First DSLR purchase advice

[Lawrence]

So I have decided to take the plunge and purchase my first DSLR. My daughter is into competitive swimming and my current point and shoot is not up to the task, because of the indirect lighting and distance from the subject. It does wonderful videos but for pictures, it has a hard time focusing and a lot of the shots are blurry.

So upon trying a few cameras in the store, I have settled on the Sony a57 because it is easier to use for a beginner like me and it is also very fast. But now I have a dilemma on the choice of lenses and I hope you guys can give me some pointers. I can get it with either of the following:

1. Body + 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens + 55-200mm f/4-5.6 Telephoto Lens + 16GB Class 10 SDHC Memory Card ---> $850
2. Body + 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens + 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Telephoto Lens + 16GB Class 10 SDHC Memory Card ---> $900
3. Body + 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 High Zoom Lens + 16GB Class 10 SDHC Memory Card ---> $1,200

For example at the swim meet this weekend, with options 1 or 2 I would have had to switch between lenses which would have caused me to miss some action. For that, I am thinking that option 3 may be the best of both worlds by having a "all-in-one" lens. Also, it would be more convenient when traveling instead of bringing multiple lenses. Then as I get better (hopefully), I could add other lenses.

I really like the convenience of option 3, however there is a big price jump and I don't want to be short sided as I plan to use the camera for other things besides swim meets. Would I miss not have the multiple lenses or would the 18-250 be sufficient? What would you guys recommend? I am starting fresh so I am open to all suggestions.

Here is the link to what I am looking at if you want to see the specs
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto..._Alpha_bundles

[JK08]

I have settled on the Sony a57

That is your first mistake. Don’t settle get what you want.

I myself run a Canon XTi it is kinda old but works great and has never let me down. As for lenses I have a 28-200 and it works well for distance stuff if you want to do something close you are limited. So for that I have a 17-55. If you have researched and like the functionality of the Sony keep in mind you can always buy more lenses so get what you think you need for now and you can always expand. Pretend it is a Jeep. I am sure there are some more qualified people on this forum to comment but that is just my 2 pennies.

Edit

For what it is worth I use my 28-200 90% of the time so an 18-250 may be the way to go for you.

Danny

[Lawrence]

That is your first mistake. Don’t settle get what you want.

As for lenses I have a 28-200 and it works well for distance stuff if you want to do something close you are limited. So for that I have a 17-55. If you have researched and like the functionality of the Sony keep in mind you can always buy more lenses so get what you think you need for now and you can always expand.

For what it is worth I use my 28-200 90% of the time so an 18-250 may be the way to go for you.

Danny

I didn't mean "settle" that way but rather as in decided, leaning toward, etc... The a57 seems to have some nice functions for beginners and for those who use the automatic modes, the screen gives you instant feedback, and it is fast (10-12 fps).

I won't pretend to make it my career, so the camera has to be easy to use and my lens choice will have to be selective so that I don't spend a ton of money on them and end up with a bunch that will collect dust. For that, and the convenience to have a all-in one lens for the reasons mentioned before, I am thinking the 18-250mm may be worth the initial price jump. Kinda pay now or pay later type thing, but what do I know.

As mentioned, I am starting fresh with no need to match lenses from prior SLRs, so anything is worth considering.

[dirtman13]

Option 3 seems to be the best choice for what your describing. If your daughter has any events in doors the low f-stop and 250mm should get you some nice shots.

[NAILER341]

I would suggest you chose one of the major brands if you want to have any longevity to your camera/lenses.

Go with Canon or Nikon. The big investment in a camera is in the glass. You will likely replace the body throughout your years of shooting, but the glass stays the same.
Buy good glass and a body with the features you need. you can change the body as your experience and needs grow.

Those variable zooms are not so good. You want something that is equal across all zoom lengths for ease of use and good light.
For a good SLR kit you need a bigger budget. Sell one of those rigs and get into some 2.8 glass and a prosumer body.

[daniel_buck]

I know new cameras have really good ISO performance, but for me and my money a fast aperture lens is worth it's weight.

If you are purchasing to get into sports photography, as much as it sounds like jumping on the band waggon, I'm going to suggest that you stick with Nikon or Canon. Me I'm a canon shooter, but I choose to stick with canon because I can mount pretty much any lens I want onto it very easily, I really have no loyalty to brands, infact most of my lenses aren't even Canon lenses, just my long lenses.

