Im looking to get a camera with interchangeble long range zoom lenses. I need to get close up action shots of my kids playing soccer. I see advertised in just about every circular today is the Canon Rebel T3 and what seems as its immediate competition the Nikon D3100x. They are both in the $500-$700 range depending on the "package" it comes with. Are these quality cameras? Or should I look for more expensive models? I am not a pro and do not plan on becoming one. I just want big , clean, crisp, high def pictures. I would like to stay under $1,000 with a 200mm or so zoom lense, but I am willing to go to $1,500 if I have to.

 

 

What are the camera experts opinions?

You can't go wrong with either a Nikon or a Canon DSLR. It's mostly preference and whether or not you already have lenses. I prefer the Canon EOS system, personally, as when I became involved, I could get more features, etc. and at a more reasonable price than Nikon. The bodies aren't that important, it is the glass (lenses) that is. Save money by getting a Canon Rebel body and some good glass... something like a Canon 70-200mm L F/4 lens.

Ok. A Canon Rebel T3i DSLR will run about $600 and the Canon 70-200mm L F/4 lens will run around $630. That sound about right?

Drop in a Tamron 18-270 lens for the kids on that Canon. No missing great shots due to lens changes.

I prefer Nikon myself. Had a D80 and now the D7000. The lens is the most important part like others have said. A good lens will cost more then the camera body. Most of the kits have lower quality lens. Although some still produce some nice images. If your considering Nikon look at the D5100 and a 18-200mm VRII lens(lens #2192) the camera body is $450 and the lens is $850. That should give you a good all around body and lens for most outdoor sports. Indoor sports gets a little tricky. Sure you could pay $2000 for a faster lens but that will come after you get familiar with what you can do with these cameras. Good luck in your search. Not sure where you are located but I recommend a shop in South Hampton Pa called New York Camera and Video. Large selection of new and used. They are also 5 minutes from Classic pistol so you can hit the range the same day.

I use a T3i at work. Get one. You wont be disappointed. Also get a copy of Lightroom. There's a ton of tools for editing photos.

 

PM me if you have any questions.

I use a Canon Rebel T3i myself.

 

Don't necessarily need to drop the bones on an L lens. Learn how to use what you got.

 

I have 3 lenses:

 

Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Kit lens

Canon 50mm f/ 1.8

Tamron 55-200 f/4.0-5.6

 

Haven't needed anything else....

Im looking to get a camera with interchangeble long range zoom lenses. I need to get close up action shots of my kids playing soccer. I see advertised in just about every circular today is the Canon Rebel T3 and what seems as its immediate competition the Nikon D3100x. They are both in the $500-$700 range depending on the "package" it comes with. Are these quality cameras? Or should I look for more expensive models? I am not a pro and do not plan on becoming one. I just want big , clean, crisp, high def pictures. I would like to stay under $1,000 with a 200mm or so zoom lense, but I am willing to go to $1,500 if I have to.

 

 

What are the camera experts opinions?

 

I'm not an expert but like to shoot baseball. With the equipment described above, understand that you will be limiting your opportunities to capture "big , clean, crisp, high def pictures" of "close up action shots". In order to get these results consistently, you will need a camera with a good selection of focusing abilities, a fast lens with ample reach and an understanding of the functions / limitations of your equipment.

 

Even on a crop sensor on most entry level DSLRs, a 200mm telephoto lens may not provide enough reach to capture a tight crop of your child at the far ends of a soccer field. Also keep in mind that an F4 lens may not be fast enough to maintain correct shutter speeds and exposure to stop the action when the ambient light is insufficient -- ie indoor games, darker, cloudy days, etc.

 

Of course you will be able to capture the action when it's within reach with the Canon T3 / 70-200 F4 combo but I just wanted to show you some of the limitations you may find as well.

 

Nikos

 

 

I have a Canon T2i and a number of lenses. The one that stays on the camera the most is the Tamron 18-270 F3.5-F6.3. The other lenses are more for shooting in lower light, movie mode or super wide as they are F1.8, F2.0 or F2.8 lenses.

 

The T3i vs the T4i comes down to basically the touch screen. If you aren't already comfortable with using the buttons on a Canon DSLR to set your ISO, F-stop, whatever, the T4i is easier to learn on but has the disadvantage that none of the other cameras use the same touch screen so you have to learn the buttons if you end up getting one of those.

 

You should perhaps also look at the EOS-M mirrorless camera as well. It's lighter and smaller and frankly, will be the wave of the future. The difference is the size(very compact) speed of the autofocus(slower), battery life( less) but if you start doing movies, the line of EOS-M lenses are specially designed for this. These models are a compromise between a point and shoot and a DSLR. Think of it like a point and shoot that takes pictures at the quality of a DSLR. It probably needs some time to mature yet but the size may appeal to you and if you've never used a DSLR extensively, you won't even notice the drawbacks.

I think im set on the Canon EOS Rebel T3i (comes with EF-S 18-55 IS ll lens kit) and the Tamron 18-270 F3.5-F6.3 combo to get me started. I can get both shipped from B&H for about $1,230. Any objections?

