Still Lost

After gathering some more opinions and information, I've realized that I still am unsure on what DSLR I should pick for my beginner level. I believe last time I forgot to post my budget, which I have decided is $800. I would prefer to buy the body and then shop for a slightly better lens than the kit one. My biggest need is that the camera will perform decently in all areas and for the most common conditions, that way I don't limit myself. If anyone has any opinions or suggestions for where I should look, that would be great. Thanks!

Why do you believe that a kit lens is not adequate to get you started?

My advice is to visit a local camera shop, look at some entry level DSLR models and see how they feel in your hand and how they look through the viewfinder.

--
My photos http://brianshannon.smugmug.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My Flickr stream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brian_shannon_photography/

The separate lens would be bought if I could find a camera body for less than $800. If the camera meets or exceeds my budget, then I would just buy a kit lens.

It would be nice if you could find a good used camera and lens. With the rapid advances in technology, many folks sell some excellent gear to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

I've got pics from a 300d,20d,40d,50d. There is no way I could tell which cam took which pic. I think all cams made in the last few years have basically the same IQ if you view them under normal sizes. There's a real good chance i could pick the lens I had on the cam by the pic tho'. Get a used cam, and good lens. I follow canons so for example you could get a 40d around $400 to 450. A Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for around $400. This would give you a good indoor outdoor set to start with. I tend to buy new lenses because unlike the cams, they don't cost much more than used. The glass is where your $'s will end up going if you get hooked, not bodies.

Don't spend too long reading reviews on the internet. Read some and then go and physically 'audition' some promising equipment in a camera store. When it comes to actual usage, ergonomics have to be right.

Roy Carter said:

...you could get a 40d around $400 to 450. A Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for around $400. This would give you a good indoor outdoor set to start with. I tend to buy new lenses because unlike the cams, they don't cost much more than used. The glass is where your $'s will end up going if you get hooked, not bodies.

Click to expand...

When I upgraded this is the exact setup I started with...however, when I bought my 40D two years ago it cost about $150 more. But, for me, this was the best setup for my budget at the time.

After I used this for a while I realized that I needed some extra reach at times...so I bought a 75-300mm lens. Now I find I want to go wider...so I am saving up for a wide zoom...(10-20, 12-24, etc.)

Start with a "system" you are comfortable with. You will realize quickly that you will want to add or upgrade lenses much faster than you want to upgrade your camera body.
--
-Scott

I was in your same position a few weeks ago...

I was suffering from "paralysis of analysis", spending hours lurking here, cnet, YouTube, etc...

I ended up buying the Nikon D90 with a 18-105 kit lens and an SB700 flash... I was originally debating between the D5100 and D7000, but found a great sale price on the D90 and couldn't refuse
My experience so far...

1) I am anal and impatient and I very much appreciate the dedicated function buttons on the D90. I am still learning to control all the exposure variables and that is frustrating in and of itself... If I had to access a menu to change these functions I would probably be less inclined to play/practice with these controls and this would slow my learning process... Depends on what you want to do, but that's me

2) If you are a newbie like me... A good kit lense like the 18-105VR will serve most needs quite well. If your camera comes with 18-55 kit lens, I would look to buy camera body only, and buy better lens. The reason I say this is because a larger focal length allows for more photo opportunities and helps to learn how depth of field is affected at different focal lengths. The 18-55 kit lens does not have a large variance in focal length, and being a slow lens, does not provide as many learning opportunities as a faster, and/or greater zoom would provide

3) I will probably add a 50mm 1.8f D prime lens, because it is good in low light, inexpensive, fast, and will help me practice with shallow depth of field. I know that I also want a 70-200 2.8f lens, but I don't even have a reliable workflow to save and process my pics... So why bother?

4) Most experienced photographers on this forum will probably take and process better pics with a point and shoot than I currently take with my D90. BUT... because I have learned a little bit, and learning more... I can take better/ more creative pics with my D90 than I took with my S95

5) Know your needs and your wants... As a newbie, this equipment will kick your ass! Learn, read, practice, study, etc! NBetter equipment will not make you much better at
this point... More experience, learning, study, will...

For me... any entry level DSLR will run circles around my ability, however...I chose a body based on features and convenience. Newer processors, cleaner high ISO and

higher megapixels will be irrelevant and/or not worth the extra money for most newbies,
That's my opinion

That is one of the best and well crafted answers to the "what should I buy" question I've ever heard. I'm going to bookmark it and point new folks to it. Thank you.

