Help please need a new camera

[Mortin2011]

Hi everyone,

I do not have much photography experience dont no alot about cameras etc.
What I do no is I want to upgrade my campact digital camera to a digital SLR.
I have 2 small children 2 years and 8 months trying to get pictures off them is very difficult as they are always on the move but as my husband works away alot I like to document as much of there lives as I can.
I am looking for an east yo use digital SLR that can take pictures super fast so I can capture the kids while there running around. I dont have any idea of what makes are best etc so any help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks in advance
Rebecca

[Anbesol]

Two things make cameras "fast". The lens, and the light sensitivity (ISO). All cameras now come with very high ISO capacities, up to 12,800 and 25,600. Lens' on the other hand is one typically overlooked by consumers, but they will make the biggest difference in capturing your kids. A cheap camera with a fast lens will work better for this than the most expensive camera with a slow lens, as the lens dictates not only the shutter range, but your autofocus speed. Having that fast lens does also make things easier.

In my opinion, right now the easiest DSLR camera to use is the Sony SLT (which isn't actually DSLR, technically, but is in the same league and classification of camera). Easiest because it provides you with a live white balance and exposure feedback, with the best live-view mode of the bunch. It also amplifies light for viewing dark scenes. Those are specific features that make producing an exposure much easier. The body's available now are the SLT-A33 and A55, soon to be A35 and A77. Photo-John made the A55 last years "camera of the year" and followed it up with a thorough review, which you can find here: A55 review

However, that said, whatever camera you pick, you really can't go wrong. There are only good options out there, whichever one you go with. I think whats most important for your photography experience is to have a fast lens, which will be more important than which camera body you buy, in producing the images you want. The fastness of a lens is measured by the aperture number, always displayed as a ratio on the lens. The smaller the number, the faster it is.

[volks]

If I may suggest, go and find a good camera shop and talk to the folks there.
Decide on budget, and then your options. Once you have decided on a few cameras that you feel comfortable with run them by us here, and then you will get plenty of great advice.

[n8]

I know when we think of fast we're thinking of how much light the camera can suck up, but I think the OP is thinking actual auto focus and frames per second. I'm naturally inclined to suggest the beloved d7000, but all the controls might be unnecessary for the need. If I remember correctly, those sony's get somewhere around 10-12 frames per second. Not sure how the af performs.

[Anbesol]

Faster lens also provide faster autofocus as well. The AF on the SLT's both have f/2.8 center crosshairs which a fast zoom or prime will make full use of. I dont expect the frames per second will be an issue with kids, 10-12 is almost a motion picture.

Anyway, I guess the OP didn't write their budget, I might be suggesting something way too high,or 'not high enough' (so to speak).

[MNRyan]

I'm naturally inclined to suggest the beloved d7000, but all the controls might be unnecessary for the need.

It sounds like the D7000 would be a bit more than she wants to deal with. I would suggest the NIkon D5100 or if that's a bit too much, then the D3100. Although the best idea has already been given. Like volks said, go to a reputable camera shop (try google-ing in your area and see what the reviews are) and looking the cameras then come back here and we can give a more advice based on some of them that you picked out.

[Anbesol]

Well the original poster has not returned to tell us her progress on the decision.

Ryan, what makes you think the D3100 or D5100 is better qualified for the OP than Nikon's competition? I'd actually think those 2 are the worst option for the OP, at least, if cost and value is important. Neither have an internal AF motor, and the best value, cost, and usable lens for the OP is the 50mm f/1.8. Fastest AF, excellent fairly wide portrait range, no distortions, lightweight, cheap, excellent optical qualities, bright. She could still go for nikon, but to have the same features as its competition she will have to pay a lot more for AF-S designed lens. The 35mm f/1.8 AF-S I don't think is a satisfactory alternative, being that she wants a portrait focused setup.

[MNRyan]

I've lent my D90 setup to some different friends for a weekend and the ones with kids end up wanting a dslr (funny how that works... LOL) and so far the families that have taken the plunge have tested the different manufactures out, granted in store, but the three latest families have Nikon because of the interface. From what I've heard that was the selling point for them. The ease and explanation of the 3000 and 5000 series was the best in their opinions. The other thing is that none of them have expressed much desire to upgrade past the kit lens(es), but I have recommended the Tamron 18-270mm as a pretty good all-arounder, for $480, if they wanted a little more. (sorry, some how this post flew under my radar for a while)

[Anbesol]

I cant imagine someone wanting to get a DSLR and then not wanting to upgrade past the kit lens. I think I could have slept better tonight not knowing that, I find that to be quite disturbed information. Nonetheless, it may be pertinent to the OP, a speculative character at this point haha!

Though that may be the situation, I still think it is bad advice to encourage such despicable behavior, lol. With the exclusive 18-55, the DSLR is just a glamorized point and shoot, almost irrelevant even, especially if portraiture is the goal.

[OldClicker]

I cant imagine someone wanting to get a DSLR and then not wanting to upgrade past the kit lens. I think I could have slept better tonight not knowing that, I find that to be quite disturbed information. Nonetheless, it may be pertinent to the OP, a speculative character at this point haha!

I know people who bought FF Canons with only the kit lens and never upgraded. I don't think that a lens even came with the body. - TF

[Anbesol]

What is a "kit lens" on a full frame anyway? Isn't that the 24-105 f/4 L? I guess thats not such a terrible kit.

Anyway - it is indicative of the times. People think the fancier camera produces the picture, and fail to realize that the optics are the most important part of the image quality and image production equation.