Looking to purchase a SLR...need advice About This Page:

[Dave Marx]

I tend to agree that going to the A-300 for the sake of live view may be worthwhile. However, there's no substitute in sports photography for having your eye to the viewfinder. A DSLR viewfinder is faster than the electronic viewfinder, and the camera will be more stable/less shake when it's pressed against your face instead of being held out at arm's length. Live view will turn out to be more useful for night photography, when it's helpful to see what the sensor and camera electronics are actually doing. The A-200 does get good reviews, but I have no experience with the camera.

I have worries about your choice of lens, though. While it may work well for hockey games and other sports, that 75-300 mm (35 mm equivalent to a 107-450mm lens) is just way too long for most photography outside the arena. An 18-200mm (35mm equivalent 27-300mm) would be far more useful for photographing family events, theme parks, etc. The Sony 18-200mm is more expensive than the 75-300 (it takes you beyond your $700 budget), but a lot of that has to do with it being a much faster lens (better low light shooting).

Since interchangable lenses is one of the primary reasons for having a DSLR, I think you have to look at the cost of the body plus all the lenses you're likely to need in the near-term. We all seem to buy more lenses as time goes by, but the question is, what will you need soon after buying the body? If you want to make a major investment in an action sports-friendly lens like that 75-300mm, then you'll need to cover the range below that with a second lens. That's going to put you way over your $700 budget in any case.

My strategy would be to skip the 75-300mm for now. Get something affordable to cover at least 24mm-200mm (18mm-200mm preferred) for now. It'll still be fairly useful for shooting hockey, as long as you have decent seats (honestly, even with the 75-300mm you'd need good seats to get the kind of shots you probably dream of). Learn to take good shots with that, and then decide if you still need a second lens for your sports photos.

[kris10rocks]

Thanks everyone for the great advice! I'm going today to a couple of camera stores to play with them some more. I'm going to check out some Canons and Nikons. See if they are any more comfortable to hold. The Sony fit well in my hands and didn't weigh too much.

I had asked a friend of mine who's a professional photographer what she uses and she said Nikon and Canon. Unfortunately for me she has had very little experience with Sony or Olympus.

I did find online that Best Buy has a package deal with with the Sony A300 and the 75-300mm lens at $130 off....exactly at $700.

[Chikabowa]

You are probably already off looking at cameras... but I thought I'd add my $.02 (which is exactly what my opinion is worth! LOL!).

Personally I find the Live View not a make-or-break option and I wouldn't discount a good DSLR just because it doesn't have that option. I have the Live View feature on my camera (Nikon D3 - pro grade camera) and honestly the ONLY time I use it is when I'm shooting a wedding and I can't get myself into a tight spot to line up my shot. Usually this only happens once in a while. When using the live view, you loose the ability to grab the shot quickly, thus missing the moment; and isn't that one of the greatest things about a DSLR to grab a shot without any delay?

While the Live View is a totally cool feature and it also can be a useful one, but not totally necessary. It significantly drains the battery, is pretty slow and awkward, and honestly... I love the idea of framing my shot in the view finder. There is something about being a photographer and bringing that camera to your face that helps you "see" the world around you.

With that said, there are consumer options out there if you definitely need the Live View - the Sony, the Nikon D90 and Canon 40D (but those two are out of the budget your specified - but if you open up your budget to the $1K range, you can get into the Nikon D90 which, along with the live view option, also sports 1.5 hours of video capture).

So other options to look at would be the Nikon D40 or D60, the Canon XTi or XSi, then the Sony's. The Sony's get a bad report because up until now, the lenses haven't been prolific, but recently Sony has made some huge strides and announcements when it comes to the DSLR cameras and it looks like they are really trying to be the true third competitor to both Nikon and Canon.

HTH!!

[kris10rocks]

Originally Posted by Chikabowa

You are probably already off looking at cameras... but I thought I'd add my $.02 (which is exactly what my opinion is worth! LOL!).

Personally I find the Live View not a make-or-break option and I wouldn't discount a good DSLR just because it doesn't have that option. I have the Live View feature on my camera (Nikon D3 - pro grade camera) and honestly the ONLY time I use it is when I'm shooting a wedding and I can't get myself into a tight spot to line up my shot. Usually this only happens once in a while. When using the live view, you loose the ability to grab the shot quickly, thus missing the moment; and isn't that one of the greatest things about a DSLR to grab a shot without any delay?

While the Live View is a totally cool feature and it also can be a useful one, but not totally necessary. It significantly drains the battery, is pretty slow and awkward, and honestly... I love the idea of framing my shot in the view finder. There is something about being a photographer and bringing that camera to your face that helps you "see" the world around you.

With that said, there are consumer options out there if you definitely need the Live View - the Sony, the Nikon D90 and Canon 40D (but those two are out of the budget your specified - but if you open up your budget to the $1K range, you can get into the Nikon D90 which, along with the live view option, also sports 1.5 hours of video capture).

So other options to look at would be the Nikon D40 or D60, the Canon XTi or XSi, then the Sony's. The Sony's get a bad report because up until now, the lenses haven't been prolific, but recently Sony has made some huge strides and announcements when it comes to the DSLR cameras and it looks like they are really trying to be the true third competitor to both Nikon and Canon.

HTH!!

I've been reading lots of reviews. I have read several that have been recently written about the Sony A300 and A350 saying that they are true competitors to Nikon and Canon like you said.

I'm only 5' so I like they idea of having the Live View. I often hold my camera above the crowd at concerts in order to get photos. It would come in handy for that. I have many friends that are musicians so I often take pictures at their shows. For situations like that I'd like to have one. Other than that I agree it's better to use the view finder.

I like the Canon 40D but it's out of my price range right now. If money wasn't an issue I'd really considering getting that.

I'll be heading out in about an hour. I might have some more questions. Thanks everyone for your input!

[Tonichelle]

40D might be a bit much to start out with anyway

the Rebel series is on par with the 30 and 40 D... I have a Rebel XT and love it...

[modisney]

I love my Digital Rebel. Make your purchase through a camera shop and talk, talk, talk to them about the different cameras, different lens you can add, the types of photos you want/plan on taking etc. Play around with it in the shop. Don't make your purchase the first go 'round. Go back a couple of times. It's an investment and you want to do it right the first time. YOu'll love it once you've made your purchase.