This momma is looking to buy a camera ?

[bholliman]

My sister recently purchased an SL1 with 18-135 STM lens for use with her young kids (1-8). She is extremely happy with it. This weekend I borrowed it for a few hours and was really impressed with how well it focuses for video. I shot four of our kids playing actively together and the AF and STM performed admirably. A very capable little camera!

It might also be worth waiting a little to see what the EOS M2 holds? Might be just the ticket. I like the current M but couldn't seriously recommend it if you want to shoot video.

+1 As an EOS-M owner, I would not recommend the current M for taking pictures or video of kids. It's a great portable camera for still or slow moving objects however.

 

[Aglet]

If you're not stuck on CANON, there are a lot of other excellent imaging machines out there, worth considering.

Nikon D5300 w 18-140mm if you can afford it, fast, good video, no touch screen tho but does have articulating display.
Nikon D5200 - on price reduction or kitted with extra lenses.
Nikon D5100 if you can still find them- low cost, great images

Pentax K-30 or K-50 with 18-135mm WR lens - tough and weather/spill resistant


Fast focusing mirrorless cameras:

Fuji X-A1 or X-M1 w 16-50mm lens fits in your budget, great image quality, good features, interchangeable lens

Fuji X-E1 with 18-55mm lens, taking it up a notch

Olympus Pen E-P5 with 14-42 lens or one of the many other good micro 4/3rds camera systems

All the above cameras compete well, if not exceed in some cases, any APS-C Canon body out there.

 

[Zv]

If you're not stuck on CANON, there are a lot of other excellent imaging machines out there, worth considering.

Nikon D5300 w 18-140mm if you can afford it, fast, good video, no touch screen tho but does have articulating display.
Nikon D5200 - on price reduction or kitted with extra lenses.
Nikon D5100 if you can still find them- low cost, great images

Pentax K-30 or K-50 with 18-135mm WR lens - tough and weather/spill resistant


Fast focusing mirrorless cameras:

Fuji X-A1 or X-M1 w 16-50mm lens fits in your budget, great image quality, good features, interchangeable lens

Fuji X-E1 with 18-55mm lens, taking it up a notch

Olympus Pen E-P5 with 14-42 lens or one of the many other good micro 4/3rds camera systems

All the above cameras compete well, if not exceed in some cases, any APS-C Canon body out there.

"Any other APS-C Canon body ... " yes but they don't have the lenses to go with it.

 

[mjbehnke]

If you're not stuck on CANON, there are a lot of other excellent imaging machines out there, worth considering.

Nikon D5300 w 18-140mm if you can afford it, fast, good video, no touch screen tho but does have articulating display.
Nikon D5200 - on price reduction or kitted with extra lenses.
Nikon D5100 if you can still find them- low cost, great images

Pentax K-30 or K-50 with 18-135mm WR lens - tough and weather/spill resistant


Fast focusing mirrorless cameras:

Fuji X-A1 or X-M1 w 16-50mm lens fits in your budget, great image quality, good features, interchangeable lens

Fuji X-E1 with 18-55mm lens, taking it up a notch

Olympus Pen E-P5 with 14-42 lens or one of the many other good micro 4/3rds camera systems

All the above cameras compete well, if not exceed in some cases, any APS-C Canon body out there.

You must not have seen the part about wanting to shoot video along with photos.

 

[Loswr]

If you're not stuck on CANON, there are a lot of other excellent imaging machines out there, worth considering.

...

All the above cameras compete well, if not exceed in some cases, any APS-C Canon body out there.

You must not have seen the part about wanting to shoot video along with photos.

Or the part about pictures/videos of a child, and the implied need for fast AF with the capability to track a moving subject, which rules out the mirrorless models listed (perhaps the Oly OM-D E-M1 could do it, but that's out of budget).

Aglet is right about those other models exceeding Canon's offerings in certain cases...such as when you need to push your exposure by 5 stops in post.

 

[AvTvM]

@OP - I would recommend a Sony RX100II based on your criteria as I understand them:

* Budget ca. 700
* not much desire to carry/change lenses
* very good image quality; no problem to pribnt photos, including posters; just not wall-sized advertising posters
* decent AF to capture junior/sports, but no coverage of Olympic Games as a Photo-journalist
* video quality more than good enough for family videos; not for hollywood productions
* full manual control over image capture (in addition to decent auto modes)
* WiFi built in for easy sharing on the net, FB, social media [no Canon DSLR other than the EOS 6D has this yet]

It all comes together in one really good, small and light package in the Sony RX100 II.
Any DSLR you will buy - including the SL-1 - will most likely not be along all the time you would want it or even collect dust at home soon. I am seeing it with a lot of friends.

