What camera's the best option for what I need?

[bernacchiraza]

Hello, guys!
I'm new here at CiC, but also, at photographing. I have a OK camera, that allowed me to learn the basics of exposure, light, focus, lenses, etc. But, as I've been learning, I noticed that I need to go for the next step.
I've been researching but, I wonder if I could get some tips from you guys, as you are way more experienced on cameras than I am.

So, in your opinion, what camera model would cover most of the characteristics I'm looking for? Here they are:

- price: up to $1000 (it's ok if that's the price for a used one in good condition)
- high quality when shooting at low light of moving objects (think like people dancing in a theater)
- high quality also when shooting landscapes and sky at late sunsets, or even stars/moon
- option to save the photos as RAW files
- body that allow you to attach a flash (no built flash)
- easy settings (for example, on changing the manual controls - I've read once that Canon has only one button for aperture and shutter, and you have to keep switching from one to the other every time you want to change them - that doesn't seem very convenient)
- fast auto focus

Desirable, but not a necessity:
- full frame
- shake reduction (if it doesn't affect the quality of the image)
- wi-fi
- weather sealing

I appreciate the help in advance!
Most of things I know I've learned from CiC, but only recently I discover the forum =) Very happy about it

[Stagecoach]

Hi Winnie and welcome to CiC,

Does your USD$1000 budget include a lens/lenses for your purchase?

And for info what camera have you been learning with.

[bernacchiraza]

Hello, Grahame!

This budget does not include lenses. I have another $1000 + what's left from the camera purchase to buy the lenses. But I haven't even started to search about it yet =/
I currently have a Nikon Coolpix P510 4.3-180mm. It was good to learn how to shoot manual, and a little bit about lenses. But now it's limiting my learning as I feel I could do so much more in a better camera. So I saved the money and now I'm ready for my next step >.<

[dje]

Hi Winnie

For your budget, you are looking at DSLR's such as the Canon 70D or the Nikon D7200. They may cost a bit over the $1000 mark but you could get a general purpose lens such as the Canon 18-135mm or the Nikon 18-140mm to go with your body for somewhat less than $2000 all up. I wouldn't scrimp too much on the camera body as you can always add more lenses as money becomes available and you develop a feel for what you really need.

The D7200 supercedes the D7100 but you could probably still buy the D7100 from some stores at a good price. A lot of CiC members have the D7100 and produce outstanding images with it.

Neither Canon or Nikon have image stabilization built in to the camera body but rather have it built in to a lot of their newer lenses. Sony use in-camera stabilization I believe.

Mirrorless is another option but I'll leave that to others who have some knowledge of these cameras.

Dave

PS I'd leave some money in your budget for a good tripod, particularly for sunsets and other low light shooting.

[george013]

With Nikon I would want a built-in focus engine so you can use AF lenses.
George

[jcuknz]

Judging from my Nikon which is generically similar to what you have you seem to have fallen into the beginners trap that a more expensive camera will deliver better photos when it is your input which will achieve that and it is just as easy to take bad photos with a 'better' camera as the fine instrument that you already own. Asking your question on this site will inevitably bring forth suggestion for the DSLR which probably is more rugged than what you have but really only needed by a professional ... despite the advertising guff put out to the contrary.

As for your 'desirable' options I have none of them and wouldn't spend any time looking for them as well as some of your basic requirements which MFT has but are not used in practice. Shooting in manual is for special situations and you will find that most are using A or S modes ... so a single button is all that is really needed. Another trap I suspect you have fallen for in the idea that shooting RAW immediately results in better results ... as suggested elsewhere here at CiC that is heresy to question but actually it opens an extra can of worms to go wrong with.

In your list of desirable items there is no mention of what and how you post produce or edit your photographs and while often with a well shot photo the adjustments are minor the ability to go further is as important as what camera is being used.

I would suggest at the most you should consider a micro four thirds camera which is within your budget such as Panasonic GH or G series or the Olympus equivalents.

My comments are based on the assumption that you shoot for display by a computer screen or prints no bigger than 10x12 inches as most of us do anyway.

I think having been used to a bridge camera you will find the suggestions prior to mine to be extremely limiting as I did when I moved away from my bridge cameras to MFT with a kit lens which solved my long standing frustrations at the way R&D of the bridge camera had gone in different directions to what I needed but introduced new ones with the limited range off the kit lens .... solved by getting a x10 zoom. The only thing missing from the GH is the lack of a mirror and that is a historical throwback to the SLR of the 1950 not missed by those who accept the electronic viewfinder [live view] as the way to go as I have since I got my Nikon originally.

