# New camera suggestions



## ruger1 (Aug 16, 2006)

Looking to get the fiance a new camera. I bought her Adobe Lightroom 2 for x-mas and now she wants a camera that will do so much more. Currently she's using my Cannon SX110. I bought that camera because it is a good camera that fits into a pocket and can take a beating. I've dropped it in mud and then sat on it, dunked it into a stream to clean it off and it's still plugging away. I've dropped it down the mountain before. Slipped and fallen in the mountains with it in my pocket on the side I fell on.

I love it. I can count on it when I'm hunting and fishing to take a beating and keep working.

She doesn't need anything like that. Picture quality is the priority for her. Something like an SLR or something like that. What are everyone's thoughts and suggestions? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I depends on how much you are willing to spend and what type of photos she likes to take. I like the Canon line of DSLR's the best and is what I shoot. The Rebels do a very nice job. The higher end DSLR's like the 50D are more money, but are built better and will last longer for someone who shoots a lot of photography. Both have the capability to use all the Canon lenses and that is where the real cost comes in. Once again the cost of lenses depends on what you want and are willing to spend. I don't think the others makers come close to the Canon L series, but that is my opinion. The 50D has a 1.6 crop factor since it doesn't have a full frame sensor. This is nice for the wildlife photography in my opinion. A 100-400mm lens becomes a 160-640mm lens. A full frame sensor DSLRs like the 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II will give you better results and an even higher price tag. For the casual photo shooter the Canon Rebel series does very well and saves you some money to spend on lenses.


----------



## wburns (Feb 27, 2009)

I agree with longshot. IMO as a starter for her I would go with the Rebel. It will do a lot, especially if she is a beginner. I have both the Rebel and the 50D. The 50D is a better camera, but it is larger and heavier to tote around. I use the Rebel to take action shots on my hunts. I carry it in my vest pouch with a lanyard to protect it from falling out. Below are some pictures I took using standard Canon lenses that often come with the camera in their package deals.





































My wife took this one of me shooting a bird using the 50D. The grouse shot below that I used a 500mm zoom lens.


















Either camera is a good choice. Nikon also makes a very good digital slr. I had many lenses from my Canon film cameras so that was a big incentive for me to stick with Canon. Good luck on your purchase!


----------



## mach (Aug 29, 2005)

I personally like the Sony line of cameras as they are affordable and have a good sensor and can accept many old Minolta A mount lens from 1986 and up and these lens are cheap and really effective in picture quality also the Sony has built in Image stabilization and built in camera motor..other makers, you have to pay extra just to be on par with Sony or Olympus..for a starter or middle of the road camera.
You can go all out and buy a canon 50D and an L lens if you want to turn pro. Also the Nikon series is pretty good as it has the best kit lens versus the canon kit lens which is the worst
Every lens maker has an upgrade series of lens whether it is L , G, N, EX, SP..but these costs at least three times as much as the middle grade lens for a slight noticeable performance.

Here are some pics taken with a Sony A200 and a recent purchase of a $75 Sigma 70-300mm APO MACRO f4-5.6 which is my backup lens..photo bucket is down for maintenance as I cannot upload other better pics with my older Minolta lens


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

The Sony lines of cameras look to be good quality. The only thing I don't like about the Sony, like the Pentax, is the image stabilization is built into the body of the camera instead of the lens. This is nowhere near as effective as being in the lens like Canon and Nikon. While to some it may be cost effective to go this route as it makes all their lenses become pseudo IS, every test done shows that it doesn't compare. There is a good quote in a photography book that I had read. It stated "you will notice that this book is full of pictures of Nikon and Canon cameras. You may think that I am bias to these two makers, but it is not just me, it is the entire world." Most all kit lenses are low end, but still will out do most any advanced point and shoot cameras. Nikon and Canon are about the same on price for their products and sigma, who I think makes a nice lens in their EX line, makes lenses for most all camera bodies. If you are looking for a more affordable lens for your camera Sigma also makes the IS lenses for Nikon and Canon. The EX line from Sigma are designed by Ziess as they are both owned by the same parent company. Sony has some very nice high end lenses also that are made by Zeiss and these will also cost you a good amount of money comparable to the high end Cannon and Nikon prices. The down side is they have been slow to come out with a telephoto beyond 300mm and this lens will run you $6300. While the Sigma EX lenses are nice, they do not compare to the Canon L series.