Yes, tele "reach" will be somewhat limited on the RX-100, but to get format-filling pics of your kid/s running with the ball at the other end of a sports field, you would have to carry a VERY large and heavy lens with any DSLR as well. Un less you are really prepared to do so, I'd advise to stay clear.

Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.

 

[bholliman]

Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.

By all reports the RX100 II is a great compact camera. However, there are some significant drawbacks when compared with Canon Rebels and other current APS-C cameras:

1) Sensor size: The APS-C sensor in the Canon Rebels and 60/70D is roughly 3 times larger than the Sony sensor (APS-C 22.2x14.8mm = 328 square mm vs. Sony RX100 II 13.2x8.8 = 116 square mm). Larger sensors allow for better depth of field control, reduced noise and generally better image quality.

2) Fixed lens vs interchangeable lens: The Sony has a fixed (non-interchangeable) 28-100mm FF equivalent lens. The variable aperture goes from f/1.8-4.9 which equates to f/4.9 to f/13.2 on a full format camera. Not only is the focal length very limiting (28mm isn't that wide and 100mm isn't much zoom), but the maximum aperture is limiting like a typical P&S camera. There will be almost no ability to isolate a subject with a shallow depth of field.

3) The Sony also as an electronic viewfinder vs. the optical viewfinder on the Canon's. With an OVF you are using your eyes to evaluate the scene in front of you, EVF's see a very limited range of exposures compared with the human eye and are not as good in bright light.

Those disadvantages are significant enough for me not to be interested in these small sensor cameras, but I'm sure they appeal to many others who are OK with those limitations.

Personally, I like to have the ability to change lenses and have focal length and maximum aperture flexibility.

 

[KyleSTL]

Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.

The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'? While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II (which is an outstanding camera in its segment):

- Larger sensor (almost APS-C size)
- Slightly longer zoom (112mm vs. 100mm)
- Fully articulated screen
- Slower lens, but equivalent DOF control compared to RX100 II (slightly worse on wide end, and better on long end) because of larger sensor - see below

Heck even the G16 or S120 could be thrown into the mix with a couple of advantages over the RX100 II (at the compromise of a much smaller sensor):
- S120 gains 24mm wide end and goes longer to 120mm (although slower lens at the long end by ~1/3 stop)
- G16 has very fast lens (f/1.8-2.8) and goes to 140mm on the long end (and has very comparable DOF control - see charts above)
- G16 can do 12.2 fps for 6 shots and 9.3 fps for 522 shots and S120 can do 12.1 fps for 6 shots and 9.4 fps for 635 shots (RX100 II does 10 fps for 14 shots then slows to 2 fps)
- Better video compression with Digic 6 processor and more frame rate options (1080p60, 1080p30, 720p30, 480p30), whereas the Sony only does 1080p60 and 480p30

Obvious disadvantages for S120 and G16 are bad high ISO performance, lack of tilting screen, and S120 has significant disadvantage in DOF control compared to RX100 II.

 

[AvTvM]

Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.

The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'? While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II

Yes, you are right. "Remotely comparable". However, I'd take an RX100II any time over a G1X. Not only because of the smaller size, but also because I believe [not checked] that RX-100 II beats the G1X in image quality - despite the sensor size difference. At least at the most frequently used lower ISO settings.

As far as the S-120 or G16 are concerned: they are not even remotely comparable to the RX100-II.

 

[KyleSTL]

Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.

The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'? While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II

Yes, you are right. "Remotely comparable". However, I'd take an RX100II any time over a G1X. Not only because of the smaller size, but also because I believe [not checked] that RX-100 II beats the G1X in image quality - despite the sensor size difference. At least at the most frequently used lower ISO settings.

As far as the S-120 or G16 are concerned: they are not even remotely comparable to the RX100-II.

Granted, the RX100 II has 20 MP (vs. 14MP for G1X and 12MP for S120/G16) so it will have better resolution at base ISO (~20% higher linear resolution all things being equal), but will that make much or any difference at higher ISOs, or printed < 30x40, or shared online? Although, now that I'm thinking of it, the RX100 II will have a FL advantage over the G1X when cropped to 12MP (120mm vs. 112mm).

