Newbie with question (Page 3): Go with the Nikon. You can borrow your son's lenses and accessories.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

vsidles wrote:

Hi, my name is Vicki. I am from FL and I am the mo... (show quote)

Go with the Nikon. You can borrow your son's lenses and accessories.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

chapjohn wrote:

I would also suggest Sony or Olympus (Sony owns Olympus). However, to say that these camera's are not for pro's and the non-technical is not correct. You will find pro-photogs using both these camera brands. All brands have pros using their equipment.

Sony does not own Olympus, they have invested in Olympus to get access to some of their medical positions, also Olympus is rumored to use Sony sensor's (like others) and there are further rumors that SONY will get access to some Olympus lenses. Olympus maintains a controlling 89% share. "Sony has announced plans to invest ¥50 billion ($644 million) in struggling camera maker Olympus as part of a new joint venture in medical imaging. The partnership, which will see Sony take an 11 percent stake in the company as a whole, will allow the two firms to combine Olympus's dominance in the niche area according to the Financial Times, the company currently controls roughly 70 percent of the global endoscope market with new technology being researched and developed at Sony. The two firms also plan to collaborate in their consumer camera businesses, with Sony providing sensors and Olympus offering new lenses and mirror cell technology in return."

tita1948 Loc: North Idaho

vsidles wrote:

Hi, my name is Vicki. I am from FL and I am the mo... (show quote)

These are very professionally looking photo. You've done very well. Like the others I would sugest going down to the store and just seeing how they fit. Then decide. Welcome.

craggycrossers Loc: Robin Hood Country, UK

vsidles wrote:

That is not me in the second photo. That is my youngest of five grown children and the mother of my grandbaby. The only "kid" that lives nearby us unfortunately. I see them on a regular basis. I shoot her whenever I can because as you can see, she is very beautiful and the camera loves her. She never takes a bad photo.
I really appreciate all of the input here. I expected maybe one or two comments on suggestions....not all of this! I am just blown away.
I have been handling and looking and reviewing dslr's for a long time. For the price range that I can afford and the money I hope to get for the two point and shoot cameras I have, the two I mentioned above were the ones that I am most interested in. Since I haven't had any classes, training, etc, and I do this only as a hobby, I can't justify a large amt of money towards a camera, with the home budget as it is. So I have it narrowed down to those two. I have been leaning towards the Nikon solely because I've used it and had good results.
Can anyone tell me which of the two would be better in low light action shots without use of a flash? I have searched the internet for THAT info to no avail. I thought if someone on the forum uses either of these, they could tell me the answer to that.
My largest grief is trying to get a shot off of my granddaughter while she is on the move, inside the house, which of course, has a lower lighting than say outside. That is my one remaining question on the two cameras. Otherwise, I am def leaning towards the D3200 for the higher resolution. Thank you very much for the input.
PS: The Canon T3i is a bit out of my price range. Hence the Canon T3. Also the Nikon D3100 was my first choice but they have now discontinued it. I heard it had some advantages over the D3200. I currently have a Canon DSC-20H and a Sony P310, both point and shoot, not DSLR. I got the Sony bc I heard that it was an excellent low noise, low light action camera. NOT! Many times my iPhone catches better indoor images!

That is not me in the second photo. That is my yo... (show quote)

Vicki - in low light you need "fast" lenses. If you go with the Nikon D3200 you need to look at Nikkor AF-S lenses that have their own internal motor to drive auto focus. The best lenses for your needs that I can recommend are the Nikkor AF-S 35mm f1.8 and the AF-S 50mm f1.8. They are not expensive (relatively speaking !) and extremely capable.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

vsidles wrote:

