Help a digital camera noob out here!

[lee_44106]

Alright, so my wife dropped and broke my point&shoot. (Sony). I'm looking to get another one. I'e heard lots about SLR cameras and I'm wondering if it would satisfy my needs.


Most important:

-I always have problem with "lag time", old P&S would freeze up and can't shoot fast action shots. What is the setting/function that impact this the greatest?


Costco currently has a package deal on the Nikon D-5000 with some lens for around $1100 or somesuch. Is this an overkill for me?

 

[Luc-Emmanuel]

If I were to pick up a dslr, I'd go for a D40 or a D60 instead, not a D5000. Now, if you have never shot with a reflex before, the learning curve is steep. So I suspect it would be overkill. Most important, if I buy a dslr and use it as a p&s, I wouldn't bother carrying the extra weight and buy a p&s instead

!luc

 

[whodini]

Costco also has packages on the Canon XSI and Nikon D40/D60. I'd look into those.

Personally, I think it's better to start off with a basic DSLR and have a decent lens with image stabilization (known as IS, VR, or other depending on the brand) to work with. If you want to upgrade later then you can pay for a better body and still use to the good glass.

 

[Rambo]

What are you shooting?

 

[matadorpoeta]

buy a used canon xti or nikon equivalent, set it on "sports mode".

keep in mind if you buy an slr you will not have it with you as often as you would a point and shoot, they are too big to carry around everywhere, so you'll end up wanting a point and shoot on top of the slr.

lag time is an issue with all point and shoot cameras. they are not good for sports or when your kids are running around.

for action shots you want to use a fast shutter speed of at least 1/500 sec. you can set this manually or you can have the camera do this for you in sports mode.

 

[herzzreh]

Take a look at Pentax SLRs. They're relatively light, cheap, take good photos (technically-wise). Pentax also has excellent cheap optics.

 

[darnelled]

Pick up a used Nikon D40x or D60. If not what you need, read reviews at www.dpreview.com

 

[Renault78law]

The D-5000 is a great camera. If you want to spend that kind of money and want the newest/latest, go for it.

DSLRs are a group won't have that lag you're talking about, though there are some exceptions, depending on what focus mode you are using. In sports mode, it is set up to shoot instantly.

 

[B2C2V]

My thought is if you go for a SLR, invest more on lense than body. In that sense, a packaged deal is less desirable. You can check on dpreview.com for model review and ratings. Also, I recommend to shop at bhphoto.

 

[GQgeek]

^ +1

If you're jsut not in to it, you'll be able to sell a good lens for close to what you paid for it new. The bodies start depreciating the moment you purchase because new ones keep coming out. The only exceptions are the pro level cameras, which are on a longer product release schedule.

 

[TheFoo]

Not everybody should use an SLR. They are good for people into photographhy because of their vastly superior lenses, much larger image sensors, and much faster processing times. But they are also large, heavy, and cumbersome. For most, the improved image quality is overkill. If you just want to shoot pictures when on vacation, which usually means having a family member stand in front of a notable monument or building, an SLR is a total waste, and probably to your disadvantage. A good point-and-shoot camera would be far more suitable and be better at getting the pictures you intend to take. It will fit in your pocket, so you can carry it easily and not look like a wandering tourist, and it will be much more discreet in actual use, so it won't annoy other people. I don't know about you, but I would never want to walk into a nice restaurant with an SLR around my neck, to say nothing of pulling it out at the table.

Point-and-shoots and SLRs each existed long before digital cameras became the norm, yet people didn't treat SLRs like the were simply 'better'. It shouldn't be any different now.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Not everybody should use an SLR. They are good for people into photographhy because of their vastly superior lenses, much larger image sensors, and much faster processing times. But they are also large, heavy, and cumbersome. For most, the improved image quality is overkill. If you just want to shoot pictures when on vacation, which usually means having a family member stand in front of a notable monument or building, an SLR is a total waste, and probably to your disadvantage. A good point-and-shoot camera would be far more suitable and be better at getting the pictures you intend to take. It will fit in your pocket, so you can carry it easily and not look like a wandering tourist, and it will be much more discreet in actual use, so it won't annoy other people. I don't know about you, but I would never want to walk into a nice restaurant with an SLR around my neck, to say nothing of pulling it out at the table.

Point-and-shoots and SLRs each existed long before digital cameras became the norm, yet people didn't treat SLRs like the were simply 'better'. It shouldn't be any different now.

It is different now though. Old film p&s cameras may not have been as good as SLRs, but when you pressed a button, you snapped an image capturing that point in time. They weren't subject to the lag a digital p&s is subject to, and they still shot on 35mm film, as opposed to a much smaller sensor. The technological divicde between p&s and SLR has increased significantly.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Not everybody should use an SLR. They are good for people into photographhy because of their vastly superior lenses, much larger image sensors, and much faster processing times. But they are also large, heavy, and cumbersome. For most, the improved image quality is overkill. If you just want to shoot pictures when on vacation, which usually means having a family member stand in front of a notable monument or building, an SLR is a total waste, and probably to your disadvantage. A good point-and-shoot camera would be far more suitable and be better at getting the pictures you intend to take. It will fit in your pocket, so you can carry it easily and not look like a wandering tourist, and it will be much more discreet in actual use, so it won't annoy other people. I don't know about you, but I would never want to walk into a nice restaurant with an SLR around my neck, to say nothing of pulling it out at the table.

some valid points, but you did not read the original post carefully. he's taking action shots and concerned with shutter lag.

Originally Posted by mafoofan

Point-and-shoots and SLRs each existed long before digital cameras became the norm, yet people didn't treat SLRs like the were simply 'better'. It shouldn't be any different now.

yes they did. most old point & shoots used the same film as an slr, so they had that going for them, but most people did treat slrs as though they were simply better due to the superior lenses and manual controls.

 

[TheFoo]

I've been through three digital point-and-shoots over the past ten years, two Canons and a Panasonic. Only the first Canon, a Powershot G5, if I remember correctly, had any noticeable lag. Image quality has dramatically improved with each subsequent camera, too. My current camera, a Panasonic DMC-FX150, keeps up with moving objects pretty well, although an SLR would obviously be better.

So, unless the OP will be taking mostly action shots in places where a big camera won't be a problem, an SLR still seems like overkill to me. I would start by researching the best point-and-shoots on the market and see if they suffice.

 

[Luc-Emmanuel]

I'll have to agree with mafoofan on this.
regarding better glasses vs better body, unless you invest in pro glasses (which cost a lot of money), you'd better go with kit lenses. And then there is the DX vs FX (digital cropped sensor vs full frame) which makes it even pointless to invest in good glasses at this moment where we are at a turning point in terms of technology.

!luc