I agree that RX100 II is a significantly better camera than S120 or G16, but there are a few attributes that favor the latter that are worth consideration (priority will obviously be determined by the buyer/user). The FL advantage disappears for the S120 when the Sony is cropped to 12MP (129mm), but the G16 still has a very slight advantage (140mm).

Overall, the RX100 II is a superior camera to the other three I've listed, but does not have an advantage in all specifications, so I made comparison to outline the Canon options that are available.

To the OP, it would be a shame for you to spend a lot of money on a camera (with instantaneous depreciation) and not be happy with the results (especially in regards to video AF performance). I would suggest looking up reviews and/or demonstrations that highlight AF performance in video (DP Review, The Camera Store, etc) for the various cameras you are considering (ideally all using the same lens). If you go the DSLR route I think all of us can agree that STM lenses are a must (since you're planning on using the video function), with the 70D being ideal, followed by the 100D (SL1), then the 650D (T4i) and 700D (T5i). And remember, no camera you're thinking about is as expensive as buying two if you're unhappy with the results produced by the first purchase. I'm not trying to up-sell you or anything, I just want to give you all the information I have so you end up with a camera that you're happy with.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I've been reviewing and reading for months now and still can't come to a solid decision . I'm a momma looking to buy a nice camera to take pictures of mostly my son with . I would like to be able to record video and take pics at the same time. I don't want to need a newer camera with more features later. Would like to spend around 700ish .. Would like touch screen if that would be easier to use ... I've been told to just get a t3 but I feel I will outgrow it quickly .. I've been leaning towards a 60d... I'm in need of some major direction.. Hopefully I can find it here . Thanks to everyone who helps ;-)

Given your intended uses and priorities:

stills
video
kids
touch screen
700ish

I recommend a T4i or SL1 and 18-135mm STM lens, depending on which size you prefer. This combo will handle stills and video very nicely and is relatively small and light. The 60D is an excellent still camera, but autofocus for video's isn't good. I recommend the T4i over the T5i as they are essentially the same, but the T4i is significantly cheaper.

Visit Best Buy or another retailer and try out the options to see which you are the most comfortable with.

Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.

The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'? While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II

Yes, you are right. "Remotely comparable". However, I'd take an RX100II any time over a G1X. Not only because of the smaller size, but also because I believe [not checked] that RX-100 II beats the G1X in image quality - despite the sensor size difference. At least at the most frequently used lower ISO settings.

As far as the S-120 or G16 are concerned: they are not even remotely comparable to the RX100-II.

I'm not sure any of these compacts are what the OP is looking for. She mentioned she was interested in a DSLR (T3 or 60D). I think all of these options are inferior to any of Canon's Rebel line.

 

[Lesuediane]

I've been reviewing and reading for months now and still can't come to a solid decision . I'm a momma looking to buy a nice camera to take pictures of mostly my son with . I would like to be able to record video and take pics at the same time. I don't want to need a newer camera with more features later. Would like to spend around 700ish .. Would like touch screen if that would be easier to use ... I've been told to just get a t3 but I feel I will outgrow it quickly .. I've been leaning towards a 60d... I'm in need of some major direction.. Hopefully I can find it here . Thanks to everyone who helps ;-)

Given your intended uses and priorities:



stills
video
kids
touch screen
700ish

I recommend a T4i or SL1 and 18-135mm STM lens, depending on which size you prefer. This combo will handle stills and video very nicely and is relatively small and light. The 60D is an excellent still camera, but autofocus for video's isn't good. I recommend the T4i over the T5i as they are essentially the same, but the T4i is significantly cheaper.

Visit Best Buy or another retailer and try out the options to see which you are the most comfortable with.

Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.

The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'? While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II

Yes, you are right. "Remotely comparable". However, I'd take an RX100II any time over a G1X. Not only because of the smaller size, but also because I believe [not checked] that RX-100 II beats the G1X in image quality - despite the sensor size difference. At least at the most frequently used lower ISO settings.

As far as the S-120 or G16 are concerned: they are not even remotely comparable to the RX100-II.

I'm not sure any of these compacts are what the OP is looking for. She mentioned she was interested in a DSLR (T3 or 60D). I think all of these options are inferior to any of Canon's Rebel line.

I would be interested in something smaller if the image quality would be the same. Looking at the eos m ... Seems like a good choice , but what do I know? How long before the newer eos m comes out and what's the price range on it ? The eos m available now isn't more than $400. Would this be a good pocketable camera for me ? What's the shutter lag like ? Continuous or no ?

