Actually, we're thinking of looking for a new camera.

We have a Nikon P600, but it has mode selection issues and will randomly stitch modes while trying to take a picture. I looked it up, and a lot of people have had the same problem within 18 months of getting the camera. Nikon won't issue a recall or support the issue as a warranty item since it's usually out of warranty, despite it being fairly widespread.

Needless to say, we will not be getting another Nikon. Do you have any recommendations for compact digitals in the $300-$350 range, preferably with an articulating screen? The Lumix FZ200 is close to what we'd be looking for, but maybe a little more than we'd like to spend.

Sorry to hear that about your Nikon. I don't have any Nikon compact camera experience.

My mom is on her second Canon G-series and loves them.

Maybe Canon G9X?

Most people are sticking with camera phones now, so Canon/Sony/Nikon are spending less in R&D on compact cameras.


Look for used on www.keh.com. I trust them completely and they have a 14-day no questions asked return policy.

Best entry-level DSLR? Wife has a passing interest in photography, but hasn't wanted to shell out the big bucks on a pro camera.

If she does pull the trigger on a DSLR, best resources/websites/etc. to learn to use the power of the DSLR?

Thanks.

Cool thanks. Will check out the book.

Any cameras with less than a 100 MP sensor any good?

Is a shutter speed range of 60 minutes to 1/2000th of a second acceptable or is it better to give up the longer end and be able to drop to 1/8000th of a second?

CO: depends on what you're shooting. Birds or fast sports? Probably. Race cars? Definitely.

Kids sports or "normal" action? Not necessarily. Keep in mind that the faster shutter speed you shoot, the faster the lens will need to be (low # f/stops) to get the image you might want. I shot film cameras for years with the fastest shutter speed of 1/2000 and I still got tons of great images. The last EOS body I owned went to 1/8k and I don't think I ever used that setting unless it was just a test shot or shutter release.

An Ag in CO said:

---

Any cameras with less than a 100 MP sensor any good?

Is a shutter speed range of 60 minutes to 1/2000th of a second acceptable or is it better to give up the longer end and be able to drop to 1/8000th of a second?

---

My most used camera has a 16MP sensor. MP is not really that important anymore. How big do you want to print? Most people don't do more than print small (Christmas cards) or post online. You'd be fine with 3MP for that.

What do you want to use it for? I only go over 1/2000th when I am shooting sports, but I could live at 1/2000th if I wanted to.

Need suggestions for a good 2nd and 3rd lens. Im shooting on a Canon 40D and have a run of the mill Canon 18-135mm for general purpose and looking to add more tools to the kit.

Been eyeballing the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS II USM to add some more distance when I need it, but not sure what else to look for. Dont need top of the line, as this is just a hobby for me. I dont make money from photography.

Canon has a good/better/best for that lens.

Good (what you picked out)

Better
[url=http://amzn.to/2h5Yu0S][/url]
Best


There are also ones made by Sigma or Tamron, but I would stick to Canon. My father in law has the best one and loves it. I have no experience with any of them.

Nikon makes a very good, decent priced (just under $1k) super zoom:

28-300

Also a 200-500 f5.6

In general, super zooms (70-300 or 28-300 or 18-200 or anything like that) tend to be softer than lenses with less zoom range, they tend to focus slower and they have maximum apertures of 5.6, which is pretty slow.

For instance, a normal workhorse lens is the 70-200 2.8. While it has less zoom range, it has a better maximum aperture with 2.8. That lens will actually let in 4 times as much light as a 5.6 lens and the aperture will stay constant throughout the zoom. That means when you are at ISO 1600 with the 2.8 lens, you would be at ISO 6400 with the 5.6 lens.

Both Nikon and Canon have good older model 70-200 lenses. I always recommend buying used gear from Keh.com. I don't get a kickback from that, KEH just is very good with their rating of lenses and they have a helpful staff. I know I've spent 5 figures there over the years and never had a lens that wasn't as described.

Have any tips on taking indoor volleyball shots as far as settings go? I've read other blogs about it but my picture always seem not a sharp and also more grainy. Obviously lighting sucks indoors but the place I was at last weekend was ok lit.

