Digital SLR

D

Dinkum

Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
476
Guys,
A pal that is a personal trainer wants a decent SLR for client progress and action/workout shots for their training diary which will be taken inside and outside. Its been years since I knew anything about camera's as my last one was 35mm :o

She has a regular point and press Sony that is a little above average but it just sucks for the indoor stuff if the client is moving around.

Any suggestions welcome, price isn't mega important but I was thinking AU$600-850 about US$4-600.

TiA
 
Check out http://www.dpreview.com/ it is an awesome digital camera review site.(mods I hope it is ok to suggest it. If not apologies...)

I just bought a Canon EOS 50D. It is a superb camera and the results are spectacular. It is however a little more than your budget.

Good luck....;)
 
Shooting motion indoors will be tricky. Direct flash usually produces ugly results (not to mention blinding the client during workout) and built-in flashes are usually slow to recharge. It will also be unflattering on the client progress shots (in my opinion). Shooting available light requires a fast (read expensive) lens and a body that does well in low-light (also generally expensive).

Depending on the space, I think the best bet would be an entry level DSLR with a mounted flash bounced off the ceiling. It will provide enough light to allow for fast shutter speeds (to freeze the action) and the photos will look more natural. This won't work if the ceilings are very high though.

At that price range, the Nikon D40 would be a great choice. You can get it with a 'kit' (read inexpensive) lens for $500
You could then get the SB-400 as your mounted flash for bounce work. It will run you around $100 but that still keeps you in budget.

Here's an article on the SB-400 which gives a good example of the difference between direct and bounce flash (mouse-over the image of the grandmother).

The D40 may be entry level, but it can really produce great results, even with the kit lens. I know that pros (or even serious amateurs) might turn their nose up at it, but given your mission statement I think it would serve you well.

DPReview is always a good suggestion.

I personally shoot on Nikon so that is what I know, but Canon is top-tier also. Basically whenever anyone asks what I think I recommend they buy a DSLR from either Nikon or Canon. I don't know Canon's line well enough to recommend whatever their entry model is. A lot of choice between Nikon or Canon will be personal preference though (ergonomics, past experience, existing equipment, etc). You can't go wrong with either.
 
Fantastic infor guys, very much appreciated, I think she will go for the D40 and if the indoor stuff isnt up to snuff the SB-400. In the kits there are a variety of lenses, what lenghts would you reccomend? I appreciate its always a compromise like hardness vs toughness, but for general photography there must be a happy medium like 59Rc :)
 
The Nikon D40 is a very good choice - at one time its only real rival was the Pentax K100D (Super) - similar price range - but the Pentax K100D had built-in shake reduction/image stabilization - this is well worth it, as it works with any/all lenses that mount on the Pentax. This was my choice over the very good Nikon D40. It has been discontinued, at least in the USA - but still can be found for similar low price.

Another budget dSLR that can be considered is -

Sony Alpha A200 - 10Mp also with built-in shake reduction.

As others have mentioned dpReview.com has very comprehensive reviews - other sites that are as good are:

Imaging Resource

and sometimes very insightful -

DCRP


--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://groups.msn.com/UnknownVincent/shoebox.msnw
 
Dinkum said:
In the kits there are a variety of lenses, what lenghts would you reccomend?
Click to expand...
The 18-55 kit lens (which comes with the link I gave for the D40) covers 90% (if not more) of my shooting needs. When I first got my D50 I got the 18-55 and the 55-200 kit lenses.

I used 18-55 most of the time: it goes wide enough for indoor group shots, and tight enough for portrait work if you aren't too far away.

The 55-200 was great for reaching out further: getting candid shots of people's faces while they were engaged in activities that I wasn't close to, or a bird on a branch, etc.

I eventually got the 18-200VR which covers the whole range plus offers vibration reduction. It is costly though and of course that wide of a zoom will always have its drawbacks (more distortion at the extremes, etc)

These days Nikon also makes the 18-55 VR for $50 more than the standard 18-55 (if you are concerned about shaky hands). I don't know if there is a D40 package with that, so if you get the D40 body alone with the 18-55VR lens, you'll end up paying not only the premium for the VR, but the extra cost of buying the items separate over a kit package.

The nice thing about VR is that it allows you to shoot lower light by using slower shutter speeds. This really only applies to relatively stationary subjects, however. If you shoot slow shutter on a moving subject, VR might give you a crisp background by eliminating your shake, but your subject will be a motion blur from the slow shutter speed.
 