----------



## mach (Aug 29, 2005)

Long shot you are correct in some ways.
What I meant is on an entry cost level camera the Sony and Pentax and Olympus has a pretty good bang for the buck.
Bench test recently do show one design to be better than others but with combinations that the consumer really does not see. Oh there are features such as live cam, frames per second ,movie modes and lots of pixels, even full frame. The world is your oyster if you can afford to go to those levels. It just so happens I had a bunch of old Minolta lens and did some research two years ago and bought the Sony as it suited my needs and budget..now I have almost ten lens ( for macro, telephoto, portraits, landscapes etc) and accessories which I shopped around for as the Minolta line was no more and was only third or fourth rated awhile back.( hence the cheap prices for excellent lens) Nowadays the technology is constantly updated and I may have a usable relic. People buy because of heavy promo. Canon has more used lens to choose from and so does Nikon but at higher prices.
But in the end what matters in real life is the picture composition and how you use the know how to wring out the best out of every camera to have a memorable pic acceptable to yourself and to show others. It would be great if we could have other users post some pics and tell why they chose that brand and combination of lens so we can see and enjoy.
When you buy a camera you should take caution and perhaps not buy the kit lens as they are good but not great and shop around 
for an alternate by looking a some reviews and sample images.
It is true Sony does not have a big lineup selection of lens and is pushing the Zeiss brand which is good but overpriced and has nothing over 300mm but remember as stated..you can always fall back from the past and acquire a favorable Minolta lens that will fit the above 300mm application as a moderate cost.. also it now owns a share of Tamron and I would not be surprised if some lens will be rebadged soon. Also I should mention Sony makes a sensor for one of the Nikon models
i should also mention the Canons have a threshold of F5.6 for lens..meaning any lens exceeding that then the AF will not work.
I bought the Sigma as a backup lens cheaply as I know in time my Sony motor is going to strip the weak plastic gears as it has done to two other Sigmas but they are fun to play with when they are working.
The L lens is not the end all as there are G lens and some pretty good Nikons and a few Pentaxes. a few third parties also.
There are many camera brands out there. choose the one that suits your application and budget level in today's real world.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

> i should also mention the Canons have a threshold of F5.6 for lens..meaning any lens exceeding that then the AF will not work.


Sorry mach, but that is completely untrue. I don't know where you read this, but I have lenses down to f1.8 and the autofocus works just as well as the other lenses. I have also used lenses beyond the f5.6 with the same results. Please show me where this is true as I have not had that experience.

I don't think I will ever be able to afford a telephoto beyond the 100-400 L that I have. But you will be surprised at the prices of the older L telephotos that do not have the IS. This will probably be the only way I that I will be able to afford a prime 400 f2.8 or 500 f4. There are some models that you can find used in Japan that were never sold in the US market also. I do not care for the cheaper Sigma lenses with the plastic elements, but the EX line is their pro line using a good design of glass elements in a sturdy barrel and motor drive. I can understand sticking with a camera mount that uses the lenses you already have. I had at one time thought about sticking with Pentax as I had 8 different Sigma EX lenses. I started with a Nikon in High school, purchases a Pentax (because it was affordable) not long after college, and then upgraded to Contax using Zeiss lenses equal to Hasselblad. When I moved into the digital photography I decided to go with Canon. There is nothing wrong with Nikon, but in my experience I have had nothing but poor luck with their products.

Here are a few of my photo from past posts, some were taken with my old old 8MP Rebel and the others with my newer 40D:

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=53221

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=53091

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=53955

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=54028

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=52878


----------



## BROWNDOG (Nov 2, 2004)

I chose to go with Cannon because of the wide range of lenses they and other manufactures make for there cameras, resale, and there lenses are slightly cheaper than nikons . Some of these were taken with a Rebel and some with a 50D.

