# Need help with choosing a camera to buy



## Paula67 (Sep 28, 2016)

This will be my first big camera purchase and I am totally lost. So many to choose from.

I will be using this camera for a lot of sports shots as I have one child very active in high school sports...football, wrestling, track. So there will be indoor/outdoor shots as well as having to be far away shots from the stands. With wrestling a lot of times you are very far away from the mat so
good zooming is a must.  

I also have a child that does high school theatre/drama so there will be times when it is rather dark. 

I am also wanting to use the camera to try doing their senior pictures as I have one who graduates next year.  

Being able to upload directly to facebook would be nice as well but isn't not a must have.

I have seen where cameras come in bundles which have a 18-55 with image stabilization lens and a 75-300 lens but doesn't say anything about image stabilization.  If I am doing far away shots wouldn't I need that?  Or am I overthinking this?  

I am wanting to stay below $1000 for the setup if this is even possible. Do you have any suggestions for me? I would greatly appreciate your advice.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 28, 2016)

Ok, well taking action shots in poor lighting is going to be difficult at best for most cameras in that budget range.  My recommendation would be to look for something like a D5200 used, they are generally around $300-$400.  Then look for a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 HSM I.  Your looking at probably between $400-$500 for that particular lens.  It's not the latest and greatest of 2.8 zooms of course, but it does a pretty respectable job and will keep you within your listed budget.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 28, 2016)

Panasonic Lumix FZ1000


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 28, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Panasonic Lumix FZ1000



Well I've never owned the FZ1000 but I did have the FZ200 and even with the constant 2.8 zoom it couldn't hold a candle to any of the APS-C sensor Nikon's I've owned for lowlight shooting.  Have they improved the 2/3 sensors that much?


----------



## chuasam (Sep 28, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Panasonic Lumix FZ1000
> ...


Fz1000 uses 1" sensor. They shoot very well up to about 1600 ISO


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 28, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Fz1000 uses 1" sensor. They shoot very well up to about 1600 ISO



Interesting.  Wonder how that compares in low light to a DSLR.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 28, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Fz1000 uses 1" sensor. They shoot very well up to about 1600 ISO
> ...


Not even close for a modern camera. It compares favourably to something in the D80/D200 era

Gimme a bigger budget and I say D500 and a 300mm f/4


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 28, 2016)

chuasam said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > chuasam said:
> ...



Well yes, granted a bigger budget would help.  But having shot a lot indoors I think I'd prefer the D5200 with the 70-200mm.  For most gyms you'll be struggling to get shots that aren't to noisy that way - so anything that can't at least match it for low light probably wouldn't be a good option.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 28, 2016)

I just hope the OP isn't thinking small and lightweight "pocket camera"

Generally when someone wants to jump into photography and do "everything" they'll have to consider
(1) budget
(2) size and weight
excluding experience/knowledge

The above is a great recommendation of the nikon d5200.  But sometimes people bulk at the size & weight of the lens as recommended.  And of course many people want "more" for their $1,000 after seeing all those Kits with various lenses and useless/junk accessories.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2016)

For your needs, I'd find a used/refurbished D600/610 and a fast telephoto like the 85mm 1.8G.


----------



## chuasam (Sep 28, 2016)

Braineack said:


> For your needs, I'd find a used/refurbished D600/610 and a fast telephoto like the 85mm 1.8G.


only if you want overall shots of the whole event rather than close up photos of her kids.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2016)

I'd rather have slightly wide (85mm is long) shots that have plenty of cropping leverage and Dynamic Range, coupled with a STELLAR sensor, than a camera that takes pretty sub-par images in direct sunlight, let alone >200 ISO.  You could always try to find a 80-200 2.8 or sigma 70-200 2.8 if the 85mm is too short.

You need a fast shutter, and thus a fast lens, and still good ISO handling for the lighting conditions.  The FZ1000 doesn't come remotely close.

 I offered up a ~$400 fast lens option coupled on a $600 camera to meet the budget and shooting requirements.  You offered up a camera to meet the budget only.


----------



## goodguy (Sep 28, 2016)

Nikon D5300 or even Nikon D5500 with 18-55mm kit lens and Nikon 55-300mm VR for telephoto (longer reach lens)
If you can squeeze then add Nikon 50mm 1.8G for very low light situation and portrait shooting


----------



## chuasam (Sep 28, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I offered up a ~$400 fast lens option coupled on a $600 camera to meet the budget and shooting requirements.  You offered up a camera to meet the budget only.