Canon and Nikon are very well proven with sports photography, and they both have real good long lenses and good auto focusing. Sing your money into a good 70-200/2.8 zoom lens (a proven workhorse lens for sports) and you will be golden. If you need more reach than 200, you could always use a doubler, or rent a nice 400/2.8

How far away are you when you are watching the swim meets? That will determine what lens you want. But generally, no sports photographer should be without a 70-200, it's a very good catch all for the times you don't need a wide lens, or a super long lens. And it's optical performance is really good, sometimes indistinguishable from a good prime.

[NAILER341]

Daniel is on point with the 70-200 f2.8 lens from Canon. I use this as well as many of the other Canon lenses and swear by them. I have also used some non Canon lenses which were also 2.8, but was not satisfies with the bouquet and speed.
At this point I am very invested in my camera equipment with some of the latest and greatest in bodies and lenses.
my recommendation to a someone new with the money and desire to get serious, I'd recommend a 7D body with 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8.
This is waaay outside of your $1200 mark, but if I know you Lawrence, the quality will outweigh the cost. Just food for thought.
Check the reviews for those products, rent them and get a feel for what you are dealing with.

Some folks like the 60D, but to me it feels too much like a cheap piece of plastic for the money. It doesn't have the seals, and durability of the heavier build magnesium body prosumer units.

If you were closer to me Lawrence, I'd let you play with my 1D MKIV and 5D MKII so you can get a feel for what some of the pro gear is capable of.

[dirtman13]

You guys make great points. But it sounds as if he is looking for something more for family memories then making a living. That camera should suit him fine for his needs.

[daniel_buck]

You guys make great points. But it sounds as if he is looking for something more for family memories then making a living. That camera should suit him fine for his needs.

True, but if it's just for a short period of time, you could get a decent camera body, and rent the lens. Lens rentals are quite cheap when you compare them to what the lens actually costs.

[Lawrence]

Erik & Daniel, thank you so much for the input. Every time I see your guys' pictures I thoroughly enjoy them and I can't wait for the next ones, you have tremendous skills and you are very good at what you do.

Now back to earth for us people with limited, or in my case non-existent skills. While I like quality, I can't pretend to buy a super duper prosumer camera for what I will do with it and my skill level. Of course I can always get better, but it is hard finding the time with so many competing priorities in life. I need a camera that is simple to use, and as Chuck mentioned it will be general picture taking for family memories. Don't laugh or flame, but I will most likely keep it on Auto most of the time because I am not sure what everything else does.

Erik, I know you said that the big investment is in the glass and that Canon and Nikon have really good optics, and I know you guys recommend them for other reasons. But what about "off brands" like Sigma or Tamron? How about Sony branded (and Carl Zeiss) lenses? Are they "that" bad for the average Joe?

While Sony is not regarded as a traditional heavyweight, it seems they have made huge progress with their latest cameras and the new a57 or a77 (prosumer) have some very nice features which make it appealing to folks like me. A friend has the a57 and the new Tamron 18-270mm f3.5-6.3 and he will lend it to me next week so I can try it while my daughter is at swim camp. Also, my daughter's coach has a Canon 7D and I will ask him if I can try it out for comparison when he comes back.

I am not a Sony fanboy by any means but from playing with it in the store, I like its intuitive easy to use menus and its shooting speed, hence why I am leaning toward it. So I figured that if their new bodies and lenses are good based on the reviews so far, why not?

About the lenses, the more I think about it, the more I lean toward a "versatile" lens like option 3 for general picture taking and for vacationing, so I don't carry a bunch of lenses with me. Of course, if you have other ideas for an "everyday" lens, I'm all ears.

Then, as you guys mentioned I can get a good lens for sports photography. My daughter swims indoor 90% of the time and the lighting is not the best and we sometimes sit as close as 15 feet away, other times about 90ft away. So I hear you on the constant f2.8 lens (had to get a crash course on f-stops), it may be the ticket and I'll do some more research. Then if I get the urge and get better, I could get a couple additional lenses to fill the void.

Erik, it would be nice to try different setups but a 5D or better is really out of my price range and beyond what I need. I can up my budget and consider an "entry level" prosumer if it makes that much of a difference, but I also need to keep some $$ for lenses. You have some serious equipment that I would most likely drool over if I saw it, but it would be a complete waste in my hands unless someone is willing to pay me for taking crappy pictures.

[daniel_buck]

if you are looking for a single setup to do all of your shooting, #3 with the 18-255 is probably going to be your best bet, you won't need to fiddle with changing lenses and a larger bag, and what not.