PS. My Nikon is a 13yo 5Mp camera but still gets used occasionally and is more than enough for computer viewing and winning club competitions with the right subject matter

[mrinmoyvk]

I have been Nikon user so talking about Nikon only. Though Canon has few good models in market.

$1000 is a strict NO for a full frame.

From your requirements, low light IQ is the only thing why you are looking for full frame. Now a days crop sensors also perform more than enough good in low light. 1600 ISO gives usable images on crop sensors unless you want to go professional. Only requirement is to have a fast lens on it. (1600 at f1.4 is more than enough unless you are shooting in a night vision )

From what you mentioned, D7100 & D5200 are good cameras for you with D7100 better for weather sealing and D5200 for user friendly GUI.
Canon 650D has a touch screen and that is really more user friendly but only in initial days. Once you get used to the settings, you would not need a touch screen. For me, more the buttons on body easier the camera to operate.

Shake reduction (Sensor Shift) is not required as most of the lenses come with very good VR.

[Stagecoach]

Hello, Grahame!

This budget does not include lenses. I have another $1000 + what's left from the camera purchase to buy the lenses. But I haven't even started to search about it yet =/
I currently have a Nikon Coolpix P510 4.3-180mm. It was good to learn how to shoot manual, and a little bit about lenses. But now it's limiting my learning as I feel I could do so much more in a better camera. So I saved the money and now I'm ready for my next step >.<

Hi Winnie,

Thanks for the above, I asked because it will assist some in giving you help and advice. We see a number of similar questions as yours come up here and they all receive a range of answers, assumptions and differing advice, some good and some not so good.

I'm not going to suggest a certain camera model or type, simply because I am not familiar with what's on the market these days and I do not know what your present commitment level to learning and future interest in this great hobby is going to be.

But what I will do is tell you a story

Eight years ago when I decided I wanted to take photography as a hobby seriously I purchased a camera, the Nikon D300, and if at the time I had been a member here and raised the same questions you have some would have said that was a camera totally unnecessary for the skill levels I had at that time.

I still have that D300 as my only camera, it's looking rather used but has never failed and in eight years it has never been unable to achieve anything I wanted it to do as my knowledge and dabbling in different areas of photography grew.

So in making your decisions consider the above when reading comments such as this one from John,

I would suggest at the most you should consider a micro four thirds camera which is within your budget such as Panasonic GH or G series or the Olympus equivalents.

there is nothing wrong with getting a camera now that could meet your long term aspirations, giving you the pleasure of owning something as John puts it,

the DSLR which probably is more rugged than what you have but really only needed by a professional

Professionals use certain tools for a reason

Grahame

[DanK]

Winnie,

If you are even considering full frame, that suggests you are thinking about a DSLR. If so, you can take a few things off your list. All current DSLRs can shoot raw and have a hot shoe for a flash.

I'll start with an overgeneralization and then chip away at it a little.

My overgeneralization: if you are buying a recent-model DSLR, it doesn't matter much. I have shot with three Canon bodies since going digital: an XTi (an inexpensive Rebel that is less capable than any sold today), a 50D (a mid-level crop-sensor body with 7-year-old technology), and a 5D3 (a FF body that was until a few weeks ago Canon's second-best SLR). If you look at my website, it will not be obvious to you which photos I took with each. The three cameras differ in important ways, but any of them is capable of producing excellent images.

Now to chip away at that a bit:

I second the advice that you forget about FF. It is a lot more money, and the bodies are bigger, heavier, and require larger, heavier and more expensive lenses for any given reach. They have advantages, but not enough to make them worth considering on your budget, in my opinion. They are better in low light, and if you are going to print very large, they will give you a bit more detail. However, for most purposes, the difference in price is better spent on other things, such lenses, as a tripod (already suggested), and a flash capable of bouncing.