Mach, not trying to critisise and maybe it's my monitor but some of your photo's appear to have alot of noise in them like they were shot at a very high ISO??


----------



## mach (Aug 29, 2005)

It is probably the setting on my old monitor and the picaso edit program I use as windows 7 won't let me download the Sony Browser CD..picaso tends to auto enhance and auto contrast and I have no control like other expensive PP programs.
The pics are better now as I have a new laptop with a better resolution screen and would like to get a better PP program..also I like to set my contrast and sharpness to the max when I shoot on AP with ISO set to auto. I rarely shoot over ISO 400 unless I am indoors' auditorium with assorted lighting like my son's grad where I shot ISO 1600 with decent results. The Sonys have some noise at ISO 800 but I seldon do ISO 800 outdoors

As for the 5.6 Canon f stop threshold some of the lower line Canons have that deficiency to not auto focus whereas the more pro models can handle that threshold...ie if you have a f3-5-5.6 lens and add on a 1.4x tel-econverter you will get AF up to F5.6 and it will hunt forever with a standard lens
Now with the introduction of in lens stabilization will give anywheres from 2-4 f-stops and a person can now add on a tele_converter
with the right amount of light to achieve AF that is why it is possible.

I have an one step above entry sony A200 with classic old lens and can't compare my results with the pro cameras

I took this picture with an old Minolta 35-70 f4 lens circa late 1980s for $35 know as the legendary Baby Beercan
I also have the regular beercan and big beercan all which costs me less than $175

Baby beercan 35-70 f4



























beercan 70-210 f4










big beercan 75-300 f4.5-5.6


----------



## sndhillshntr (Sep 8, 2005)

Got my wife the Cannon Rebel XSi.

Mostly for taking pics of our kids. She loves it.


----------



## deiussum (Mar 17, 2009)

When I was looking for a DSLR a number of years ago I ended up going with the Minolta Maxuum 7D because I had a Minolta film camera with a couple of lenses. You can't buy them anymore since Sony bought out the camera department of Minolta. I've heard good things about the new Sony's, but I am considering switching to Canon or Nikon at some point in the future.

I've been mostly happy with the 7D, but there are some situations that it just doesn't perform well in. 400+ iso can be really grainy. And if you attempt to take long exposure shots for things like star trails, the noise is pretty bad. There's a photo forum I follow a bit, and I've seen some shots from the other makers that didn't have the noise that my 7D would have in a similar shot. (And the photographer claimed that they didn't use any sort of noise reduction.) For wildlife shots, though, it performs pretty well for me.

These are a couple shots of a Townsend's Oriole and Brown Pelican that I took in Natural Bridges State Park, Santa Clara, CA. I used the 7D with a Sigma lens.


----------



## Bay_Dog (Jan 17, 2009)

Everyone has good responses, but in regard to the original question ... if you have friends or access to different types of camera's, give them each a "test run" and go with what you're comfortable with. Personally, when I was in high school and college I shot film with an old Minolta. It's so long ago, I can't remember the model. When I decided to get back into my hobby, I felt more comfortable with the Sony line, even after trying different Canon and Nikon bodies. I went with an entry level body (a300), just in case I decided I want/need to switch manufacturers and bought a couple of old Minolta lenses in addition to the Sony kit lenses. From my experience over the past year getting "reaquainted" with DSLR photography, the Sony kit lenses produce some very fine photo's and the Minolta lenses are outstanding on the Sony body. I feel as though I made the right choice and have recently upgraded to the Sony a700 body. Haven't really taken it out yet but look forward to seeing what it'll do.

Here are a few from the Sony a300 ...


----------



## mach (Aug 29, 2005)

Just had my Sony A200 repaired under warranty returned with cleaned sensor,mirror and re-calibrated when the only problenm was bent pins which were replace took only two weeks with ten days left on warranty. shot with sigma, minolta and kit lens


----------



## zzyzx (Mar 20, 2010)

What camera/lens combination did you finally get for her?


----------