[NAILER341]

The main reason I recommended you toward the big names "Nikon Canon) was for the longevity of the lens purchase. If you dump a bunch of money into a 2.8 lens for the Sony and in a year they come out with a new body, in all likelihood the mount for the lens to the body will also change.
sigma and Tamron make nice lenses. Just be sure to read the reviews specific to your camera model. Some lenses they make dont function as they should on certain brands/models of camera bodies.

For indoor swim meets with crappy lighting, it is imperative that you have good glass or you will have to really bump up the ISO to get a shot off fast enough to stop the action. When you bump up the ISO on lesser quality camera builds the photos become very noisy. (grainy)

I expect at an indoor swim meet on manual settings you will wind up with a speed of 250+ to stop the action, F stop as low as your lens will allow 5.6? and that will land you in a very high ISO 2000+ with a grainy unsatisfactory photo.

This is where the money is spent. Low light fast camera gear. In most cases the swim meets will frown on flash photography due to the potential distraction for the participants.

In these low light environments with sports, music, etc... you should really have a low F lens in your bag.

For example, I have 2 photos here.
One was shot with canon 2.8 glass at 1/250 - F2.8 and 1600 ISO
The other at 5.6 in the same light with a 28-300 F3.5-5.6 lens and I had to bump up the ISO to 6400 to get a similar look with the color/light.
I'm betting with a $900 Sony body, the 6400 ISO photo would be unusable.






I'm not trying to push you in one direction or another, just trying to enlighten you with some of my ill spent money and experience.

[Britain]

I second that E. Just shot some indoors at 3000 ISO. Really grainy. Wasnt allowed flash. Next lens is going to be fast!.

[Lawrence]

Erik,

Yes, Sony has been known for changing things and it scares me a little. I am hoping that their a-mount lenses would be immune from that since they also take Konica/Minolta lenses. But it's Sony and you never know what they will do next.

I hear you on the swim meets, the lighting is poor, no flash is allowed, and we sit far away. Ultimately, I would like to have a good "all around" lens for general picture taking and vacations, and then a good zoom lens for capturing my daughter's swims.

You mentioned manual settings and maybe I'll get there, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, I'll be living off the auto mode for quite a while. In your examples, you manually "corrected" the settings to get a close enough picture, but in my case I would rely on the camera to do it and my guess is that it would come out a lot worse with more artifacts and colors being off.

I know you're not trying to push me and I appreciate all the feedback, it is really helpful. I just have to find the right balance without going overboard.

[daniel_buck]

I wouldn't get so hopped up on the idea that 'manual' exposed photos are better than auto exposed photos. Most folks don't really even use 'manual' in a manual way, they just blindly click the aperture/shutterspeed settings until the camera says it's exposed correctly. So why not let auto modes change the aperture/speed for you anyway :-) Exposing without a meter, or with just a spot meter, that's manual exposure. Not just reading what the camera things the exposure should be, and manually setting the settings to match.

I use Aperture mode all the time, probably 90% of the time, a "semi-automatic" mode as some folks will call it, but it's really very automatic. I set the aperture to what I want (because I usually care more about how much/little DOF I have, rather than how fast the shutter clicks), and I let the camera pick the shutter speed it thinks it needs for a good exposure. After a while you get a feel for what it does, where it gives you the exposure you want, and where you need to intervene to get the exposure that you think is best. You can compensate very quickly by metering off a darker/brighter area and recomposing for the final shot, or by using exposure compensation (telling the camera to expose so much darker or brighter than what it things is 'correct').

The only times I really use full manual mode, is if I want the exposure to be exact same settings the same across a bunch of images (like in a controlled environment, or when using flashes/strobes), or if the lighting is changing and I want to capture that change in light intensity. Or if there's some other thing in the scene that makes auto exposures tricky (off hand, a shot of someone welding, would probably be best with manual exposure, or a very back-lit lighting setup would benefit from manual exposing as well). Or if I'm using a camera that doesn't have any meter or automatic settings, then I'll use a spot meter and set the camera manually, or just guess. If the light is changing, or I just want to shoot fast, or don't care about exact exposure consistency between a bunch of shots, I'll go into aperture mode if I'm using a camera that has such a mode.

If you are in an area where the light is very constant (like probably at any indoor event) manual mode might be nice to keep all the exposures the same. But don't let anyone look down on you for using an automatic mode. You can get into that stuff later if you like, but I know several very good photographers who really couldn't care less what their shutterspeed is. And their photos are very good, and published. They have an eye, and know how to use the automatic modes to get what they want. Knowing what goes into getting the exposure you want is not at all a bad thing, but it's only part of photography.