Your image requirement is not always the same as hers. Often newbies only want to put the pictures at 4x6 or share them online. For that, a small 1" would suffice.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 29, 2016)

iphone7


----------



## Designer (Sep 29, 2016)

Paula67 said:


> I have seen where cameras come in bundles which have a 18-55 with image stabilization lens and a 75-300 lens but doesn't say anything about image stabilization.  If I am doing far away shots wouldn't I need that?  Or am I overthinking this?
> 
> I am wanting to stay below $1000 for the setup if this is even possible. Do you have any suggestions for me? I would greatly appreciate your advice.


Braineack's suggested combo is what I would also recommend.  

I would not recommend one of those "100-piece" kits.  Your hunch is correct; one lens is image stabilized, while the other is not.  The big drawback with those kits is the filler items are usually of questionable value, and most will be tried once and then relegated to a drawer, never to be used again.  

I would start looking at a "enthusiast level" body (used, from a reputable reseller) and one or two good lenses.  This is the first year.  The second year you get some electronic flashes with modifiers, light stands, and a tripod so you can learn portraiture.  

Anyway; you can start here:

Photography, Digital Cameras, Lenses, Electronics - 8PM Shipping - Adorama Camera

B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders

Used Camera Equipment | Buy and Sell on KEH Camera

These three resellers have very good reputations.  Stay away from e-bay and Craig's list. 

After you have looked at everything currently available, you will still have questions, but try to "put together" one or two body/lens combos to compare.  You can read reviews online about each item.  

Then, when you've narrowed your search, call the above companies to talk with a person about your choices.  They may have further suggestions.  Ask about batteries, chargers, body/lens caps, carrying strap, etc.  You don't need to worry about a camera bag just now, you just want to get the best camera you can afford and a decent lens with which to get started.


----------



## Paula67 (Sep 29, 2016)

Thank you for posting.  There is alot of great information here which I knew I would get from posting my question.  I see I have alot more research to do.  I realize now that I need to stop looking at the bundle packages.  I need to focus on getting a good lens for now for the sports/low light shots and can add different lenses later on as the budget allows.  I do not want to settle for an average lens and not get the close up shots I want.  So I am willing to spend more to get a good lens.


----------



## Designer (Sep 29, 2016)

Paula67 said:


> Thank you for posting.  There is alot of great information here which I knew I would get from posting my question.  I see I have alot more research to do.  I realize now that I need to stop looking at the bundle packages.  I need to focus on getting a good lens for now for the sports/low light shots and can add different lenses later on as the budget allows.  I do not want to settle for an average lens and not get the close up shots I want.  So I am willing to spend more to get a good lens.


Heh-heh.

I've got one on my wish list that usually goes for over $1,500.00, used!  But if you get serious, and have the money, you will eventually want to move up into the rarified air of better lenses.  

This is why I and some others will recommend that you stretch your camera budget as far as it will go, because a better body can do so much more than the entry level bodies.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 29, 2016)

FYI, your requires of indoor/outdoor of people and sports/events really taxes a camera ability.  This is nothing new.

There's many threads on this board of people doing indoor sports/events such as wrestling (dance, theater, etc), which is normally in subpar lighting, and having issues.  It's always a fight between a higher Shutter Speed to stop the motion (say above 1/500), with the proper aperture (for DOF or compensating for low light) AND focusing mode (for accurate focusing on subject), plus a higher ISO for proper exposure.  This is where a higher end body with better ISO capabilities PLUS a good lens (think f/2.8 or better) matches up well with events in subpar lighting.

It's very hard to recommend a camera.  PLUS you'll have to push your knowledge of how to use the camera properly.  No AUTO mode to let the camera decide everything.  So camera plus knowledge is key here, and more knowledge and more ...

For me doing indoor sports/events and outdoor sports/events even during the evening I use a d750/d600 with f/2.8 lenses or better.  They have superb ISO abilities to handle low light events.  I used to have a d7000 which did "okay" but no comparison to the d750/d600.


----------



## Designer (Sep 29, 2016)

Paula67 said:


> I do not want to settle for an average lens and not get the close up shots I want.  So I am willing to spend more to get a good lens.