Canon 60D - seems to be grainy at ISO 1600+
Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS

The settings I've been using on full manual: 1/1000 SS, 2.8, 1600-2000 ISO.

flintdragon said:

---

Have any tips on taking indoor volleyball shots as far as settings go? I've read other blogs about it but my picture always seem not a sharp and also more grainy. Obviously lighting sucks indoors but the place I was at last weekend was ok lit.

Canon 60D - seems to be grainy at ISO 1600+
Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS

The settings I've been using on full manual: 1/1000 SS, 2.8, 1600-2000 ISO.

---

I've only shot volleyball once.

1/800 did a pretty good job at freezing the ball and at 1/1600th it was very sharp. This was an A&M game in Reed.

The thing with volleyball is you are going to miss more than you hit. I found it best to pick a player and follow them on a play and hope they get a nice dig/set/kill depending on what you are going for. Get a nice one of them and move to the next player. By using that technique, you aren't trying to follow the ball and acquire focus constantly on quickly moving players. You can focus on one player and just follow them until you get the shot you want of them and then move on. This is especially true with a camera like the 60D, that isn't the best action camera. I believe only your center focus point is a cross-type, so stick to that.

To reduce grain, you need to nail your exposure. Bringing up exposure in post will likely introduce more grain. You are better off at ISO 3200 than ISO 1600 and then bringing it up +1 in Lightroom. It sometimes looks more pleasing to overexpose by 1/3rd stop, so test that out, but not if you are going over 3200.

Added a little blog on shooting volleyball along with some examples.

So besides the telephoto above, any thoughts for lenses for macro, wide angle, etc...that would be nice to have in the toolkit that my other two couldnt cover?

Thoughts and suggestions on a good tripod?

Guitarsoup said:

---

1/800 did a pretty good job at freezing the ball and at 1/1600th it was very sharp. This was an A&M game in Reed.

The thing with volleyball is you are going to miss more than you hit. I found it best to pick a player and follow them on a play and hope they get a nice dig/set/kill depending on what you are going for. Get a nice one of them and move to the next player. By using that technique, you aren't trying to follow the ball and acquire focus constantly on quickly moving players. You can focus on one player and just follow them until you get the shot you want of them and then move on. This is especially true with a camera like the 60D, that isn't the best action camera. I believe only your center focus point is a cross-type, so stick to that.

To reduce grain, you need to nail your exposure. Bringing up exposure in post will likely introduce more grain. You are better off at ISO 3200 than ISO 1600 and then bringing it up +1 in Lightroom. It sometimes looks more pleasing to overexpose by 1/3rd stop, so test that out, but not if you are going over 3200.

Added a little blog on shooting volleyball along with some examples.

---

Thanks! Awesome tips.

I'll play with shutter speed and ISO more. I was really worried 3200 would suck because it is close to (if not is) it's maximum. I recently got the 70-200 so I'm not very experienced with it. I've been shooting with a 50 1.4 from courtside which has given me some really nice shots.

If I were to upgrade, do you think 80D? I'd hate to step up to a 7D2 or full frame because of cost.

Love the tip about following a player. It's something I have to work on; that is, not being a fan but a photog. Tough to do when your kid is one of the players. Tournaments are long though so plenty of opportunity to do both.

Cromagnum said:

---

So besides the telephoto above, any thoughts for lenses for macro, wide angle, etc...that would be nice to have in the toolkit that my other two couldnt cover?

Thoughts and suggestions on a good tripod?

---

Read this tripod article by Thom Hogan. http://bythom.com/support.htm


I've bought 4-5 tripods at this point. I wish I shelled out for the good one initially. But crazy expensive.

Really, unless you want to do some long exposure or time lapse stuff, I don't think a tripod is that important.


Canon makes a really good 10-22mm wide angle for crop sensors.

