Need Some Help! Advid Kodak User Here Who Needs A New Camera! (Canon EOS, DSLR)

[kerafaith]

Ok so I've only ever used Kodak cameras. And while my Z760 & my V803 are great for quick p & s shoots they're not so great for fast night shots. See we're advid NASCAR fans & we attend at least 2 races a year. We go to the July Daytona race & the labor day weekend race in Atlanta both of which are night races. And, like I said, while both cameras are good during the day when the sun goes down & the lights come on they are seriously lacking. And with the Daytona race coming up in little less than 3 weeks it's got me looking for a new camera that will give me better night shot.

And I know that Kodak has had some troubles & has filed bankruptcy & so I'm not sure if Kodak would be a better choice although I have been looking at the Z990 & Z981.

And while I know that DSLR is really the way to go I just don't have the thousand or so dollars it would take to get started with one. So basically I am looking for a camera that will give me good night shots taken from a distance of speeding cars in low light.

But I am really looking into Canon & Nikon. And I have no idea why but I am tending to lean toward the Canons. However I have found some Nikons that look promising. I've been searching mostly ebay. And am just now checking out the Canon PowerShots SX30 14.1MP & the SX20 12.1MP. But then there was the Nikon D3000 10.2MP w/ the AF-S DX 18-55MM VR Lens. I know it's a DSLR & I think that's what's making me consider it.

Anywhoo. Do any of those stand out as better cameras over the others? Or do I need to look in another direction all together?

I'm don't want to spend more than $300 & would prefer it to be lower than that. So any advice here is totally appraciated & welcomed!
Thanks guys!!!!

[madcapmagishion]

The Canon PowerShots SX30 is a good bridge/superzoom camera whereas the Nikon D3000 is a full fledged DSLR with interchangeable lenses. Consider what lenses comes with the D3000 and how much a good zoom fast f/stop lens costs.(for night shots) And the SX30 may be your best bet pricewise.

[blackhemi]

I would look into a DSLR, The D3000 is a fun beginner DSLR, the biggest drawback for me on the D300 is the CCD sensor. A good step up is the D5000 with the CMOS sensor and its great at high ISO. You would be able to shoot all night long at 1000+ ISO.

You can probably find a good used 3000 or 5000 pretty cheap with two common lenses. the 18-55 and 55-200mm lens.

I dont know much on nascar, but from what ive seen, it looks like the track is lit pretty well, so the 55-200 lens may do OK at taking those panning shots as long as the ISO is bumped up.

When you start looking at zoom lenses that have low f/stops (for low or very low) light, you are looking at HUGE dollar signs.

I see the D5000 on CL all the time with both lenses for 500 or less and often see the D3000 for under 300, but without the 55-200mm lens, just the 18-55.

For what you are going to use it for, you will be more happy with a dslr that just works rather then constantly messing with or getting unsatisfying shots with a p & s.

A few years back, I must have went through thousands of dollars in different p&s before just getting a DSLR. IMHO, it was well worth the few extra hundred dollars. I still use, almost every day, my D5000. I love what that camera can do. Im not a pro, so I dont need the pro versions and the D3000 and 5000 are excellent entry level cameras.

[EinsteinsGhost]

For better night shots, you need two basic things:
1- A lens that has a large aperture at the focal lengths you will be shooting in.
2- A decent high ISO performance.

Those two things are more important than the reach of your zoom. For example, I have two zoom lenses for my Sony SLT-A55:
Sony 16-50mm f/2.8 SSM (my base lens)
Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 HSM (my travel zoom)

While the Sony 16-50's reach is far less than my travel zoom, it has a constant maximum aperture of f/2.8 throughout the zoom range. So, at 50mm, I get f/2.8 and excellent image quality (sharp, free of aberrations and excellent bokeh). My travel zoom, however, has a maximum aperture that varies with focal length (as is true of most zoom lenses). By 50mm, the maximum aperture is f/5. In terms of freezing action, that is a considerable difference (going from f/2.8 to f/4 halves the shutter speed, which is halved again at f/5.6). Not much of an issue in very good light, and if very high shutter speed is not necessary.

