I know what the hell I'm doing, I just need a camera that will reduce noise and provide cleaner pictures with better colors and resolution, enough to cover entire pages in an yearbook. Keep in mind I'm a high school student that needs to take pictures of school events. I'd be willing to rent lenses if that's a possibility. I just don't know which SLR is actually going to work, and what the different lenses are used for.
I've worked with SLRs before, but that was with a teacher looking over my shoulder to adjust the camera to work for me. Changing lenses, and adjusting all those things like ISO and white balance. Now, I want my own SLR, to work by myself.
What do you guys think about a Nikon D60 with an 18mm-55mm lens, and a second 55mm-200mm lens? Would that cover a wide enough base of situations?
Keep in mind that I'm just getting the basic camera for now. Lenses, flash, and other stuff will come later, after I've had more experience.
Great responses guys, keep them coming.
I know I'm going to sound like a snob, but i have to point out where you need more understanding, so you can figure out what is what between dSLRs and point and shoots.
You say "I know what the hell I'm doing." let me tell you, EVERYONE says this, and I've only found this to be the case in about 5% of the people I meet. Those people are scary
Take a step back and really evaluate where you are in your photography experience, and you'll go way further. This is advice from practical experience... Anyways, off of my soapbox.
A dSLR is not going to "reduce noise" for you in all cases. First, understand where noise comes from. The reason a dSLR typically looks cleaner is simply because the sensor is HUGE compared to your P&S cameras. However, you'll notice that some P&S cameras have a higher MP count! This means they're cramming a higher number of pixels on a smaller area. Obviously the resolution of each pixel on the dSLR is of a higher quality (this is a gross, gross simplification, but I think it illustrates the point). This is where the clean images come from. However, once you bump up your light sensitivity, the camera is going to get more noise. This is more or less (simply) because the camera is trying to capture more information in a reduced amount of time (than it would "prefer"). [again, another gross simplification] You WILL see noise at low light levels (which also depends on aperture of lenses!!! [this is a very important point]). On your budget, I can nearly guarantee you're going to see just as much (if not more) noise in a lot of your photos if you are trying to take control of them. High school sports are typically poorly lit (you'll know once you start shooting) and dances, indoor portraits, etc, are going to experience the same thing. You're GOING to see noise unless you are investing in nicer glass (f/4 max, f/2.8 and better is going to be nicer to you).
I'd like to also expand on the "quality of MP" point. A 6MP dSLR is already more than enough. You can print poster sized photos at high quality with a 4MP camera. the original 1D camera from canon is still the workhorse of several (sports included) professional photographers. It's about a 4 MP camera. Understand what "MP" means versus picture quality. It is NOT the same in P&S world vs dSLR world. You are simply not going to be limited by any current dSLR in MP count. Believe it.
Your colors and resolution might be better, but that can all be adjusted NICELY in post processing (hit the computer labs up!). Your P&S is just as capable, but the one big difference is that your P&S is going to do a LOT of adjustments for you in which you have
NO control over. Go into photoshop and tweak. It IS part of the process, especially in dSLR world. Many of the "wow" images you see have been worked on slightly.
Full pages of a yearbook: Easy with a good P&S. You've got the resolution, all you really need is the LIGHT (IMHO). You're going to get grain and slow shutter speeds (i.e. blur) due to light. If you can try and take control over some of your settings (ISO, shutter speed, etc [Note: Most P&S have a rudimentary manual setting]) you should try this. The Canon G series is a pretty good in-between camera series in this aspect.
If you do go the dSLR route (which you probably will, no one ever takes my "real-world" advice
), you will probably have to resort to renting lenses. On your $800 budget, you're probably going to go over just with lense rentals. That is money that you will NEVER get back. IMHO, you need to stretch your budget and pick up a nice sports lense. I'm talking about a 70-200 4.0L at
LEAST (This lense is about $500, and it still won't cut it in most sporting events [This is assuming you go the canon route]). Other options: Sigma 70-200 EX f/2.8, Canon f/2.8L ($1500)
Nicer lenses and a good understanding of your camera settings is the ONLY way you will be able to "freeze action" in sports venues. Especially outdoor lit ones. You'll have NO PROBLEM in outdoor, sunny conditions. Indoors, forget it.
As far as your nikon suggestion, it's going to be A-OK for everything but sports, probably. You're going to get harsh party photos, too, unless you want to invest in a REAL flash. The onboard one will blow things out, and skin tones will be very pale. It'll work for a yearbook, though, which are rarely printed at high resolution(s) anyways. The 18-55 mm lense will stay on your body for most everything, it's a good zoom range for a 1.5x crop factor. You'll get most of your yearbook shots from it. Again, the limitation is the aperture. The aperture is simply the "iris" of the lense, in other words, how much light it lets in. The iris is small, so you're going to have less light to work with, which means slow shutter speeds. You're probably going to have to shoot pretty stationary objects (indoors). Outdoors you can shoot just about anything you want (including sports). Same goes for the 55-200. Outdoor, sunlit sports are going to be awesome, but indoor (basketball) or outdoor lit (night football games) are going to be a nightmare for you. You may be able to capture some images (High iso [1600+] with fast shutter speeds (1/640s or more), but they're going to be noisy as crap.
To specifically answer your question:
My recommendation would be to: get rid of some criteria, then you will feel very happy. If you struck out sports, you'll probably be fine with the proposed solution. However, if you're hellbent on being the "all around" photographer, you're going to need either a nicer setup, or you're going to need to settle for less than stellar photographs. You will be JUST AS technically limited by your equipment on your budget.
However, if you held a gun to my head and asked me to make a recommendation:
Canon XTi or XT, the XSi is out of your budget. Get the IS kit lense (decent start for the price) and a 70-300(cheapy). You might be able to squeeze a 50-150 f/2.8 for that price. I'd also include a 50mm f/1.8. That lense will get you through a lot in a lot of situations, but there's no zoom
That's the best you can possibly do for the price. I'm obviously a Canon guy, but I think the Canon systems (for what you are doing) are going to be slightly better. The night sports are going to suffer under crappy light situations a little less than the Nikon cameras [IN THE SAME BUDGET!!] (Better high ISO noise management in the low end ranges). If you really want to shoot sports, and don't mind going used:
Digital Rebel 6.3MP (Yes, this is more than enough) or a Canon 10D (You'll like this one). ~$200-300. 70-200 f/4L ~$500, 50mm f/1.8 ~$70. That will be a killer setup, sharp, contrasty images, but you're going to be limited on your short end. If you can squeeze in a kit lense ~$60 used (18-55mm NON IS) you'll have a pretty good kit, but it'll be slightly out of date in terms of "high tech," but it 100% does not matter in the right hands.