Look up the going price for a used D610 and a used 85mm lens.  I've got one of those lenses, and I absolutely love it!  You don't really need a zoom lens as badly as you might think, because with an excellent prime (like the 85mm) you just shoot, and then crop later on your computer.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 29, 2016)

Paula67 said:


> Thank you for posting.  There is alot of great information here which I knew I would get from posting my question.  I see I have alot more research to do.  I realize now that I need to stop looking at the bundle packages.  I need to focus on getting a good lens for now for the sports/low light shots and can add different lenses later on as the budget allows.  I do not want to settle for an average lens and not get the close up shots I want.  So I am willing to spend more to get a good lens.



A 70-200mm 2.8 of some sort is probably your best bet.  You can get decent results out of even older models.  On a budget I recommend one of the Sigma's, the non-VR versions of the Tamron lens often have issues focusing accurately in low light situations.  The VR version of the Tamron is fantastic - but it's also about $1300 just for the lens.  

I paid roughly $400 for my Sigma 70-200mm HSM I, and it gives pretty respectable results.  




20160903_8873 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

That was shot with a D600.  If you can increase your budget an inexpensive full frame like the D600 would be the best option, paired with a 70-200mm 2.8 lens of some sort.  Action photography in lowlight, as others have mentioned, is pretty challenging even with good equipment.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 29, 2016)

Yeah, that Sigma 70-200 is probably the best lens for this budget.  I've seen the non-stabilized versions sell for $250.

I recommended the 85mm 1.8G because it can be had for under $375; a AF-D copy, around $250. And 85mm is still long--even on a FF sensor.

The point was, you need both a good low-light sensor, and a fast long lens.


----------



## KmH (Sep 29, 2016)

Note that for action shots we usually need to use a shutter speed faster than an in-the-lens image stabilization (IS) system ineffective.
Most, if not all, IS systems should be turned off at shutter speeds faster than 1/500 so they don't unnecessarily consume battery power.

IS is only able to correct for camera motion. Expecting IS to correct _all_ motion is something many new to using IS capable lenses don't realize IS is not capable of doing.

Also note that IS is a solution to a problem, and if you don't have that problem, having IS turned on can become a problem of its own.
Which means, only turn on IS when it's needed. Other wise, leave it turned off.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 29, 2016)

Braineack said:


> Yeah, that Sigma 70-200 is probably the best lens for this budget.  I've seen the non-stabilized versions sell for $250.
> 
> I recommended the 85mm 1.8G because it can be had for under $375; a AF-D copy, around $250. And 85mm is still long--even on a FF sensor.
> 
> The point was, you need both a good low-light sensor, and a fast long lens.



The 85 is a thumping sharp lens, only thing I noticed on mine was the CA was awful in lowlight.  Not sure if the problem was just with my individual copy or if it is common to the lens itself, but I ended up selling mine as a result.  Of course shooting wrestlers it might not be as much of a problem as it was shooting kitties with white whiskers against a dark background....


----------



## Braineack (Sep 29, 2016)

I think it was your copy, plus Lightroom has a remove CA button.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 29, 2016)

Braineack said:


> I think it was your copy, plus Lightroom has a remove CA button.





Braineack said:


> I think it was your copy, plus Lightroom has a remove CA button.



Which should be renamed "remove some of the chromatic aberration, for the rest enjoy 6 hours of editing whiskers in photoshop."  

Ok, I guess that is a bit long for the name of a button... lol.  I'm guessing it might have just been my copy, hadn't read reports of other 85 1.8 AFS-G's being quite so bad, but since then I've kind of avoided them.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 29, 2016)

yeah i dont have that issue:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8310/29624513910_738dcc7ac0_o.jpg


----------



## beagle100 (Sep 29, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that Sigma 70-200 is probably the best lens for this budget.  I've seen the non-stabilized versions sell for $250.
> ...



yep, the Canon 85mm 1.8 is a thumping sharp lens (didn't notice the CA) only around $200 (used) -  good for wrestling and other pics (if you're close enough)


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 29, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


Yup.. Sadly though the Canon aps-c sensor cameras lag far behind their Nikon counter parts in low light performance

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle100 (Sep 29, 2016)

yes,  it is very sad Nikon image quality lags far behind Canon counter "parts" and low light
But that 85mm ... it's dyno mite  !!
There's a good reason professionals shoot with Canon !


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 29, 2016)

iPhone 7 is the new gauge of professional !!  Lol


----------



## OGsPhotography (Sep 29, 2016)

Basically, I recommend my kit, because I bought it.

 You can realistically buy a 50,6o or 70D( used with lots of kms)  with a 50mm lens for your budget. 

