• Last Updated:
  • Dec 19th, 2014 5:30 pm
Tags:
None
[OP]
Member
Mar 14, 2009
275 posts
44 upvotes

Camera for the wife

I'm sure it's been asked before, but I don't see anything recent and I thought I'd give it a try...

I'd like to buy my wife a new camera for Christmas, she's had a tough year and I want to get her something really nice and I just got a decent bonus at work. I was poking around ConsumerReports and some of the highest rated ones are "full frame" units - I did some further research on this and it seems to me they are terrific cameras, they can be a little difficult for novices to get the best out of, especially if they're not willing to carry multiple lens around.

Is that generally correct? She loves to take pictures, but I also know she won't want to have a bag to carry around and swap out. I'd say my upper end is around $2000 - again, she's had a tough year.

Any help or direction will be appreciated (and thanked)!
27 replies
Deal Addict
Feb 16, 2006
3736 posts
912 upvotes
Vancouver
Tell us what experience your wife has with photography. A total novice?

And.... what do you think she will want to take pictures of? Crafts? Kids? Sunsets? you? Action shots? Wildlife?
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 17, 2012
2112 posts
271 upvotes
In another world
You may want to look for a mirrorless camera. Most new models are compact and stylish yet powerful.
[OP]
Member
Mar 14, 2009
275 posts
44 upvotes
NewsyL wrote:
Dec 12th, 2014 4:12 pm
Tell us what experience your wife has with photography. A total novice?

And.... what do you think she will want to take pictures of? Crafts? Kids? Sunsets? you? Action shots? Wildlife?
I'd say very close to a total novice. I think I got her a class (like literally one class) a few years back. We use a Lumix fz35 now and she's mentioned she'd like something a little faster in regards to the picture and takes "better pictures".

She takes a lot of nature shots, but also wants to take pictures of our son on the ice and playing soccer.
Deal Addict
Jan 19, 2008
1696 posts
224 upvotes
x100T probably good choice or a7r/s
Wedding & Child Photographer ~ happily photographing
Member
Sep 28, 2009
420 posts
46 upvotes
GTA
My wife has a Nikon D3100 with a Tamron 18-270 lens that she loves. She can pretty much just shoot with that. I can make use of the various settings if I want. She mostly just shoots on P which works just fine. If I am not around she puts it on Auto.

There is a newer version of the lens which is a Tamron 16-300 which has decent reviews. The extra zoom will help on the soccer field and it gives you a lot of flexibility as well.

You could also sign her up a class at local high school or community college. Also the Henry's courses are a one-off and they can help..

I don't know enough about the mirrorless cameras to comment on those. Just giving you some options.

Good luck.
Deal Addict
Feb 16, 2006
3736 posts
912 upvotes
Vancouver
Hockey! For a Canon/Nikon/Sony DSLR type body probably the best SLR type lens for dealing with those low light conditions found in municipal arena's is a 70-200 f2.8 which run about $1300 to 1600 for a latest model Tamron or Sigma with the fast and quiet built in motors and stabilization. Similar lens from Nikon, Canon, Sony will cost $2000+.

Sigma has a 50-150 f2.8 that works fairly well for hockey arenas as well and it can be found for about $900 for most Canon or Nikon bodies.


For the mirrorless 4/3 sensor bodies, I think pricing is also in the $1800-2000 area for a f2.8 40-150. Then you have to add a body to that - you can get a basic body for about $400 or go high end to something with a fast autofocus system like a Panasonic GH4 for about $2000.

I'm not familiar with the offerings from mirrorless providers like Olympus and Panasonic. Maybe someone else can comment. Looks to me like Olympus makes some top end f2.8 lens which Pansonic does not offer but I'm not sure they 100% interchangeable - I think they are but don't know for sure.


If you think she'd prefer a better all in one (similar to the FZ35) so that she is not having to change lens, consider the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. It has a 25-400mm zoom equivalent so is good for hockey rinks and baseball fields but a little short (not much) for full size soccer fields once the kids get to U13 or whenever they transition from half fields. For dealing with low light it also has a much bigger sensor than the FZ35 so less noise at higher ISO's like you will find yourself using indoors and the lens is a f2.8-f4.0 so not too bad for gathering light. It also has a much faster autofocus system than the FZ35 as it uses some of the latest technology found in the lauded Panasonic GH4's AF system. The FZ1000 also offers 4K video recording. It is also lighter and smaller than a DSLR with a 70-200 lens so your wife may find it less fatiguing to carry around for a couple of hours - and less attention grabbing without the big lens out front.