Although a wide range of bodies are capable of producing excellent results, they differ in many other features: controls, ergonomics, ruggedness and weather resistance, how fast they work in burst mode, and the design and effectiveness of the AF systems. At least in the Canon line, the least expensive models (the Rebel t series) and the next step up (60D, 70D, 7D, 7D Mark II) differ primarily in the controls and the ruggedness of the bodies. In a few pairs, the sensors and AF systems are actually the same. I got rid of my Rebel primarily because the controls and ergonomics of the next level (at that time, the 40D and 50D) were so much better for my uses. Refurbished 60Ds and 70Ds are available from Canon for $450 and $800, respectively. The 7D generation 1, which has a superior body to the 70D but an inferior sensor, is available for $700. the 70D and 7D both have very capable 19-point AF systems. The 60D has a more old-fashioned 9-point system. I believe (check this if it is important) that the 70D also has Canon's new dual-pixel AF, which doesn't matter for most still photography but does for video. I don't use my SLRs for video, so I can't speak to this.

I can't speak to wi-fi either. I don't even know which of my current bodies has it.

All in all, given your interests and budget, if you go for an SLR, I would probably opt for a refurbished mid-level body, or a used one if you can get it from a source that guarantees it (KEH, Adorama, B&H, etc.). Canon refurbs, which are also sold by Adorama, are in my experience effectively new. I bought my most often used lens as a refurb and just bought a refurbished 7D body. Just check those prices against those of the really reputable discounters, like B&H and Adorama, because sometime their new prices will be comparable. In the Canon lineup, a 70D might be a good choice. It should last you a long time.

Re mirrorless: these cameras are getting much better. There are pros and cons. I've only played with them, so I don't feel qualified to offer advice about them vs. SLRs.

Then the next issue is lenses. The lenses that are optimal for some of your uses are not for others. For example, you would want a fast lens for dancing but won't need one for most landscape work.

Dan

[ajohnw]

I'm brand agnostic. Really the main requirements you have made is weather proofing and budget. I to suspect these rule out full frame. If you must have full frame I suspect that the Canon 6D might be your best option but will push your budget up. That one should give you full frame low noise advantages. There will be a Nikon equivalent. I'm not sure about weather proofing on either.

Rather than rumours about controls it's best to spend some time finding out about any camera that interests you. There are 2 ways of doing that. Dpreview reviews are usually pretty comprehensive and show all of the controls. I use that as a start and then download the camera manual from the manufacturers site. The areas of interest usually are how focus and exposure are locked and iso setting changed. Then aperture and speed set manually. Focus on most cameras now can be controlled via a button that causes the camera to focus when it's pressed and stay as set if not. Exposure lock has been around for ages but it may be inconvenient if using a button for this prevents focus locking. The same thing applies to exposure compensation. It depends on what needs to be done to change to using either. User modes can be used to change this sort of thing fairly quickly if needed. Twin thumb wheels for changing settings are nice but really having to press a button to change the function of one isn't much of a problem. Where buttons are can be more important. More wheels and more buttons etc tend to push the price up. There is a need to be realistic in this area. There can be other catches as well. One I hate is moveable focus squares and a camera that assumes this is going to be used on every shot, makes that easy and any other sort of use difficult. I'd rather point the camera where I want it to focus, lock it, frame and shoot etc. Some love this sort of thing but not me.

Great pictures tend to have another problem as well even neglecting the subjects and that is post processing. It's not a skill that can be learnt in 5mins and is the only reason really for using raw. It's also possible to pp camera jpg's especially from decent cameras. This area means that you are unlikely to produce the results some do from day one just because you have bought a better camera. People have been producing great shots for donkeys years using cameras that now wouldn't have any resale value at all. This largely relates to PP and especially in the noise area. You might say that software improvements have allowed cameras to progress as they have using smaller and smaller pixels but like most things this area isn't entirely black and white. The great pictures instantaneously by spending more on lenses has similar problems as well but on the other hand in this area price usually does reflect on results. On the other hand most dslr lenses are perfectly capable of producing very large web shots or even pretty big prints. Perhaps make and price is more important when the focal length starts getting rather long.

WiFi - pass. I don't see it as an advantage unless it allows the camera to be controlled remotely - sort of tethered shooting without a lead. Usually needing a lead isn't a problem when that mode of use is the best option. I believe it's possible to buy wifi cards to get images out of the camera but I just take the card out and plug it into a reader.

Quick edit. I tend to prefer cameras with a built in flash as it is always there. It doesn't prevent me from using a separate one on the hot shoe that most have when it's needed. Or a separate gun on a stand either. Some might say several guns on a stand as well.

John
-

[D L]

If you have a spare (almost) 2 hours, and any interest in going mirrorless, I found this B&H youtube video very interesting.