50mm on crop is similar to 85mm full frame. If you really think you need more reach get the 85mm, but it may/ will limit you in close quarters. Awesome portrait lenses too.

Use your feet to get you in range and get good pics, add the other lens later after you've mastered 50mm range ( 50mm is what they say eyesight is so it is a bit more natural length to shoot at) . You'll take awesome day to day pics of your kids as well at 50mm and the learning curve is not steep.

I'll sell my 50 now that I have 70-200  would never have wanted to start with anything else though.


----------



## Designer (Sep 29, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> Yup.. Sadly though the Canon aps-c sensor cameras lag far behind their Nikon counter parts in low light performance





beagle100 said:


> yes,  it is very sad Nikon image quality lags far behind Canon ..


Well, there you have it!

Two diametrically opposed opinions regarding the perceived image quality of two of the most popular brands of camera available.  

So without empirical data, should we consider it a draw?  

Or IS THERE data?

Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 29, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> yes,  it is very sad Nikon image quality lags far behind Canon counter "parts" and low light
> But that 85mm ... it's dyno mite  !!
> There's a good reason professionals shoot with Canon !


Sorry, no.  Not even canons marketing department makes such completely outlandish claims.  Nothing against canon mind you, there are situations in which Canon can be preferable to its nikon counter part.  But for iq and low light shooting in aps-c format Nikon is a better choice than the competition.




Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 29, 2016)

Designer said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.. Sadly though the Canon aps-c sensor cameras lag far behind their Nikon counter parts in low light performance
> ...


Why yes.. there is data.  Plenty of it.  All of which proves Beagle to be absolutely dead wrong.

Don't get me wrong, Canon does have some advantages over their Nikon counter parts usually in things like buffer, shooting speed, etc.  It does vary from model to model of course.

But for image quality or low light shooting?  No.  That's just false.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## beagle100 (Sep 29, 2016)

Designer said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Yup.. Sadly though the Canon aps-c sensor cameras lag far behind their Nikon counter parts in low light performance
> ...



right, professional photographers prefer the image quality of Canon cameras (and Canon lens) but don't get me wrong, Nikon counter 'parts' are acceptable for beginners


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 29, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...


Professional photographers in what arena?  Sports?  Then yes. Most likely there choice is Canon, for higher shooting speeds and larger buffer capacity due in part to smaller file sizes from lower mp sensors.

It's not highest iq that drives that one segment of the market.  It's other factors, factors at which Canon excels.  

Professional photographers don't all shoot sports though.  For things like weddings or portraits, I think you'll find Nikon has the advantage with better low light and yes, better image quality.

Just because you happen to like Canon is no reason to continue to post things that are simply false.  

I happen to like Nikon, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that in some areas the equivalent Canon might make a better choice for what someone else shoots.

In this particular case the op wants to shoot stuff in low light without a flash.  Nikon clearly is the best choice for this task.


Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## goodguy (Sep 30, 2016)

beagle100 said:


> yes,  it is very sad Nikon image quality lags far behind Canon counter "parts" and low light
> But that 85mm ... it's dyno mite  !!
> There's a good reason professionals shoot with Canon !


LOL, you are killing me laughing every time you make this statement and you make it many times.
Look man lets stop this once and for all, many, many pro's buy and use Canon, they keep using them because Canon make good camera, exactly what pro's need.
At the same time there are lots of Nikon professional users, they use Nikon as well for their work and keep using them.
Lets agree both Canon and Nikon make good cameras, both are excellent tools.
I promise you I can get excellent results with my equipment but I also could get excellent results with the new 5D IV which I really like if I owned it.
Canon is better then Nikon, Nikon is better then Canon. This is all so very childish, at the end of the day its really about the users skills because a Canon and Nikon both will be able to do the job and both are so close in their abilities that its silly really to argue about it.


----------



## chuasam (Oct 6, 2016)

The reason most pro use canon or Nikon is because of the Professional Services dept. plus they can go to events like the Olympics and have onsite support from CPS and NPS respectively. Pentax makes a very fine camera with no support. Sony is starting up a professional service dept. 
I play extensively with all brands. Sony can blow Nikon and Canon out of the water for image quality. But their lens system has no depth and their ergonomics was designed by an engineer.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 6, 2016)

Braineack said:


> more soft backgrounds, sharp subjects, and no swirl. UGhhhhhhh


someone should exchange their 58mm for the 105


----------