I checked out Canon SX30 for you, and it has excellent zoom range. The maximum aperture is f/2.7 and shrinks to f/5.8 as you zoom in. That is actually quite good considering the range of focal lengths covered. However, even f/2.7 (likely available at minimum zoom and whereabouts) is not going to help freeze action much, if you don't get good high ISO performance. But, it may work for you.

P&S cameras can often get the job done. But, IMO, if you're okay with a good camera and open to taking advantage of flexibility of adding lenses (and they don't have to be expensive), I will also recommend those little mirror-less interchangeable cameras from Olympus and Panasonic (they have micro-four thirds sensor, smaller than APS-C sensors, but considerably larger than those used in point and shoot cameras), or Sony NEX-3 (which has an APS-C sensor... shared with Sony's DSLR and SLT cameras, and I picked up a used one with kit zoom lens for $320, delivered). Samsung is also an entrant in this area (with APS-C sensor), but I haven't looked for deals. I have often found people buying Panasonic GF3 for $250-$300 with kit 12mm-42mm lens (24mm-84mm full frame equivalent). PM me if you are interested in places you could look for them.

These interchangeable cameras have a major advantage. They are so easily adaptable to use virtually any lens out there, that lens hunt becomes addictive. You can find relatively inexpensive fast lenses from old film cameras for a fraction of the cost of new. But of course, if you don't want to overspend, then P&S options cannot be beat.

[kerafaith]

okay so I DO really want a DSLR. Like I said I just can't afford to fork over the $1,000 & up to get a really good one. We have a bonus points program at one of my jobs, where for doing good on mystery shops & good inventories we can earn points every quarter. That's the potential for 6,000 points a year. We can use those points to purchase things such as cameras (DSLR's included) & so my ultimate goal is to save up my bonus points & get a good DSLR camera.

That being said I have found a few older DSLR cameras for less than 350 that I have thought about getting to learn on. What do you guys think about a Canon EOS 20D or a Nikon D40? Also like what would the optical equivelant of the 18-55mm or the 55-200 or 300 mm lens' be? Like I am assuming the 18-55mm is pretty much the 4x optical zoom equivelant, yes, no, maybe?

I've been trying to read up on DSLR cameras and how to use them. So I mean I want to learn them. I really love taking pictures & feel that DSLR is the way to go. I just really have noone to ask opinions & to play with their cameras & equiptment before purchasing so I am turning to you guys.

Thanks again for all of the advice. It really is appraciated.

[blackhemi]

I dont know Canons, other then I know they make great cameras as well as Nikon.

Either way, The D40 imho, is a great entry level to DSLR. Its going to introduce you the all the different modes, including some of the more fun and difficult shots you may be trying to get at the track. It will be a blast to use.

18-55 will not be any zoom equivalent. Around 50-55mm, it will be near actual view. 200mm will be close to 4x optical and shooting at the track, 200mm will be the minimum you would want. Other than my prime lenses, my 55-200 is still one of my favorite all around lenses when shooting outdoor stuff.

this was the only example I have that may be close to what you may be trying to do with nascar. This was on a highway in Washington, car was doing around 80ish. this is with the 55-200mm. this was 1/30 second held in had at f/29 and ISO 400. It was overcast, and I has a lot of room to play with. I could have opened up my aperture a lot more (the f/xx), with the CMOS sensor, I could have bumped it to ISO 1000 with no issues and this would have made a much quicker shutter speed.

[EinsteinsGhost]

As far as focal length equivalence goes, the key is in the size of the digital sensors and the field of view. In full frame digital (or old 35mm film) SLR, a 28mm lens offers a certain field of view (or angle of view). The same lens, on a camera with a smaller sensor, will result in a smaller field of view. So, “optically” there is no change. The focal length is still the same. It is the field of view that has changed. How much? That depends on the size of the sensor.

Nikon DSLR and Sony DSLR/SLT/Mirror-less cameras that use APS-C sensor are said to have a crop factor of 1.52x. This means that the full frame sensor is 1.52x larger than these APS-C sensors. Canon’s APS-C sensor has a crop factor of 1.6x.