I have the Nikon D40 as well, with just the 18-55 lens that came with. I find it covers the majority of situations just fine. I would love to have the 18-200, but they want serious change for that bad boy. If the main purpose is shots of her clients, up close or within a few yards, this lense will do you just fine.
 
Dinkum said:
A pal that is a personal trainer wants a decent SLR for client progress and action/workout shots for their training diary which will be taken inside and outside. Its been years since I knew anything about camera's as my last one was 35mm :o
She has a regular point and press Sony that is a little above average but it just sucks for the indoor stuff if the client is moving around.
Click to expand...

Thinking more about this - although the Nikon D40 is a good suggestion (my choice is still the Pentax K100D (Super)) - there is a lot to be said for what she may already be familar/comfortable with - a p&s.

Consider the Fuji F100fd (or F50fd) both use the Fuji SuperCCD - this more than just "marketing hype" - as it does deliver much better signal to noise ratio - this means she could shoot at speed/sensitivities of ISO800 without the penalty of getting too much noise and for smaller prints like 6x4 one could push even ISO1600 which is dSLR territory.

The advantage of the p&s is that
(a) familiarity and easy to use - less intimidating for both user and subject being photographed;
(b) quite a bit lower priced;
(c) faster lens - f/3.3 (or f/2.8) at wide end;
(d) built-in shake reduction - steadier/sharper shots ar slower shutter speeds.

The Fuji F100fd has a wider angle lens at 28mm and zooms to 140mm but is slightly slower at f/3.3 at 28mm and drops to f/5.1 at tele end.

Fuji F50fd has the more conventional 35-105mm zoom - faster at f/2.8 at 35mm but also drops to f/5.1 at tele

(compare to Nikon's 18-55mm standard zoom which is f/3.5 wide dropping to f/5.6 tele)

If you can find it (used?) the 6Mp Fuji F31fd (or F30) is even a better bet, as their high ISO performance is even better
(but neither have built-in shake reduction)
- although at 6x4 prints I would hazard a guess that these are all going to be about the same.

All three mentioned sites have reviews of the Fuji F50fd -
DCRP also has the F100fd.

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://groups.msn.com/UnknownVincent/shoebox.msnw
 
Why do they need a digital SLR?


If it's quality you're looking for, you can get a Canon G9 for around $500...it's a high-quality point-n-shoot that can even do RAW images.


Otherwise, it's hard to beat the Canon Rebel series of digital SLRs...good looking, tough, quality images, access to Canon lenses, good price...and so on.

Dan
 
Daniel Koster said:
Why do they need a digital SLR?
Click to expand...

I think its the bigger the hole the more light going in theory. Plus, it will be used for other stuff too.


Top and bottom with the smaller cameras is that they dont do so great with movement shots due to small lenses (i.e. light gathering)
 
depends on the lens. Any of the G7, G8, G9 (and new G10) cameras is going to be a Huge improvement over regular point-n-shoots...much more protable. Like I said...high quality stuff...many pro photogs use them as backup cameras.

But, hey...I love my digital SLR....:D....don't let me talk you out of one.

If you're putting stuff on the web...and if you don't have great lighting already...then an SLR is going to be overkill. If they're going in a magazine/newsletter/print/etc...then you'll need both the dSLR and good lighting.


If you're concerned about indoor shots...you're going to want a better lens than a kit lens mentioned above.

Best setup would be an entry level dSLR like the Rebel, with a good 28-70 f/2.8 (Tamron has one for less than Canon, and is actually just as good). But now we're up to $1000....

Of course, you could just get the body and a 50mm f/1.8..and still be a good price.

Dan
 
Dinkum said:
I think its the bigger the hole the more light going in theory.
Top and bottom with the smaller cameras is that they dont do so great with movement shots due to small lenses (i.e. light gathering)
Click to expand...

The ability to gather/transmit light is not necessarily due to the physical size of the lens -
but the aperture or f-stop (aperture diameter= focal length/f #).

Most p&s digicams have lenses that are f/2.8 at the wide end -
compared to the common f/3.5 for dSLR kit lenses -
this is some 2/3 stops faster or better light gathering for the p&s -
yet the dSLR kit lens is decidedly bigger
and the glass/lens elements are much larger than almost any p&s lens......