I Have a brand new NikonD3200 24.2 MP look it up and if interested PM me

I think im set on the Canon EOS Rebel T3i (comes with EF-S 18-55 IS ll lens kit) and the Tamron 18-270 F3.5-F6.3 combo to get me started. I can get both shipped from B&H for about $1,230. Any objections?

 

You'll be better off with the Canon 70-200 F4.

 

 

 

 

You'll be better off with the Canon 70-200 F4.

 

Why would i be better off with the Canon 70-200 F4 than the Tamron 18-270 F3.5-F6.3?

 

I was thinking the Tamron 18-270 F3.5-F6.3 be more versatile since it had a broader range, but I am new to this stuff.

Why would i be better off with the Canon 70-200 F4 than the Tamron 18-270 F3.5-F6.3?

 

I was thinking the Tamron 18-270 F3.5-F6.3 be more versatile since it had a broader range, but I am new to this stuff.

 

Since you want to shoot tight crops of your kids on the soccer field, you can forget about all the numbers below ~150mm. The only advantage of the Tamron is the extra 70mm reach it has over the Canon but that also comes at the cost of giving up 2 full stops (6.3 vs 4.0).

 

The biggest problem with the Tamron is the slower autofocus. The Canon lens will increase your chances of capturing the sharp action shots of your kids on the field.

 

Nikos

You'll be better off with the Canon 70-200 F4.

 

No he wouldn't. I had that L lens and sold it. It is nice, clear glass, but more specific in usage.

 

I used exposure plot to analyze some 10k pictures I had taken, 80% of them were at 55mm or less. While my shooting preferences are different from others, I think he'll find way more use of the 18mm end of the Tamron lens than the 70mm low end of the Canon lens. It's a great lens for shooting something 50 feet away, it blows if for anything 15 feet or less and even then on the top end, it doesn't reach out far enough.

As an addendum, having had both lenses at the same time, I didn't notice any amazing focus speed nor any real advantage to the two stops. Also, if he gets the stabilization, he's way above his price range while the Tamron has it at the same price point as the non stabilized canon.

 

I take plenty of action photos with my Tamron lens and when the action is over and groups come up for a photo, I'm not fumbling about putting on a wider lens to get the picture.

No he wouldn't. I had that L lens and sold it. It is nice, clear glass, but more specific in usage.

 

I used exposure plot to analyze some 10k pictures I had taken, 80% of them were at 55mm or less. While my shooting preferences are different from others, I think he'll find way more use of the 18mm end of the Tamron lens than the 70mm low end of the Canon lens. It's a great lens for shooting something 50 feet away, it blows if for anything 15 feet or less and even then on the top end, it doesn't reach out far enough.

 

Umm, the OP wants to shoot tight crops of his kids on the soccer field. Shooting at 18mm will only work if the OP is running on the field next to his kids during a game.

Umm, the OP wants to shoot tight crops of his kids on the soccer field. Shooting at 18mm will only work if the OP is running on the field next to his kids during a game.

 

He says he wants to shoot his kids at a distance, does he not want to shoot them after the game when they celebrate a win or on the bus or at the snack bar wherever? He's not a pro shooting shots of professional players to sell to Getty. He wants to shoot his kids as the opportunity arises.

Yeah you're going to need a high zoom and Big aperature. That gets pricey.

As an addendum, having had both lenses at the same time, I didn't notice any amazing focus speed nor any real advantage to the two stops. Also, if he gets the stabilization, he's way above his price range while the Tamron has it at the same price point as the non stabilized canon.

 

I take plenty of action photos with my Tamron lens and when the action is over and groups come up for a photo, I'm not fumbling about putting on a wider lens to get the picture.

 

Have you shot sports? It sure sounds like you're not in tune with the needs of the OP and features of the lenses. 2 full stops can make a huge difference when the lighting conditions change and image stabilization doesn't do jack squat for objects that are in motion.

 

Nikos

 

Edit: Overlooked your comments on the autofocus:

The expert's review of the Tamron 18-270 say "Slow and occasionally indecisive autofocus".

 

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_18-270_3p5-6p3_vc_n15/4

Have you shot sports? It sure sounds like you're not in tune with the needs of the OP and features of the lenses. 2 full stops can make a huge difference when the lighting conditions change and image stabilization doesn't do jack squat for objects that are in motion.

 

Nikos

 

Yes, I realize all of that. I used to shoot a lot of field hockey at night games on lighted fields. Unless he has a tripod, he's not going to be happy with any shots he gets at the long end of the lens. I used my 70-200F4 lens at a couple of those games and I was not happy with the result. I borrowed a friend's 2.8 version of the same lens and those I WAS happy with but I wasn't going to drop the money on that lens for something I was doing casually for my Niece. I used the Tamron lens at a game and got just as good of results using my monopod and then when it was over and the girls were all hugging, crying, whatever, I got great shots of that at 18mm.

 

What I'm saying is that the benefits of the F4 70-200 lens are not great enough to make up for the loss of versatility compared to the Tamron lens. If you were insisting on the 2.8 lens, I would agree with you but that's out of his price range. Some have complained that the 2.8 lens is softer than the 4.0 lens but of the pictures I took, I could see no noticeable difference between the two.