Question about camera to Tom.

[risepmj]

Hi Tom.
I'm sorry not to posting lifting video.
I have a quick question about camera.I'm looking forward to buy a new camera to take a some pictures and take a lifting videos for youtube things.
After googlings,i thought Canon EOS 80D is good enough to me with 18-55IS lens.It's about 1100$ish.
What's your opinion about this product?
Or do you have any other recommended product when a budget is below $1500?

Thank you so much.
-MJ

[Tom Campitelli]

I would probably get something less expensive for my first DSLR. I am a Nikon shooter and am more familiar with their products, so bear that in mind. If I were you, I would probably go with a Nikon D5600. It costs a good deal less than the 80D, has a flip out screen, and has specifications that compete favorably with the Canon. I would also buy the Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 DX lens. This will allow you to take pictures in darker places, such as gyms. Both cameras are excellent and the image quality between the two will be all but identical. The cheaper body plus the faster lens will produce better pictures than the more expensive body with the slower lens. Most D5600s come with the 18-55 mm lens anyway, so you will have two lenses at the end of the day and still have spent less money than on the Canon. That's what I would do.

[risepmj]

I searched about Nikon D5600,and It looks like a greater product comparing other same priced product,even higher priced products.Specifications is great and affordable.
I will start my DSLR life with it.
Thank you so much again Tom.Я люблю тебя.

[Tom Campitelli]

Я люблю тебя.

You are a funny dude, MJ. Enjoy the camera.

조심하세요

[madmaxaus]

Sorry to piggyback this thread.

My wife's DSLR has just died, and we're in the market for a new one. She's a long time Sony user, but we are looking at Canon and Nikon.

We travel quite frequently, and the bane of my existence is standing around while she unpacks a camera bag, changes lenses and takes a single photo. I've mentioned the idea of a more compact mirrorless DSLR. Have you any experience with these? I don't want to be responsible for the backlash if it's sub-par!

[Tom Campitelli]

If you want a dSLR, the only real games in town are Canon and Nikon. They have full systems instead of just a well-specified camera body. The mirorless cameras are compelling in their own right. In fact, the Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras are generally more competent video cameras than their big brother dSLRs. The dSLRs, be they crop sensor or full frame, will always outperform micro 4/3rds and smaller sensor sizes because of physics. However, as everything gets better, the smaller sensors produce better and better images.

If your wife wants to take pictures inside where the light is not very good, likes portraits with a sharp subject and a pleasantly blurry background, or wants to take any action shots, get a dSLR. If video is her jam and she wants something smaller, consider a Panasonic m4/3. If she has a lot of money invested in Sony lenses, I might stay with Sony. By a lot of money, I mean $500 to $1,000. I am biased here, but I think Nikon's crop-sensor, lower-priced dSLR bodies exceed the Canons as far as menu organization, feel of the camera, and availability of useful lenses goes. Reasonable people will disagree with me on this. As you get into the $1500+ bodies, especially full frame bodies, it becomes murkier. Both Canon and Nikon have great stuff. I still prefer how the pictures look out of the camera on the more expensive Nikons as well as the Nikon lenses, but Canon arguably has a better lens mount and does video better.

In the realms where most people are willing to buy, I think the Nikon D5600 is a pretty compelling camera. If she doesn't want to be able to wirelessly send images to her smart phone, she could save a few dollars and get the D5500.

[Barry Charles]

.

In the realms where most people are willing to buy, I think the Nikon D5600 is a pretty compelling camera. If she doesn't want to be able to wirelessly send images to her smart phone, she could save a few dollars and get the D5500.

I have a D5500 and it has wifi to phone. Fairly clunky to get everything talking.

What's the one lens to rule them all recommendation?

[Tom Campitelli]

Alas, there is no one lens to rule them all. There are only differing capabilities and compromises. What is it that you want to do?

[Barry Charles]

Alas, there is no one lens to rule them all. There are only differing capabilities and compromises. What is it that you want to do?

Lately I've been taking a lot of youth hockey photos. I'm often a score keeper, penalty box, or help on the bench, so I'm usually not shooting through dirty plastics glass. Just tyring to take advantage of my vantage point. The low and artificial light is ok with the new digital gear. But the background behind the player is annoying. I've been zooming in to get the least depth of field but then the aperture gets smaller. So a fast zoom lens at the longer range (not wider). Fast lens are sooooooo freaking expensive. I read somewhere that you can use a short fast lens (cheaper) and expand the crop latter?

Thanks! (the moms always buy the commercial photos regardless of what I do. The pros always shoot through the plastic/glass but they have big racks of lights bounce off the ceiling, and multi thousand dollar lenses).

[Tom Campitelli]

I have bad news for you. If you want to make good shots in those conditions, you are going to have spend a lot of money. A lot. You need a 70-200 f/2.8. The previous generation Nikkor, which happens to be the one I use, goes for $2,100. My apologies. On the bright side, that is about $300 less than what I paid for mine over 6 years ago. Amazing. Same great lens, six years later, $300 less. The new version of the 70-200 goes for $2,800. Your pictures will not be $700 better, so I would get the older one. In another plus, if you put the 70-200 on your D5500, it has an effective reach of 300 mm due to the crop sensor. The 70-200 is an absolutely amazing lens and even after owning it for 6 years, I still marvel at how awesome it is. Unless photography is really your jam, however, it is probably too pricey.

In the realm of what semi-reasonable people might consider, there is always the 85 mm f/1.8. It is faster than the 70-200, but it doesn't zoom, and does not have the same reach. It costs $475. It will get you a little further down the ice than the kit lens, blur the background, work well in low light, and will look great.

As I said, there is no one lens to rule them all. Pick your poison.