 

[Lesuediane]

I've been reviewing and reading for months now and still can't come to a solid decision . I'm a momma looking to buy a nice camera to take pictures of mostly my son with . I would like to be able to record video and take pics at the same time. I don't want to need a newer camera with more features later. Would like to spend around 700ish .. Would like touch screen if that would be easier to use ... I've been told to just get a t3 but I feel I will outgrow it quickly .. I've been leaning towards a 60d... I'm in need of some major direction.. Hopefully I can find it here . Thanks to everyone who helps ;-)

I think I am now leaning towards a mirror less interchangeable lens camera . I feel i would benefit from the size . What would everyone suggest. Would a camera like this give me images nice enough for a Christmas card etc ?

 

[Ruined]

I think I am now leaning towards a mirror less interchangeable lens camera . I feel i would benefit from the size . What would everyone suggest. Would a camera like this give me images nice enough for a Christmas card etc ?

I'd suggest not to get a mirrorless camera, as it does not seem a wise investment at this point in time. In the pricerange you are looking for, you will have significantly lower quality and/or less features with a mirrorless. In addition, you will have less lens selection and the potential of the technology becoming defunct in the future due to continued poor sales of this type of camera compared to DSLR, which could obliterate your mirrorless lens investment.

If you are primarily concerned about getting nice images for a Christmas card, for instance, why not just get a point & shoot/fixed lens instead of interchangable lens? That will be small, deliver good enough images for a card, and be much cheaper. And if you want more potential but smaller, I'd recommend a Rebel SL1.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think I am now leaning towards a mirror less interchangeable lens camera . I feel i would benefit from the size . What would everyone suggest. Would a camera like this give me images nice enough for a Christmas card etc ?

Everyone has a favorite mirrorless, but they are all a compromise due to the autofocus. Those with a small sensor will autofocus easier, but struggle in low light, those with a larger sensor have slower autofocus but have better low light sensitivity.
Any of them will take high quality images, no worries there, its just a matter of degree, but for Christmas Cards, even a $150 point and shoot will be fine.
You need to decide if you can use the camera without a viewfinder. Outdoors, in bright sun, can you compose and tell if the subject is in focus using the rear LCD? Some have a electronic viewfinder which come in varying qualities, and most will display a smeared image if the subject is moving.
I would recommend going for a large sensor, at least APS-C.
Mirrorless is just not yet up to the capability of DSLR's. Many have the Canon "M", it is low cost, but Autofocus is much slower than a DSLR. Its easy to adapt Canon DSLR lenses, and there are a lot of them available on the used market. Sony has a bit faster autofocus, but has a dismal service record, 2-3 months is not uncommon for repairs. The camera controls are also confusing. They seem to finally be fixing this with their latest FF model.

IMHO, in the next two years, the market should fall out, and the main players will have something I'd consider as a DSLR replacement. Canon's hybrid dual pixel AF has great promise for making a Mirrorless competitive with a DSLR.

When you consider the size of the lens, the size advantage to mirrorless cameras is diminished, since a good lens will still be the same size for a given sensor size.

If you go to a small sensor, it won't meet your original desire to have something good for the future, small sensors are disappearing.

Here is a good summary of what's good and bad with mirrorless. Be sure to read the section on autofocus, since that can be a big disadvantage if you need fast focusing. The other being the viewfinder.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0344780582/mirrorless-camera-buying-guide

 

[bholliman]

I think I am now leaning towards a mirror less interchangeable lens camera . I feel i would benefit from the size . What would everyone suggest. Would a camera like this give me images nice enough for a Christmas card etc ?

The only mirrorless interchangable lens camera I'm familiar with is the Canon EOS-M, and I do not recommend it for the uses you outlined. I have one it its autofocus does not keep up with active kids. Picture quality is great as long as the subject is not moving or is moving slowly. Same story for video, quality is excellent, but auto focus struggles to keep up.

For shooting active kids, I strongly recommend a DSLR.

 

[jebrady03]

I personally think the M would be a very good choice.