Macro:

Good (crop only)

Good (no longer made, FF or crop)

Better

Best (and it is freaking amazing and also makes a good portrait lens)

If you want it to shoot sports-type stuff, I would get a used Canon 1D Mark III. They can be had in decent condition for under $800. They probably aren't going to depreciate much, so you can buy it, use it for a few years and then sell it again for about what you paid.

Much better autofocus and 10 frames per second. It is 10MP, but that isn't really that important. I shot multiple billboards with it. As long as you don't want to crop a ton and then blow it up to postersize, 10MP is plenty.

Guitarsoup, you've been crazy helpful with this stuff. I remember the OG photography mega thread and it really got me jumpstarted into it.

I'm mulling over either a) upgrading my old canon body (30d) in the next year to a used 70d or b) switching to mirrorless. Has mirrorless caught up yet? not seeing a very diverse or affordable glass selection, which makes me want to stay with full body. I know they make adapters, but i dont know how well those work.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Canon makes a really good 10-22mm wide angle for crop sensors.

---

They also make a 10-18mm EFS now that is half the price and gets really good reviews. But built more cheaply...plastic mount.

I have the 10-22 and love it though. And the extra reach makes it more viable as a walk around/travel lens.

heddleston said:

---

Guitarsoup, you've been crazy helpful with this stuff. I remember the OG photography mega thread and it really got me jumpstarted into it.

I'm mulling over either a) upgrading my old canon body (30d) in the next year to a used 70d or b) switching to mirrorless. Has mirrorless caught up yet? not seeing a very diverse or affordable glass selection, which makes me want to stay with full body. I know they make adapters, but i dont know how well those work.

---

As far as mirrorless goes, I don't think it is quite ready to match up head to head with the DSLRs. Fuji and Sony are the closest. I personally really like Fuji and how the files look right out of camera, but Fuji and Adobe don't play well together and Lightroom doesn't do very good on Fuji files.

Sony can take Nikon or Canon lenses with an adapter, but you lose any real useful autofocus. Sony would be my choice if I was primarily video and wanted to do some stills as well.

I think Nikon and Canon will release FF mirrorless in 2017. Maybe it is a pipe dream, but I think it happens. Nikon is also at their 100th birthday, and I think a flagship mirrorless will be the way to celebrate.

As to what camera within Canon would be the best upgrade, it depends what you want to use it for and if you have a lot of EF-S lenses.

I generally shoot with either a Canon 24mm 2.8 and a Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC, both of which are EF-S. I'm mostly chasing the kid around or in low light indoors and sometimes landscapes. My 30d still works well for the most part, but i really need better/higher ISO quality. The best solution would be full frame, but that would require me getting all new glass which i just cant make that big of an investment in.

The 70D is only going to give you about 1/3rd of a stop better noise handling. Everything else will be light years better. But Canon didn't progress their noise handling on crop sensors much at all.

I need some help. I have a Nikon D90. I primarily shoot standard family stuff such as kids sports (soccer, swimming, lacrosse), vacation stuff (landscapes, posing in front of stuff, night sky, etc...), Christmas, birthdays, and other standard family things. I currently shoot a 1.8 50 mm and a 2.8 28-70mm. These just aren't getting the job done for me anymore now that I'm learning about the camera and photography. I can't afford to spend too much money on a new lens but I'm looking at about $1000-1500 budget for a new lens or lenses. So, what are your suggestions for a good all purpose lens? I'm looking at a 18-300 or a 70-200 2.8. I'm a little concerned about the versatility of the 70-200 and the "softness" of the 18-300. Keep in mind that I really need a true all purpose lens and one that will work with both portrait type shots and landscape shots. I realize that there is not a lens that will do everything I want but which one will get me closest? Should I purchase multiple lenses and lesser quality?

I really enjoyed your previous thread and it was the primary reason I bought the D90 and the lenses I have. I have taken Darrin's class and practice as much as I can but I really rely on the expertise of you experts for my purchases. Thanks.

Quote:

---

These just aren't getting the job done for me anymore

---

How is your current gear limiting you and how do you wish it would be better.


I would definitely recommend the 70-200 2.8 to match up with your 28-70 and 50 1.8. You will have to switch lenses for some things, but that is a really great set of glass to shoot with.