However with a dSLR one can get f/1.8 or even f/1.4 50mm lenses that were at one time the "standard" lens for 35mm film SLRs -
f/1.8 is about 1 1/3 stops faster - and f/1.4 is 2 stops faster than the common f/2.8 p&s lens - but at these apertures focussing becomes critical and depth-of-field is shallow, so some wanted things may be out of focus.

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://groups.msn.com/UnknownVincent/shoebox.msnw
 
My issues with P&S cameras are their lag times (to turn on, focus lag, shutter lag, you name it), their slower frames per second (in case you need to shoot motion in sequence or just need to shoot off a burst to capture that 'right' moment), their smaller sensors, and the fact that the vast majority can only use built-in flash.

The Canon G9 can use a hotshoe flash so that covers that concern. I don't know what its time delays or frame rates are like, but I find it hard to believe it is anywhere near as responsive as any dSLR out there.

These are features that I appreciate in a camera but maybe others don't need them.

Also, while P&S often have f/2.8 at the wide end, they are usually coupled with smaller sensors than dSLR's which introduce more noise at higher ISO. Again, there are exceptions to this rule (some P&S have sensors just as large as dSLR) but to only mention the f/# of a P&S might only be part of the picture. If someone has a P&S that has a lower f/# than the lens on my dSLR, but I can shoot at a significantly higher ISO with lower noise, who is going to get the cleaner shot? (I'm ignoring depth-of-field issues here, as that is a whole 'nother discussion)

Daniel Koster said:
If you're concerned about indoor shots...you're going to want a better lens than a kit lens mentioned above.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your statement given how vague it is. Are you talking about shooting available light only? If so, I agree: a kit lens can run into difficulties shooting indoor available light only.

I was talking about a kit lens with a bounce flash though. I have gotten great shots using a kit lens with bounce flash: nothing that is going to be published in a magazine, for sure, but more than enough for the mission described by the original poster.
 
yes, if using a diffused/bounced flash, a kit lens will be fine.
 
ThinkOfTheChildren said:
My issues with P&S cameras are their lag times (to turn on, focus lag, shutter lag, you name it)
Click to expand...

This was true years ago and may still be true for some. But most of the marquee p&s are pretty responsive.

dSLRs still have to focus and set its automation and this takes a finite amount of time - don't get me wrong they are "fast" but NOT instantaneous. dpReview an otherwise excellent review site singularly fails to give any focus lag time in their dSLR reviews - leading a lot of people to assume that lag is insignificant - it is NOT, as anyone with a dSLR who has to focus in lower light can attest.

Take the recommended Nikon D40 - the certified Popular Photography results shows even at its fastest - the focussing time in very good light tested out to be nearly 1/2 sec - mostly it's in the 0.54-0.64 sec range but by 2EV it was 0.97sec that's nearly a full second, and at the lowest light it could focus at it took 1.25 secs - and then one has to add actual shutter lag from focussed - which is fast at pre-focussed 0.098 sec.

p&s are in a similar ballpark even when using the jab at shutter and let's hope the pic turns out mode -

Canon G9 full auto focus from pressing shutter to pic taken 0.57-0.69 second - but prefocussed is 0.088 sec.

Fuji F100fd full auto focus from pressing shutter to pic taken 0.50-0.85 second - but pre-focussed is 0.019 sec.

Notice in each case I have included the Pre-Focussed lag time (from Imaging-Resource performance results for each respective camera)

This is the way to use a camera - half depress the shutter button to lock the exposure and focus (ie: Pre-Focus) then when the shot presents itself fully depress the button, then the lag is pretty trivial mostly less than 0.1sec - as fast as human reaction time.

Notice if using pre-focussed - both the p&s beat out the dSLR - that stands to reason as all the p&s has to do is trip its simple leaf shutter - whereas the dSLR has to flip the mirror out of the way then trip its focal plane shutter - so yes the performance of the dSLR is amazing for what it has to do.... but the simpler p&s beats it. With single action shots often a p&s can beat a dSLR - I have thousands of shots in the links in my sig (mostly of musicians on stage - where I am trying to catch fleeting actions/expressions) - the majority of my shots (90%) are done with a Canon p&s -
Try these albums -
Sean Costello
Unknown Hinson
yes, of course I also use a dSLR (Pentax K100D) for larger venues when I need to change lenses,
but the Canon S80 is my choice for the majority of my photography (it's my EDC - see this gigantic thread EDC - What's in Your Pocket(s)?? ).

--
Vincent
http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://groups.msn.com/UnknownVincent/shoebox.msnw
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top