Camera purchase advice-am I desiring the impossible? - very much an amateur

[megs1082]

I stumbled across this forum and hope you will all forgive my ignorance and VERY amateur status. Know that you are dealing with someone who hasn't used anything but low level point and shoots. I am interested in photography, but currently my time is limited (2 1/2 yr old and baby due in a month). My main focus in wanting to develop skills is to take pictures of my kids. I dislike portrait studio type pictures, but don't really have the means or desire to pay someone to take quality outdoor portraits. I'd like to be able to see that my child looks cute that day and take a few nice pictures! I love blurry backgrounds, (I know it's called bokeh, but I feel like too much of an amateur to throw the term around....just to give you an idea of my true lack of knowledge!) but it doesn't have to be a "quality" bokeh. I really just want to be able to get the focus on my cute kids rather than the neighbors recycling bin stand out quite so much. I'd specifically love to capture good pictures of my soon to arrive newborn.

I recently purchased, and received today, a Canon Rebel T3 with kit lens 18-55mm. I am aware it isn't a professional camera, but thought it might be a good start. I'm having second thoughts though and would like some perspective before I play with it and thus eliminate the possibility of returning it. A few things I'm worried about

1. Will this camera be too complicated for me...resulting in my not really using it that much?

2. The size - while I know it's not a big camera by any means, it's definitely not a point and shoot. I realized when it arrived today, that it wasn't exactly something that would be easy to bring along to the park or zoo on a regular basis. Is there something even more compact and amateur friendly, that will give me the ability to take good portraits of children? What about a four thirds type? Is that only a reduction is size, but I'd still be in over my head?

3. Am I correct in my understanding that the kit lens won't actually give me bokeh very easily?

I guess I'm really just asking if I would be in over my head with this camera...or is it just a matter of playing with it a little? I don't want to end up taking worse pictures with this camera, than I would have with my point and shoot, because I have no idea what I'm doing! Is there another camera you could recommend that would be more in my league? Ideally there would be an advanced point and shoot that would give me what I want so I would be sure to use it on a more regular basis, but my husband tells me I'm dreaming. Would it be better for me to upgrade to a better point and shoot, even if it doesn't meet all my wants?


If you're still reading, thanks and thanks in advance if you reply!

Megan

[inkista]

Originally Posted by megs1082

...1. Will this camera be too complicated for me...resulting in my not really using it that much?

Possibly. dSLR photography does require time and effort to master, because the technique is significantly different from using a point and shoot camera. A point-and-shoot camera helps you out in a lot of subtle ways. You can consider it as analogous to going from an automatic transmission to a stick shift. You have more control, but it is more complex. Most of us who use dSLRs don't think it's that big a deal, but that's why we use dSLRs.

2. The size - while I know it's not a big camera by any means, it's definitely not a point and shoot. I realized when it arrived today, that it wasn't exactly something that would be easy to bring along to the park or zoo on a regular basis. Is there something even more compact and amateur friendly, that will give me the ability to take good portraits of children? What about a four thirds type? Is that only a reduction is size, but I'd still be in over my head?

Yeah, the size isn't going to be changing much. The only dSLR that's smaller than the T3i is probably the Pentax K-r, and it's about as complex. Some of us just get used to carting a camera bag everywhere. Some folks go for the smaller gear. This is a matter of personal preference.

Micro four-thirds, Sony NEX, and Samsung NX are the "mirrorless compact" cameras, and they've got the advantage of using the same-sized sensors that are in dSLR cameras. The current models are also trying to be closer to P&S cameras in their user interfaces, but they can still relatively complex. However, with either these or a dSLR, you can always start out with the camera in AUTO mode, and then learn to take over gradually. You don't have to suddenly master every single button at once.

The problem is that if you want to blur the background out, you're going to have to learn how to do that by controlling the aperture of the lens, and controlling what the camera focuses on. That blur/bokeh you're so desirous of? That's the background being out of focus. You can get anything out of focus, now. So, learning to focus the camera is a must for what you want to do. If you don't want to learn how to do that, you can't get the effect you want.

The mirrorless compacts will be smaller, though, and if you're carting multiple lenses around, will make for significantly smaller and lighter kit. About as expensive as a lower-end dSLR, though. The micro four-thirds cameras, btw, also use a smaller sensor than the one that's in your T3i. So, a little less blurring of the background.

3. Am I correct in my understanding that the kit lens won't actually give me bokeh very easily?

It will give you some fuzziness of the background--but probably not as much as you want. If you want to keep the cost down, an EF 50mm f/1.8 II is probably your best bet. It's about $120 new; $100 or less used.