That is not me in the second photo. That is my youngest of five grown children and the mother of my grandbaby. The only "kid" that lives nearby us unfortunately. I see them on a regular basis. I shoot her whenever I can because as you can see, she is very beautiful and the camera loves her. She never takes a bad photo.
I really appreciate all of the input here. I expected maybe one or two comments on suggestions....not all of this! I am just blown away.
I have been handling and looking and reviewing dslr's for a long time. For the price range that I can afford and the money I hope to get for the two point and shoot cameras I have, the two I mentioned above were the ones that I am most interested in. Since I haven't had any classes, training, etc, and I do this only as a hobby, I can't justify a large amt of money towards a camera, with the home budget as it is. So I have it narrowed down to those two. I have been leaning towards the Nikon solely because I've used it and had good results.
Can anyone tell me which of the two would be better in low light action shots without use of a flash? I have searched the internet for THAT info to no avail. I thought if someone on the forum uses either of these, they could tell me the answer to that.
My largest grief is trying to get a shot off of my granddaughter while she is on the move, inside the house, which of course, has a lower lighting than say outside. That is my one remaining question on the two cameras. Otherwise, I am def leaning towards the D3200 for the higher resolution. Thank you very much for the input.
PS: The Canon T3i is a bit out of my price range. Hence the Canon T3. Also the Nikon D3100 was my first choice but they have now discontinued it. I heard it had some advantages over the D3200. I currently have a Canon DSC-20H and a Sony P310, both point and shoot, not DSLR. I got the Sony bc I heard that it was an excellent low noise, low light action camera. NOT! Many times my iPhone catches better indoor images!

That is not me in the second photo. That is my yo... (show quote)

Low light and action need to addressed separately Doc.....

..... for low light you're best bet is a fast prime lens ..... the Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8G and AF-S 50mm f1.8G are fairly inexpensive and excellent for low light .....

..... when ya talkin low light action you're in a totally different ball park ..... the 70-200 VR lens is expensive, over $2,000 so from what you have said so far it's not for you financially right now ..... however, there are compromises you can make .....

WayneL Loc: Baltimore Md

I would go with the D3200. Some one came to my house to buy a Nikon lens from me and he had a D3200 which he liked a lot. I thought it looked well made for an entry type camera.

mickeys Loc: Fort Wayne, IN

now i know where she (grand child) gets her looks from grandma. :thumbup: :thumbup:

vsidles

craggycrossers wrote:

Vicki - in low light you need "fast" lenses. If you go with the Nikon D3200 you need to look at Nikkor AF-S lenses that have their own internal motor to drive auto focus. The best lenses for your needs that I can recommend are the Nikkor AF-S 35mm f1.8 and the AF-S 50mm f1.8. They are not expensive (relatively speaking !) and extremely capable.

Thank you for this information! That comes in very handy indeed!

vsidles

mickeys wrote:

now i know where she (grand child) gets her looks from grandma. :thumbup: :thumbup:

LOL....my grandbaby will tell you she "git it from her mama"! I would tend to agree.

vsidles

WayneL wrote:

I would go with the D3200. Some one came to my house to buy a Nikon lens from me and he had a D3200 which he liked a lot. I thought it looked well made for an entry type camera.

Thank you...I know many lean towards the Canon but I have been headed towards the Nikon for a while now. I had not even considered it until I used my sons. Then I was sold. It really handles very nicely. Much like my point and shoot Canon and I prefer that "style". Also the photos came out rather nicely even though it was low light and it was at a reception. I honestly didn't think they would due to the low lighting. They were not as good as the prof photog's but a) she was the pro and b) her equip gave me lens envy to say the least...her camera was something I'd never heard of and extremely expensive (I think they said over $2500). So for hers to come out as they did, I wasn't surprised. I actually expected hers to come out much better than they did with what she paid for equipment!

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

vsidles wrote:

Thank you...I know many lean towards the Canon but... (show quote)

Ya gotta learn how to use wat ya got Doc .....

photog601 Loc: New York, NY

I learned that a really expensive camera is not necessary at all. You can use a pin hole camera and get beautiful shots. It is all in the how you use the F stop, ISO, and shutter speed that matter.

I my humble opinion

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

photog601 wrote:

I learned that a really expensive camera is not necessary at all. You can use a pin hole camera and get beautiful shots. It is all in the how you use the F stop, ISO, and shutter speed that matter.

I my humble opinion

Then why do you have the expensive Canon 5D Mark III,, & Nikon D800?? LOL ;)

schuchmn

The D3100 is still available although officially discontinued:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/730210-REG/Nikon_25472_D3100_Digital_SLR_Camera.html

You'll get technically good results with any of the choices. If you've got access to some Nikon expertise and accessories, go with it. If that doesn't matter, go with what feels best in your hands.

Pepsiman Loc: New York City

Nikonian72 wrote:

Canon or Nikon is like Pepsi or Coke. It usually boils down to personal preference. But if your son already owns Nikon lenses which you can use, that is a distinct advantage.

Agree and welcome to the hog...