The presenter addresses many of the criticisms of mirrorless and also goes through many of the different systems available.

[csa mt]

As far as I know, Pentax is the only camera that has a weather proof body. There are also several weather resistant lenses available, to give you a complete weather resistant camera. The K3 is the current flagship that I think would fit your needs nicely. I know everyone prefers to suggest Canon/Nikon; but Pentax is certainly one to consider!

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1...th-review.html

[Manfred M]

Hi Winnie - Getting the "right" camera is really looking at the various tradeoffs in the different models available. I have four "serious" digital cameras; a full-frame DSLR, two crop frame DSLRs and a mirrorless crop frame. All have advantages and disadvantages. My camera choice for a specific photographic task will dictate which camera I will use.

- price: up to $1000 (it's ok if that's the price for a used one in good condition) - There are plenty of options for you here. If looking at a used camera, I would not recommend going for a model that was introduced more than 3 years ago. The older generations do not perform nearly as well as the more recent models. There are lots of crop frame options here; but I don't think you have the budget for a full-frame.

- high quality when shooting at low light of moving objects (think like people dancing in a theater) - This is just as much about fast (large aperture = expensive) lenses as the camera body. While you can increase sensitivity of the camera (higher ISO), this tends to me less colour depth and more sensor noise. As a general rule, lower MP for a given sensor size (in the same generation of cameras) will give you better low light performance. Mirrorless cameras tend to be a lot quieter than DSLRs (no mirror slap), but light performance tends to be not as good as with DSLRs. Sports and action photographers tend to have the most expensive camera bodies and fastest lenses available to do this kind of shooting at costs that are well above your budget.

- high quality also when shooting landscapes and sky at late sunsets, or even stars/moon Most cameras can handle sunsets and landscapes quite well. You'll need a long telephoto lens to get decent moon shots and a decent tripod for shots of stars.

- option to save the photos as RAW files - definitely available in all modern DSLRs and many (most?) mirrorless cameras.

- body that allow you to attach a flash (no built flash) - Pretty well every camera other than the very top of the line ones have a built in flash. Again, in the price range you are looking at, a hot shoe is standard.

- easy settings (for example, on changing the manual controls - I've read once that Canon has only one button for aperture and shutter, and you have to keep switching from one to the other every time you want to change them - that doesn't seem very convenient) I think you've read wrong. Higher end cameras let you change aperture and shutter speed with separate controls; whereas lower end cameras do not. I don't have any "decent" digital cameras without this feature and in fact would not buy a camera with only one control. What you are after is pretty standard on lower end cameras, but the higher end ones have the dual control.

Higher end cameras allow for more control when taking pictures. If you plan to shoot in one of the fully automated modes, save yourself some money and get an entry level camera.

- fast auto focus That is both camera and lens dependent. A good rule of thumb is that higher end cameras have faster autofocus and higher end lenses focus more quickly than lower end ones. In general, a DSLR (when shooting through the viewfinder) will focus noticeably faster than a mirrorless camera.

Desirable, but not a necessity:

- full frame - forget about it. Neither the camera body nor the lenses will be in your budget range.

- shake reduction (if it doesn't affect the quality of the image) - Shake reduction would be in my must have list. It improves image quality and I would not get a telephoto lens that I plan to handhold without that feature.

There are two approaches here, some manufacturers build this into certain lenses while others put this into the camera bodies. There are technical advantages for the in-lens approach, but the in body approach allows one to use lenses that do not have this feature. Canon, Nikon and Panasonic have gone with in-lens stabilization. Sony and Olympus have in body stabilization. I don't know offhand about the other manufacturers.

- wi-fi - This can mean one of two things; automatic uploading to your computer or the internet or remote control of your camera by a smartphone or tablet. The remote control aspect is a nice to have. The remote uploading of images is next to useless if you are shooting anything other than low quality jpegs as the upload time takes far too long.

- weather sealing - sounds like a great idea until one of the seals fails (guess I how I know about that). Unless you have an underwater camera, I would still be careful about using even a weather sealed camera in a wet environment. Seals can fail, so it is far better to assume it won't work and shoot with proper weather protection over the camera and lens.

Now all that doesn't help you chose a camera. Let me throw a few thoughts at you.

1. You already shoot with a Nikon camera, so going to a more advanced Nikon will give you a bit of familiarity with the family of cameras this company puts out.