I guess I'm really just asking if I would be in over my head with this camera...or is it just a matter of playing with it a little?

For me, it would be the latter.

I don't want to end up taking worse pictures with this camera, than I would have with my point and shoot, because I have no idea what I'm doing!

Um. That's probably going to happen anyway, just at first, because this is a different kind of camera. There is a learning curve. I'd suggest looking at Bryan Peterson's book, Understanding Exposure to see if you want to take the time to do this. There's no penalty if you don't.

Is there another camera you could recommend that would be more in my league? Ideally there would be an advanced point and shoot that would give me what I want so I would be sure to use it on a more regular basis, but my husband tells me I'm dreaming. Would it be better for me to upgrade to a better point and shoot, even if it doesn't meet all my wants?

This is just me, but if you really want that creamy/dreamy blurred background look, a larger-sensored camera and a fast lens are the best way to get there. Small-sensored P&S cameras aren't going to do that for you as well or as easily. A mirrorless compact might be a good candidate.

Overall, yes, there is a price to pay to learn to use a bigger camera, but they're pretty much the only way to get the type of pic you describe. The real question is: how badly do you want to blur out that background?

Alternatively, you could also work with your P&S camera to up your framing skills. There's gotta be at least one angle without the recycling bins.

[RichardTaylor]

Edit: Being typed at the same time as the above post.

(1) DSLRs can be very simple to use. Just use Auto to start with, or a scene mode. When you get comfortable with that you may want to try some of the more creative modes.

You may find this tutorial handy.
Exposure (1) A balancing act

(2) Personally, I think the size of a T3 is a little small for my hands (I mostly larger cameras).
However my sister users her larger camera, and my wife uses mine without any problems.
You will notice it at first and you can't just stick it in your handbag.

Some 4/3 cameras are DLRS. Using them is similar to a regular DSLR. They are a lot more compact. I have used one (Olympus E420 )

Some 4/3 cameras are styled like a P&S camera (No viewfinder, which I usually don't like) and they can be very compact (depending on the lens you are using).

Usually the cameras with larger sensors give better results when shooting in low light (if you are not using a tripod)

(3) It's been long time since I have shot with an 18-55 so I can't post any bokeh examples.
This pic (not mine) is about what you can expect (when not shooting close ups) when you have a messy background.

Kelly 2 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

If you have "clean" backgrounds you can get a small taste of bokeh, However good bokeh can be expensive.

DSLRs will can run rings around P&S cameras when it comes to image quality and capturing an image in the first place (they are responsive) , however you may have to works at it and pick up new skills, and they are not hard skills to pick up.
A DSLR can be set up, at a cost (lenses), to be the almost perfect camera for what ever you are shooting.
I do also shoot with a Canon G11 (one of the better P&S cameras around) also.

[RichardTaylor]

Re blurry backgrounds.

See pic #4 in this thread (it will give you an idea of the most you can expect from the 18-55 kit lens) .

DOF Notes:1 - Head shots using a 50mm lens.

[megs1082]

Thank you for all of your helpful replies! I do want to clarify, in case anyone was confused, that the camera I purchased is the Rebel T3, with out an i !

I think I've come to the conclusion that a dslr, while the best option to give me exactly what I want, it too overwhelming for me at this stage in my life. I think, if I had gotten a dsler when my first daughter was an infant, I could have learned with more ease. Babies are willing subjects as they just sit there, smiling and looking cute most of the time. I would have had been able to play around and read during all those lovely newborn naps, but this time I'll have a crazy toddler to work around as well, so I think I would feel more pressured that I should be trying to figure out this piece of equipment that I bought, rather than really enjoying learning it.

This made me laugh!
You can consider it as analogous to going from an automatic transmission to a stick shift. You have more control, but it is more complex. Most of us who use dSLRs don't think it's that big a deal, but that's why we use dSLRs.

When we were first married, my husband talked me into buying a manual vehicle (this was after I'd just moved 1,000 miles away from my family, got a new job etc. etc.), but I'd never driven anything but an automatic. It was a frustrating and overwhelming experience...we sold the car! I think, if it had not been for the pressure of having bought the car, while not knowing how to drive it, and all the other new things going on in my life, I would have been fine with it, but not given my circumstances at the time! Good anology! Maybe I'm easily overwhelmed???