You can get a 80-200 2.8 to save some money. I know someone selling one for $600. It was a very good lens for a variety of things and will be the best portrait lens you would own. I use my 70-200 VR2 all the time for portraits and shot an entire session today with it.

The 50 is great in museums or doing some outdoor photography. The 28-70 just isn't giving me the depth of field I would like and I can't really reach out and grab landscape photos like I'd like. They do a good job, I'd just like to have more tools to increase what I can do with the camera.

I've strongly considered the Nikon 70-200 but I'm a little concerned about the price. That's why I'm considering the 18-300. I briefly considered the Sigma 50-500 but changed my mind. So, you suggest the 2.8? Is that primarily because of the aperture? What is the big selling point when deciding on a lens? I've pretty much decided I really want the Nikon if I can afford it or a Sigma, assuming that is still considered a good alternative brand.

The 70-200 or 80-200 at 2.8 will give you a nice blurry background. The further you zoom in (closer to 200) the blurrier the background will be.

Something like an 18-200 is not going to be a quality lens at all. A Nikon 28-300 is a pretty good lens (cost 1k or more) but at 200mm, it lets in 1/4th as much light as the 70-200.

The 70-200 or 80-200 is going to be significantly sharper than a super zoom and it also lets in a lot more light, which will give you a better blur on your background.

I avoid the alternative brands. Very rarely have I regretted buying the real deal. I've often regretted buying the knock off.

Great info, thanks. 70-200 it is, then.

GS- know anything about mounting DSLRs(or in my case a m43 based camera) on telescopes? Trying to figure out if this adapter is the right way to go to mount the GH4 on to my newtonian that has the 2" focuser rack. Backfocusing is a big problem on newtonians, and if this would mate up correctly, it's probably low profile enough I can use an off-axis guider and still get focus (Don't know if you know, newtonians have an issue with focusing sometimes with a camera, because the blasted focuser intrudes into the optical tube) on my fairly fast(for a newtonian) f/5 OTA.

Midtown SAHD said:

---

Great info, thanks. 70-200 it is, then.

---

I shoot for fun (not money) and own the Canon 70-200 II 2.8 IS. You'll soon forget about how ridiculous it was to spend that much money on a lens when you start using it. Do it.

I has the non is version of that lens, if I ever get back into anything besides astro and drone photography, I'm going to get a converter and run it again. Absolutely adored it.

Also, if you buy it used and take good care of it, when you sell it, you will get about what you paid. It won't depreciate much.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

GS- know anything about mounting DSLRs(or in my case a m43 based camera) on telescopes? Trying to figure out if this adapter is the right way to go to mount the GH4 on to my newtonian that has the 2" focuser rack. Backfocusing is a big problem on newtonians, and if this would mate up correctly, it's probably low profile enough I can use an off-axis guider and still get focus (Don't know if you know, newtonians have an issue with focusing sometimes with a camera, because the blasted focuser intrudes into the optical tube) on my fairly fast(for a newtonian) f/5 OTA.

---

I don't have it anymore, but I bought a 6" f6 Newtonian from Edmund Scientific back in the early 80's. I did manage to take a few pictures through it using a film camera using the focuser that came with it and an adapter. Once cameras started going digital, it seemed the focus plane got pushed back some and it was more difficult obtaining focus. I eventually had to replace the focuser on the scope with a lower profile one, and like you say the focus tube would actually protrude into the telescope's tube a little.

That adapter you linked does away with the need to use a T-ring adapter and claims to be low profile attaching directly to the focuser (although it's not real clear just how it attaches), so it might help in decreasing the path needed to focus. Depending on the subject you are aiming to shoot, you could also use a barlow in the path to extend the focus zone, although that would kind of defeat the purpose of using a relatively fast scope. If it didn't quite work, maybe you could at least return it. It is a bit expensive for an adapter.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

I has the non is version of that lens, if I ever get back into anything besides astro and drone photography, I'm going to get a converter and run it again. Absolutely adored it.

---

I don't have any knowledge of Astro photography