2. If I were to go with a crop frame DSLR versus a mirrorless camera, I would go with the DSLR, without hesitation. I know there are a number of mirrorless fans on this site, but in my experience (having taken well over 15,000 images with my higher end mirrorless over the past year), the only places where it functions better than a DSLR is when weight, size and low noise are the overriding factors. The small viewfinder, small body compromises made by the designers and slow autofocus the main issues I have found with this style of camera. Action shots are challanging and low light performance is marginal.

3. When you look at a system camera, assume that your lenses are going to last you for a long time, but your camera body will be replaced at some point. So going for a less expensive body and better lenses is probably a better way to spend your money. Based on your $2000 total budget, I'd probably stick to spending no more than 40% of my money on my camera body. I'd spend the rest on lenses and accessories.

[Shadowman]

Winnie,

I saw your image in the "Natural Silhouette" in the mini comp and if this is what you can accomplish with the Nikon P510 then you shouldn't have too much of an issue with a DSLR. I have an older model P90 and the one issue I had with the camera was the lowlight/noise handling. Your P510 did pretty well with a lowlight shot, so don't feel intimidated about upgrading.

[Mike Buckley]

With Nikon I would want a built-in focus engine so you can use AF lenses.

To clarify that, if you want to use the auto focus capability, the motor has to be built into either the camera or the lens. Some of the models of lenses don't have the motor, in which case the camera has to have it. Some of the models of cameras don't have the motor, in which case the lens has to have it. If both the camera and the lens have the motor, that will work fine also.

Generally speaking, the fastest auto focusing is achieved when the motor is built into the lens but that increased speed is helpful only in certain situations such as shooting sports and birds in flight.

[Polar01]

I am going to suggest something different, if you are leaning towards Nikon, than I suggest that you look at the newest D3xxx or D5xxx models and some good glass to go with it. The reason is good glass will last you a life time 20 years or more whereas the camera model keeps getting upgraded every 4 to 5 years. Either one of those models will give you excellent images if you learn how to master your camera, once you find that the camera is holding you back you then will have a better idea of what you want. As you upgrade you add more bells and whistles and end up with items you do not want or require (for me video no use for it at all but my camera D600 has it) however good glass lasts a life time. Another suggestion tripods, most people end up purchasing 5 or 6 tripods over their lifetime each one more expensive that the previous one, so to save money, go and look in the $500.00 to $600.00 range in the long run you will be saving, and like good glass a good tripod once you have found one will last a life time.

Cheers: Allan

[D L]

- high quality when shooting at low light of moving objects (think like people dancing in a theater) - This is just as much about fast (large aperture = expensive) lenses as the camera body. While you can increase sensitivity of the camera (higher ISO), this tends to me less colour depth and more sensor noise. As a general rule, lower MP for a given sensor size (in the same generation of cameras) will give you better low light performance. Mirrorless cameras tend to be a lot quieter than DSLRs (no mirror slap), but light performance tends to be not as good as with DSLRs. Sports and action photographers tend to have the most expensive camera bodies and fastest lenses available to do this kind of shooting at costs that are well above your budget.

Considering both body and lens, this is potentially the most expensive requirement in your list. How close to the moving objects will you be? A 70-200mm f/2.8 lens would be huge gouge out of the budget.

[bernacchiraza]

Hello everyone! First of all, thank you for all the answers! I was not expecting so many, but I’m very glad to see how people care about this forum : )

Second, before I start answering, I apologize for my English, as it’s not my native language. I deal pretty well with daily conversations, but if things start to get too specific, is hard to keep the level =(
Well, I’m going to write one answer, and separate in the body:

Dave,

Thank you for your answers! I have a tripod (It might not be as good as Allan suggested, but it’s being doing a good job. Maybe when I buy my next one, I’ll try to find a better one! I don’t really want to get a “general purpose” lens, so probably I’ll do as you said and try a better deal in the body to save money for the lenses. For what I’ve been reading, mirrorless doesn’t look the best option for me, as I like to take pictures in low light  But thank you for the tip ;-)