1) CHEAP - thus, if Canon decides tomorrow to cease production, the OP hasn't really lost much. In fact, she hasn't lost anything as she'll still have a VERY capable camera for years to come.
2) It does what she wants it to - takes pictures of equal quality to a DSLR
3) Lens selection - we're talking about someone who wants nice pictures and prefers a one lens solution - NOT someone who is looking to buy an entire stable of lenses to perfectly fit every situation.... ever. The M has 3 very good lenses. Two of which (EF-M 18-55 IS STM and EF-M 22) can be had along with a flash AND the camera for $400 if her timing is right! One is an every day lens for taking places and shooting video (18-55) and the other is her indoor and/or "pocketable" (cargo pants pocket, jacket pocket, diaper bag size solution) lens.
4) Video - the EOS M is a mirrorless version of the T4i. For everyone who said the T4i would be a good solution because of video, you CAN'T say the M isn't equally as good for VIDEO.
5) EOS M2 - when the follow up comes out (presumably with DPAF - which to the OP means VERY good autofocus performance in live view [the only option for the M] and video), it will be substantially more expensive. However, all is not lost. If the OP buys the current M plus the 2 lens package plus flash, the current M basically only costs about $75 in that package and the other lenses plus flash can just be used on the M2 - no value lost at all. That's a disposable price for the camera, IMO. But the camera can still be used (she doesn't HAVE to dispose of it) for times she takes her kid to the beach and doesn't want to risk getting sand in the M2, or other higher risk situations. It basically turns into a $75 lifetime insurance policy.

Keep an eye out for that 2 lens plus flash kit for ~$400 if you decide the M is for you. Snag it (as long as the seller has a good return policy), try it out, and if you hate it, return it and get your money back.

 

[Lesuediane]

I personally think the M would be a very good choice.

1) CHEAP - thus, if Canon decides tomorrow to cease production, the OP hasn't really lost much. In fact, she hasn't lost anything as she'll still have a VERY capable camera for years to come.
2) It does what she wants it to - takes pictures of equal quality to a DSLR
3) Lens selection - we're talking about someone who wants nice pictures and prefers a one lens solution - NOT someone who is looking to buy an entire stable of lenses to perfectly fit every situation.... ever. The M has 3 very good lenses. Two of which (EF-M 18-55 IS STM and EF-M 22) can be had along with a flash AND the camera for $400 if her timing is right! One is an every day lens for taking places and shooting video (18-55) and the other is her indoor and/or "pocketable" (cargo pants pocket, jacket pocket, diaper bag size solution) lens.
4) Video - the EOS M is a mirrorless version of the T4i. For everyone who said the T4i would be a good solution because of video, you CAN'T say the M isn't equally as good for VIDEO.
5) EOS M2 - when the follow up comes out (presumably with DPAF - which to the OP means VERY good autofocus performance in live view [the only option for the M] and video), it will be substantially more expensive. However, all is not lost. If the OP buys the current M plus the 2 lens package plus flash, the current M basically only costs about $75 in that package and the other lenses plus flash can just be used on the M2 - no value lost at all. That's a disposable price for the camera, IMO. But the camera can still be used (she doesn't HAVE to dispose of it) for times she takes her kid to the beach and doesn't want to risk getting sand in the M2, or other higher risk situations. It basically turns into a $75 lifetime insurance policy.

Keep an eye out for that 2 lens plus flash kit for ~$400 if you decide the M is for you. Snag it (as long as the seller has a good return policy), try it out, and if you hate it, return it and get your money back.

Will I be able to change the iOS and aperture and things like that in the eos m ? I am interested in learning how to use these settings As well as shooting in manual mode ?

 

[jebrady03]

Here's a link to that deal: http://1sale.com/electronics/cameras-video/eos-m18-55-22mm/

Shipping with them is slow, but you can't beat the price. I haven't checked out their return policy so do your homework!

Yes, you can change the ISO, aperture, shutter speed, etc., as well as shoot in full auto. The EOS M is literally a T4i without a viewfinder and in a smaller package because it doesn't have a mirror box like a DSLR does.

I find the EOS M VERY easy to use.

 

[jebrady03]

Here is their return policy

Returns
What is your return policy? 

If your product is defective within 21 days of receipt, please contact Customer Service for a return authorization (RMA). RMAs are required for all returns. When contacting Customer Service, please be sure to include the following:

Order number
The product you wish to return
Reason for return (Please specify)
All original packaging if the product has been opened
Would you prefer a refund or an exchange (we cannot guarantee availability)
Products that are listed as Manufacturer Warranty Only under "Specs" require contacting the manufacturer. If the item is defective and still under warranty it cannot be returned.

So, because they're a liquidation site, you won't have the option to return it unless it's defective. So, be aware of that.