I’m currently looking for a new camera. Each week when I go to Wal-Mart I keep eyeballing this really cool Cannon Rebel. It has 12.2 mega pixels, and an 18-55mm lenses with it. I can’t go over $700 (and frankly I don’t see a need to go to $700) So I was wondering if you all could send some suggestions.
PS: I need a camera that shoots trains well! Along with family reunions and things of that sort!
Thanks Justin
The rebel is an excellent camera. That said, unless you are going to make really really big prints, or want to be able to crop very severely, you don’t NEED any where near 12 MP. If you WANT 12 MP that’s fine, but you don’t need it. Any camera over 3 MP will make good prints up to about 8x10 inches.
So, you can look at much cheaper cameras if cost is important to you. You need good depth of field (front to rear focus) and that comes with high aperture (F x) numbers. One nice thing about digital is that you can try it out in the store. See how close it will focus and be sure you can control shutter speed and f-stops. 5 MP, 8 MP are fine. Make sure it has removable media (cards) for moving the images to your computer.
Thanks!
I normally don’t print things. But that sure is a nice think to think about.
I looked at cannon.com, and at Wal-Mart .com. It is actually more expensive on-line.
EBay. I a little cheaper, but not much.
Thanks!
Justin
You really can’t go wrong with any of the major name cameras…Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, etc.
The first question, do you have any legacy lens you want to keep? Canon, Nikon, and Sony (Konica Minolta) bodies accept most of their recent film based auto-focus lenses.
The biggest difference is the way they handle image stabilization. Canon and Nikon use lens mounted IS. So their bodies are less expensive, but they lenses cost more. Sony, Olympus, and a few other use sensor mounted IS. So their lenses cost less, plus you can use film based non-IS lenses, but the bodies cost more.
Your biggest expense probably won’t be the body itself, but any extra glass you buy to go with it. For just about any type of train shooting you’ll want to add a zoom.
It’s also a good idea to pick up an extra battery, and more then one memory card.
Personally, I like Konica Minolta (Sony). I have a KM 5D, 6.1MP, I’ve used for several years, and love. I use a Tamron 28-300mm for most of my outdoor work, and a KM 18-70mm for indoors. The Tamron lens cost more then the 5D body.
You also might want to try Best Buy. They usually have a package deal for the body, 18-70mm lens and a 70-200mm or 70-300mm lens.
Nick
If you like Canon, look at the Power Shot S5 IS. It’s half the price of the Rebel, it’s 5 MP and image stabilized. It has 12x optical zoom, so you will probably never have to buy another lens for it.
When you compare zoom from camera to camera, only check optical zoom. Digital zoom is just cropped and then interpolated back up.
I shoot a Nikon D60. I have had good success with it however, you should shoot a bunch of pictures and keep a notebook of your settings. Go back and look at your work to see what shoots you like the best. Use these settings again in similar situations. Here is some of my work with the D60. You can judge for yourself;
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2499/3759909062_b5feec5cb1_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2446/3759104365_1fca35ca6e_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/3759882872_72c911b601_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2647/3759032917_cb3e59287c_b.jpg
You would have a difficult time finding the S5 IS. It was replaced almost a year ago by the SX10 IS. It is also image stabilized but is now 10 MP and a 20x optical zoom. In the same vein is the Nikon P90 with a 24x optical zoom w/vibration reduction and 12mp. Both of these are considered hybrid cameras. They are not true SLRs but they do have all the manual settings available and the lens that is built into the camera takes the place of 2 or 3 sometimes expensive interchangeable SLR lenses. As a bonus they are more compact.
On the whole, I think I would agree with dmoore and Phoebe Vet – take a good close look at the Canon SX10 IS or the similar Nikon P90, etc. Or the Canon G10 (dang near bulletproof camera, very little shutter lag, very good lens). The biggest advantage to these cameras is that they are small – the sort of thing you can and will carry with you (I rarely go anywhere without my G10) and they will do almost anything an SLR like the Rebel will do. For significantly less money. There are also smaller cameras such as my wife’s SD800 IS (obsolete model – the Canon SX200 IS is similar) which really are pocket cameras and have a lot of advantages.
There are several flavours of Rebels, by the way – so make sure you are comparing apples to apples when you are pricing them. Not only different pixel counts, but the higher end ones really are much better. The price you are quoting looks as though it must be the XS (also known as the 1000D) model, which is $530 from B&H Photo Video, New York (which the only place I’d buy a camera: bhphotovideo.com – service and support like you wouldn’t believe!). Good camera, but see the comment on shutter lag.