George,

I’ll check that! Thank you for the tip!
John (jcuknz),
I appreciate your answer, but maybe you got me wrong. I understand that probably many new photographers come here looking for the most expensive camera. However, when I wrote my question, I was not really thinking of an expensive camera. I do have $2000 budget, and I thought most part would go for lenses. I put a $1000 limit, so people wouldn’t recommend me the most expensive in the market saying “that’s the best model they ever made”… well, for a camera that costs $5000+, it’s better have legs and go take the pictures itself!
The requirements I have is only because I LOVE playing with the camera/photo. I love taking pictures in challenging light situations. Low light, moving objects, no tripod. Would you really suggest me shut in A or S priority for this? I like to have as much control as possible of the camera. That’s my real hobby ;-)
I know RAW is a difficult type of file, but sometimes it’s the only chance of getting a good image in this situations.. why I wouldn’t want a camera with this option?
Also, this is a very “solo” hobby for me. Sometimes, when I need a “body shape” to compose a landscape, it has to be myself. A camera with wi-fi would be the only solution here.
I’m pretty aware that I don’t need an expensive camera to be a good photographer. Henri Bresson used a Leica with one lens, a 50mm, for almost all of his life’s work, and well… look at his work. Each person have a different style, or a different way to see things… My hobby is not only capturing the moment. It’s also playing with the camera features and take from the image more that it can be seen. That’s the fun part! I guess I need a little more than a micro four thirds camera (in my opinion).
One last thing, my currently Nikon was the bridge. I had a film camera before, very limited. Then jumped to digital cameras. It was fun in the beginning, but that was nothing to play with. It got me bored, and I almost stop taking photos… then I got the Nikon to at least have something decent to take pictures of family, friends. This camera made me get interested again, and now I’m ready to go forward ;-)

Mrinmoy,

As I’ve been seeing that full frame is way out of the budget, I’m a high ISO person… that’s why it’s beings o difficult to decide my next camera. I don’t want to spend money and end up with the same quality I already have. But after reading the answers here, I think my problem will be solved not with a better camera, but with a better lens. I’ll take a better look at those models you suggest me! Thank you for your answer! I really appreciate ;-)

Grahame,

I agree with you 100%. I got to the limit of my camera, now I want to have the possibility of going further. I want something that really challenges me. Who knows where it will take me, right? Thank you for your history =)

Dan,

Yes, I taking of FF from my list as I realize it’s out of my budget, and maybe it’s not what I need. After reading the answers here, I confirm one thing that I was already thinking about: invest more in lenses then in bodies. I haven’t thought yet about getting a refurbished. Thank you for the tip. I’m definitely going to look into that ;-)

John (ajohnw),

I’ll take a look at Dpreview. I didn’t know about that. I’ll also search more about those things you said about focus. I wasn’t really considering some of the points you said.
About RAW and wi-fi, I repeat what I said to John above. I love taking pictures in challenging light situations. Low light, moving objects, no tripod. I know RAW is a difficult type of file, but sometimes it’s the only chance of getting a good image in this situations.
Also, as this is a very “solo” hobby, and if I need a “body shape” to compose the landscape, it has to be myself. That’s why I would like to have wi-fi in my camera.
Thank you for your answer. Very valuable

David,

I’m not considering a mirrorless, but I’ll certainly watch the video. Thank you for the tip!

Carol,
You know, I’ve never thought about that! It’s a very good thing to be aware! Thank you for the tip =)
I’ll look into that!


There are 5 more people to answer, but I have to go to work now. I’ll continue it later.
I love all the answers! Thank you all!

[Manfred M]

Winnie - If you need the wireless remote, I use a CamRanger on my D800. It lets me control my camera from an Apple or Android tablet or phone (the Windows support is a bit more limited, but I can run it off my Windows laptop too).

http://camranger.com/

[ajohnw]

I'm glad I may have been of some help. I feel that the original question is a rather tenuous one to answer and the best answer is to try and point out the sort of things you should look for in a camera as make in some respects just doesn't matter. You can expect similar performance from any of the major makes when comparing similar cameras. The main thing for me is finding out how a camera is controlled before actually buying it. That can sometimes come as a shock after buying without taking a look first.

For wifi it sounds to me that you only need remote wireless release rather than complete control. Unless you want to include yourself tapping a phone etc in shots. I'd guess that you would want something inconspicuous. There are some wireless remote shutter releases about that plug into a socket on the camera and often sit in the flash shoe. An ebay search will show what is available. Many of them will be infa red but some are radio.

When it comes to complete remote control via wifi I'm not up to date but suspect you would have to look at mirrorless to have it built into the camera. They are more adventurous but that would still mean tapping something, android, phone or what ever.

John
-