.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 24, 2004
8683 posts
564 upvotes
Toronto
pfizer wrote:
Dec 12th, 2014 4:02 pm
i'm sure it's been asked before, but i don't see anything recent and i thought i'd give it a try...

I'd like to buy my wife a new camera for christmas, she's had a tough year and i want to get her something really nice and i just got a decent bonus at work. I was poking around consumerreports and some of the highest rated ones are "full frame" units - i did some further research on this and it seems to me they are terrific cameras, they can be a little difficult for novices to get the best out of, especially if they're not willing to carry multiple lens around.

Is that generally correct? She loves to take pictures, but i also know she won't want to have a bag to carry around and swap out. i'd say my upper end is around $2000 - again, she's had a tough year.

Any help or direction will be appreciated (and thanked)!
RX100.

Edit: Sorry, just saw the hockey bit. RX100 wont be ideal for hockey, you'd probably want a DSLR with a fast long prime or something similar. Indoor sports is really demanding of equipment, you need quick focussing as well as low light performance. How about grab her the RX100 first, she can carry this with her everywhere she goes. Then once she "learns the ropes" perhaps consider a dedicated sports camera.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 11, 2008
3361 posts
136 upvotes
Toronto
KevC wrote:
Dec 12th, 2014 9:28 pm
RX100.

Edit: Sorry, just saw the hockey bit. RX100 wont be ideal for hockey, you'd probably want a DSLR with a fast long prime or something similar. Indoor sports is really demanding of equipment, you need quick focussing as well as low light performance. How about grab her the RX100 first, she can carry this with her everywhere she goes. Then once she "learns the ropes" perhaps consider a dedicated sports camera.
Since we're on the topic, does anyone know if its worth getting the RX100 ii or iii versus the RX100 i. The lower price is drawing me to the RX100 but I want the wifi option and I'm not sure how the IQ is different among the three models. If anyone could provide some insight that would be great.
Sr. Member
Jun 6, 2007
546 posts
29 upvotes
buy her a 200-300 camera she wont be able to tell/produce the differnece
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 5, 2007
4764 posts
971 upvotes
416
windforcexx28 wrote:
Dec 13th, 2014 2:38 am
Since we're on the topic, does anyone know if its worth getting the RX100 ii or iii versus the RX100 i. The lower price is drawing me to the RX100 but I want the wifi option and I'm not sure how the IQ is different among the three models. If anyone could provide some insight that would be great.
With the iii a little loss in reach.

With the iii you get evf, wifi, tillable lcd, built in ND filter...and it's 3 years younger than the i. I had the i and got a iii. Brought back the 1 as for me the features I wanted were justified.

To be honest I've rarely touched my 7d in the past 2 months since I got my rx100.

Edit: here's a site u might find helpful.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=w ... 3G0hjxjKYw
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 6, 2003
11674 posts
2555 upvotes
Ottawa
windforcexx28 wrote:
Dec 13th, 2014 2:38 am
Since we're on the topic, does anyone know if its worth getting the RX100 ii or iii versus the RX100 i. The lower price is drawing me to the RX100 but I want the wifi option and I'm not sure how the IQ is different among the three models. If anyone could provide some insight that would be great.
the image quality among the 3 is very similar, nearly identical for practical purposes printed with small to medium prints. The Mk3 has the best lens for low light, but less zoom range. The Mk2/3 has the tilting screen which is nice for low or overhead shots

I'm happy with my Mk2 and have desired to get the Mk3 since I won't use the viewfinder.
Deal Fanatic
Jan 15, 2004
5686 posts
536 upvotes
How about asking her? I don't think you should drop $2k on a camera for her without knowing her preference. Or maybe a better choice would be a $2k ring / jewellery that she can wear everyday. After all, getting her a camera isn't exactly romantic.
Newbie
Nov 13, 2007
9 posts
Calgary
Jewellery idea is great, but $2k is not enough. How about an all inclusive Mexico vacation trip or somewhere out-of-town. But since this is a photography forum, you can check out her preference and go from there. Choices are great whether you go for advanced P&S or full frame mirrorless. And remember there's a big cost to get nice glass too. Personally, I'll go for a vacation + spend a bit on a classy P&S like Fuji X30.

Top