Things to watch out for, though – and what you really get for more money: lens distortion in the wide-range zooms (barrel and pincushion). It’s almost impossible to get rid of, optically, in such a wide range of zoom. Usually not a problem, but it might be in some situations (Note: Photoshop can get rid of it very neatly, so…). Shutter lag. This can be a real bear in some of the less expensive cameras, and is one of the places in digitals where money really does talk. The SD800 I mentioned has significant lag, and can be a real problem for action shots. The SX10 has a lot less – not much different from the Rebel. The G10 is even better. However, if shutter lag might be a problem, and you really want to get rid of it, you haven
… and the money you save by buying a cheaper camera should be used to buy a tripod.
or a Gorilla pod – those little flexy things which go in the pocket and hang on to practically anything! Worth their weight in gold… And a sort of PS: if you don’t already have it, may I suggest (if you can afford it) acquiring Adobe’s Lightroom program? Available for either Macs or PCs, and runs equally well on both. Particularly if you are also scanning slides. It is an absolute godsend – organizing, basic developing (that is, tweaking contrast, colour temp, correcting for exposure problems, etc. etc.,), creating slide shows, printing; adding captions, dates… you name it.
I have a Nikon D50 digital camera which I bought in 2006, and it works well for me. I think it has been replaced by the D40. My D 50 has 6 Mega pixels and it has media speeds ISo 200, 400, 800, and 1600. I usually use ISO 400, but I have tried ISO 800 in low light, and I have gotten clear pictures
My camera kit came with an 18 - 55mm zoom lens which is equivalent to a 28 - 55 mm zoom lens on film cameras. If I were to do it over again I would not buy a kit, I would buy the body with an 18 -135 mm zoom lens, or perhaps an 18 - 200 mm zoom lens. If you get a long focal length zoom lens, 18 - 135 mm or longer, it would be a good idea to get an image stabilization system either on the lens or on the camera.
Other accessories to get are a camera case and a spare battery. Media cards are not included with digital SLR camera kits. I would get at least two 2 - 2 gigabyte media cards.
But I want a really sharp image. So I need 12 mpxls right. I normally don’t print things out.
For screen display you need even less resolution than for prints.
Unless you’re planning on blowing your pictures up to mural size, or do significant cropping to achieve final image size, 12mpxls is overkill. I have some great shots taken with a 1.2 mpxl Sony. I shoot with an 8 mpxl Rebel now.
At risk of sounding sarcastic, use some of the money you save buying an 8 mpxl camera instead of a 12 to buy some photo instruction books (and a tripod, if you don’t have one). The most sophisticated camera in the world is just a Kodak Brownie unless you know how to compose your pictures, what aperature, shutter speed, and ASA mean and how they interact, depth of field, lighting, and a host of other equally important aspects.
Understanding the technical side of photography (especially composition) is paramount, and is what turns a snapshot into a portrait suitable for hanging in the best galleries.
I purchased a Nikon D40, two years ago at Christmas and am completely satisfied with it.
The kit came with a 18mm - 55mm and a 55mm - 135mm and a camera bag. Two years ago it was around $650. I have been very satisfied with it and have seldom used more than the automatic setting. I tend not to tinker.
My background was shooting 35mm for over 30 years so I had the basic understanding. The D40 is a wonderful camera for a non serious photographer. That being said, 90% of photography is done behind the camera. A camera is simply a tool. You must develope into the tradesman using the tool. Lighting and composition are critical.
Digital cameras are simply a great tool. My buddy who is a serious photographer, not only of trains, but also repairs large format cameras agrees and would never go back to film.
ed
What do you mean by ‘sharp’? You don’t need megapixels for what you want to do. What you want is great focus and great resolution. The better point-and-shoots will do all you want to do. Any of the Canon Powershot series these days, if they are available, are inexpensive and excellent. Nikon, Panasonic, and all the other name brands have excellent versions of the same thing. You want easy of use, simple, effective, light, small…the point-and-shoots are the way to go.
My [2c]
The draw back with the point and shoots are that they are not all that fast. It is the longest few seconds of your life when a train is being down on you and you have the shutter released pushed down but the camera has to think about firing. You thinking " Fire, I said FIRE,FIRE you @%&&***.
George
I would agree with that. And they don’t tend to recover after the shutter releases quickly either, a compounded problem. Still, another $300 for a faster shutter…? It is something to think about.
-Crandell
Good point - did lose some shots with the Sony due to that lag. The after lag was worse when I was writing to floppies (something that particular camera would do). The Rebel, on the other hand, will take something like 14 “large” jpegs in a row before it has to pause and catch up, and even that doesn’t take long. RAW doesn’t deal quite a well with rapid fire…
I won’t deny that a point and shoot may well suit many people’s needs. The Sony fits that description and performs nicely in that niche.
I, too, have experience with film 35’s (Pentax K1000), so that translates nicely to the Rebel and it’s peers, none of which I’ll denigrate.
I normally use my shot for wallpapers on my PC. Won’t they appear grainy though? .
Also, I see your guy’s shots here on the forum. The have an image size that’s really big, and when you click on “view larger image, it fills the whole page. Mine just fills the upper left corner. They are also SUPER SHARP! Really clear, and not grainy. I have shot with a 9 mp. Before. I guess it was ok, I just really like what my 10.mp is doing for me now(quality wise).