A consequence of this is that the field of view through the same lens (note: focal length is unchanged) gets multiplied by that crop factor. So, an 18mm lens on APS-C DSLR has the same field of view (FOV) as 28mm lens does on full frame digital (or 35-mm film) SLR. Likewise, 55mm on APS-C has a FOV similar to about 80mm lens on full frame digital/35mm film SLR (hence the term: 35mm-equivalent).

So, 55-200mm lens on APS-C DSLR will give you the same FOV as 80-300mm lens on full frame digital/35mm film SLR.
While a few DSLRs have full frame sensors, and most have APS-C, the little mirror-less “micro-four thirds” (MFT) cameras I alluded to earlier, have still smaller sensors. Actually, these sensors are half the size of full frame sensors, for a crop factor of 2x. So, you will see their lenses rate 14-42mm for a full frame equivalent of 28-84mm zoom.

IMO, these MFT cameras are a great compromise between the size and bulk of DSLR and compactness of point and shoot zoom cameras. You should take a look at these cameras as well. Note though, that often Sony NEX cameras gets counted with these MFT cameras because of its tiny size, but it has an APS-C sensor so the lenses tend to be bigger.

There are a couple of advantages with these MFT cameras:
-They are small, and light, and offer DSLR flexibility.
-They are extremely adaptable. You can find an inexpensive adapter to use pretty much any lens on these cameras. The other side to adaptability is that these old lenses will have to be operated manually (which I thoroughly enjoy, as my NEX-3 is just as good when it comes to adaptability).

But, for your action shots, you likely want not just good low light performance but also fast lenses. And if you pick up a 135mm f/2 Canon lens, for example, you can put it on a Panasonic GF3 and have an equivalent of 270mm f/2 lens! That will make for a very fast set up (the challenge being, whether you’d be okay having to work with the lens manually).

With regards to zoom range, if you go with a camera with APS-C sensor, 18-55 will get the job done, but for sports/auto racing, you probably want the reach of 200mm to 300mm unless you can get very close to the action. The other challenge with lenses as I mention earlier is, maximum aperture. These cheaper lenses do not offer large apertures (a typical 18-55mm kit is rated f/3.5-f/5.6). They will be fine in bright, sunny conditions, but not so much after dark or indoors when you must boost up the ISO.

Here is an example when I was using a fast telephoto (Minolta 200mm f/2.8 G mounted on Sony A55) but still did not have enough reach (free tickets = you get to sit far from action), and the image is heavily cropped. The lighting, obviously, was challenging. Boosted the ISO to 3200 as I wanted to freeze the action.



PS. If my lens were faster, say, f/2, I wouldn't need ISO3200 and get the similar result at ISO1600.

[kerafaith]

I know it's been almost a year but I really didn't want to start a new thread if I could help it. So long story short I ended up last June buying the Kodak Z990 but then at Christmas I got the Canon Rebel T4i, it came with the 18-55mm lens.

So now I am looking for opinions on buying refurbishied lens. Good idea, bad idea?

I'm eyeing the canon 55-250mm is lens on Amazon. But new it's normally $299 ($249 right now with the price cut) however refurbishied starts at $135. So if I could get it for less than 1/2 the new normal price I would like to do that. But I am not sure how good of an idea it is to buy refurbishied lens. And with the races in Daytona coming up the 1st week in July I really need to make up my mind so I will still have time to learn the camera and the lens before the race.

The one I am looking at is: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS II Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-55-250mm..._se_p_t_1_X7VS

[Poncho_NM]

A difficult decision. I bought my Canon T5i with the two "kit" lens's, the 18-55mm and the Canon EF-S 55-250mm. Works well for me, you could spend a lot more for optics. Some refurbished lenses come with a warranty. I have been quite pleased with Amazon over the past 10 years on a lot of purchases. I bought a used Cannon lens in 1998 at a local camera shop which turned out to be a good deal.

Lot of options and opinions out there.

CORRECTION: I bought a year ago, T3i not T5i. I must have been dreaming....