets to that age perhaps I will have upgraded to the Olympus Pen--small, with in-camera image stabilization for my zoom lenses. There are advantages that other brands (not Canon and Nikon) offer, but their market share is so much smaller that I think you're better off sticking with the big guys.

If you're at all willing to not have a DSLR, I have read great things about the Panasonic Lumix Lx3 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124507472967215159.html

Hope this helps! Would love to hear what you end up with.

[devil84]

If you're at all willing to not have a DSLR, I have read great things about the Panasonic Lumix Lx3 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124507472967215159.html

I've spent the last five years trying to take good pictures of my kids in band. That means the low-light on the stage issues, as well as motion under the lights during marching band performances. And I really want the zoom to capture my kids -- center field is a long way from the stands!

I tried a couple of Canon cameras early on, and I have a ton of blurry pictures from that first year or so. Then I got the Panasonic TZ1. I loved that camera! It's a 5MP, 10x zoom with lots of capabilities to change f-stops, shutter speeds, and lots of other manual settings that I really, really don't understand (and got high marks from reviewers for these features). But it's got a lot of GREAT "scene" pre-sets, and the High Intensity scene does an unbelievable job of getting excellent pictures under low light/high motion issues. Sure, you sacrifice some resolution, but the scrapbook prints and pics to share on the web look good. That 10x zoom is awesome: you can sit at the band end of Cameron and zoom in so that you can get Coach K to fill the frame. Works pretty well, too, to get the kids on stage when you're sitting in the back of the high school auditorium. (40x if you turn on digital zoom, which I tend not to do.)

And then I dropped it, and the autofocus feature, and zoom motor took a terrible hit. I got the TZ1's big brother, the TZ5 as a gift to replace my beloved camera, and I love it, too -- I've had it for a month.. More MP (I'm not printing wallpaper, so anything after 5MP isn't worth it for me). Same 10x zoom, a little smaller (fits in pockets easily), and a lot easier interface. Even better, the lens cap is now built in, unlike the TZ1. You can still can monkey with manual settings, it's got a nicer, larger screen on the back. Proprietary battery life is great.

The TZ5 is about $250 right now.

I wanted to see "real" pictures from the cameras, and alas, no manufacturer or reviewer uses shots of school activities as their subject. So I'll offer up some of the snapshots I've taken. Here's a page showing the TZ1's range in a large football stadium or dimly lit parking lot w/flash. http://www.adhsband.com/Scrapbook/COMP_071013Southview.asp This site, http://adhsband.shutterfly.com/83, has a few more indoor shots. The pictures of the concert were taken from the catwalk. Not the usual perspective, but the shots turned out well. You can see that I was able to get the whole stage, or zoom into my son playing snare.

[-jk]

One point to remember about image stabilization or vibration reduction - it corrects for your wiggling the camera when taking a picture with a slow shutter speed, but it won't stop an active scene. Someone has a camera with a software tool to de-blur, but I don't recall who.

I have - and love - a D300. I tend to use my 80-200 2.8 for low light/distance situations. I've spent the swim season taking tons of shots at evening meets, and can generally get good close-up shots even at dusk under the trees.

But it certainly isn't a small or light weight rig (but then I'm not small or light weight, either).

-jk

[Lavabe]

I am over here in Lemurland (a.k.a. Antsiranana, Madagascar). I first want to express my gratitude to hurley and rthomas for some very helpful discussions on getting a good digital. I wound up getting a Canon EOS 50D, after SO many years with film. I then purchased a Canon 80-200 zoom, a Tamron 28-75mm Aspherical zoom, and a Tamron 17-50mm (all f2.8).

I am loving EVERY minute of photography with this set up. It's sort of like the feeling I had when I first started with my old AE1-Program. I really owe hurley & rthomas BIG thanks. So far the only photo I "almost got" was that of a lone crocodile in this forest we camped near. All other photos have been easy.

Perhaps the biggest improvement is the image stabilization features. Worth EVERY penny. -jk's point is spot on, especially in regards to action photos. My landscape shots have always been good, but the shots that have shown the most improvement are the people shots. FINALLY!

Cheers,
Lavabe