So, this probably leaves me to wanting better point and shoot. I really don't like the one we have Canon PowerShot A495 (purchased to replace an older model that had finally died). It takes forever to "recharge" between pictures, even worse than my 6 year old camera that died. I was looking at the olympus xz-1. While the price is really steep, is it possible that this would be a viable aption as a "get you kind of, sort of close to what you're looking for, but in a simpler format" sort of way? Do you think the learning curve would be just as steep? I know the backgrounds wouldn't be blurred to near the extent of a dslr, but can anyone attest to the olympus's ability to achieve some blur, even for a novice? I do have a question, that I know will prove my complete ignorance - I played around with our bad point and shoot for a couple of minutes this afternoon. I put it in portrait mode, turned off the flash and attempted to get a blurred background. I was able to get a decent blur on an object, by moving the object it away from the background, and zooming in. When I tried the same thing with my wiggly daughter however, all I got was total blur. Would the same thing happen with the Olympus, or would the image stabilization take care of that? Do you think a point and shoot such as the Olympus could be a stepping stone, or would it not be that helpful in terms of learning dslr at some point?

Thanks again!

[RichardTaylor]

It looks like a beautiful little camera. I wouldn't mind one for when I have to travel real light and for general purpose shooting.
Olympus XZ-1 Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

Even though it is a lot smaller I think it would be harder to use than the T3.

(1) Without the optional viewfinder you may find it difficult to track a moving subject.

(2) The review above indicates the auto focus may not be all that responsive (means you may have problems tracking moving subjects). This is an area where DSLRs (lens dependant run rings around P&S cameras)

(3) Image noise becomes a problem at ISO 800 and above. DSLRS like your T3 run rungs around P&S cameras - which make them better in low light (again lens dependant).

I feel operationaly DSLRS are just as easy to use as P&S cameras. You can always start in auto and progress from there on both cameras. In some respects they may be easier as the DSLR will be more responsive.

As far as out of focus background go see the pics on page 8 of the above review.

Image stabilisation will not help with stopping action (subject motion).
For that you need a combination of a fast lens (lets a lot of light in and the Olympus has) and/or good high ISO (camera sensitivity) performance (which the Olympus doesn't - compared to a DSLR) that will allow you to shoot at a relatively high shutter speed to freeze motion.. Without knowing the lighting conditions it would be difficult to say - but would be better than your old camera.

The Olympus could be a stepping stepping stone, however I feel an unnecessary one, unless you wanted something small and compact.

[megs1082]

Richard, thanks once again for your input. You've given me things to think about. Yes, the Olympus's compact size was a major part of my thinking it could be a good fit. Since it's small enough for me to take anywhere it would be something I'd get more use out of, and thus experience.

Looks like I have more thinking to do...

[inkista]

This is just me, but I'd say stick with the dSLR, and just don't expect to pick up everything instantaneously. Yes, it's overwhelming. But it can be wrestled down into bite-sized chunks and figured out, if you take a little time to learn how to use the camera. None of this is rocket science.

You can always post a sample image with EXIF here, and we can give you advice on what settings might have worked.

Obviously, if you can't make photography a high enough priority to take the time to learn this stuff, then maybe a dSLR isn't the right tool for you, and there's no shame in that. But that you're willing to spend this much money/time on finding a camera to give you the results you want pretty much signals to me that you have the dedication.

And no matter what camera you get, if it is suited for this kind of photography, you're going to have to learn this stuff.

My advice? Do the following things.

0). Learn how to hold your camera properly. Nobody ever shows/tells you how to do this, and it makes a big difference on camera stability.

1). Put your T3 into Av mode.

2). Dial your aperture to the lowest f-number you can, and still get a shutter speed of 1/30s or faster.

3). Put your iso setting up to 1600 if you have to (you have a big sensor now. You no longer need to fear the iso settings above 200).

4). Activate only central AF point.

5). Use the center AF point to focus the camera by half-pressing the shutter button and pointing the AF point on what you want to focus on. Once the camera's focused, hold the half-press, then frame the picture the way you want and hit the shutter button. This is known as "half-press and recomposes." Make sure the little AF point lights up red to confirm that you've gotten AF lock.

6). Take a whole bunch of shots, and see if it works.

If this doesn't work, and you still get a ton of blurry shots, then consider blowing $120 on an EF 50mm f/1.8 II. This lens can open up 3.3 stops wider than the 18-55 can at 55mm (f/5.6). 3.3 stops is about 10 times the amount of light (2^3.3). That's the same as multiplying the iso by 10, or using a shutter speed that's 10 times as long, in terms of light in the exposure.

Do the same steps above, only with the EF 50/1.8 II.

To me, you have the right tool for this task. You just need to stop being scared of it. Yes, it's overwhelming. All of us needed some time to learn this stuff. Nobody gets it all right away. But it is learnable.