As to your 70-200 f/2.8 choice, consider the 80-200 f/2.8 when the time comes. This lens doesn't have the VR or AFS motor, but it has every bit of the wonderful optics. Some like it better. I think it does skin tones better. The point is that it's only around $1100 new and might be the best bargain for a zoom in this range. They will likely discontinue it when they bring out a 70-200 f/4, some are expecting this year. The build quality is absolutely superb like all pro-level glass with it's old fashioned black crinkle Nikon finish on an all metal lens.

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-80-200-lens.htm

As far as processing it concerned, I'd suggest getting Adobe Photoshop Elements so you get Adobe Camera RAW as part of it. This is a great inexpensive software. Your wonderful D90 has a lot of extra latitude in those RAW files you might be missing. You can make your great images even better with a little careful work (fun). YOu can bring out what you saw with even greater ability and detail. So enjoy the other half of photography.

You seem to have the desire and passion to become a far better than average photographer with time and you chose a superb starter tool. Again, thank you for your post.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Guidenet said:

As to your 70-200 f/2.8 choice, consider the 80-200 f/2.8 when the time comes. This lens doesn't have the VR or AFS motor, but it has every bit of the wonderful optics. Some like it better. I think it does skin tones better. The point is that it's only around $1100 new and might be the best bargain for a zoom in this range. They will likely discontinue it when they bring out a 70-200 f/4, some are expecting this year. The build quality is absolutely superb like all pro-level glass with it's old fashioned black crinkle Nikon finish on an all metal lens.

http://www.bythom.com/nikkor-80-200-lens.htm

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind comments and the recommendations. I read the link/review of the 80-200 f/2.8 and that seems like it might be a steal. I'm always into value, but also willing to pay for quality and/or convenience... if I can afford it How many stops would you figure this lens gives up being hand held, for lack of VR?

One of these is for sale locally, used for $600, but I was unsure exactly what it was until I read your link.

Quasar1 said:

Thanks for the kind comments and the recommendations. I read the link/review of the 80-200 f/2.8 and that seems like it might be a steal. I'm always into value, but also willing to pay for quality and/or convenience... if I can afford it How many stops would you figure this lens gives up being hand held, for lack of VR?

One of these is for sale locally, used for $600, but I was unsure exactly what it was until I read your link.

Click to expand...

=

Well, my friend you have to be careful with these. They made them with the exact same optics from about the start of AF until the present. The present model is called a two ring where one ring does manual focus and the other turns to zoom. The previous model was a one ring push pull zoom. Like I said it had the same optics but you had only one ring. You turned it to focus, and pushed or pulled it to zoom like a trombone. The one ring model was a very slow auto focus. The newer two ring model is very fast, not quite as fast as the AFS, but very fast. They also made this in an AFS model, but they demand a good bit used. If you can get a two ring like you read about for $600, it's a steal. If it's a one ring, the price is about right. The two rings don't lose much in depreciation.

If you don't need autofocus speed and you don't mind a push pull zoom, the one ring is a superb performer at a great price to get pro-level glass. The are literally tanks.

As far as VR is concerned, you're asking the wrong guy. I was enamored of VR early on. In fact it was what moved me to digital from film. I held out until towards the end. The D2H was coming out. Once I started using VR I was not so impressed. As a wildlife and nature photographer, VR wasn't that important. For wildlife, I use a fast shutter speed and VR turned off. With landscape and scenics, I'm on a tripod and shooting at slow aperture settings. I use that old F/8 and be there concept. Overall, I tend to use good old school technique, support systems and pay attention to faster shutter speeds. My cameras are all great in dim light. My glass is mostly fast. Alll this makes VR not so important for my style. It would be the last thing on the checklist when purchasing.

Fantastic optics and fast pro-level glass is my love. I know that Nikon claims VRII is worth 4 stops and VRI is worth 3, but that "up to" term is used. Up to 4 stops.

I find that VR can in certain instances give me two to at the most three stops. The key phrase is certain instances. That means in dim light, too dim for my D700, and f/2.8 or faster lenses, and where I have no support. Those rare times on a still scene. It just doesn't come up that often for me. Might for you, though.

I think many people these days practice poor technique because of IS or VR and get poorer images because of it.

But for you, it might make a huge difference. I just don't know. Only you can tell.

I have a 300 f/2.8 and leave the VR off most of the time because I'm shooting at 500th of a second or faster where VR can actually make it more blurry. I forget and don't turn it on for slower speeds, but don't notice the lack because I'm alway thinking about being careful because of all the years with VR not being invented.

I though the 80-200 f/2.8 might be a good choice for you because, when you saved up enough for a fancy 70-200 f/2.8. you could sell the older lens and not lose much if any. Buying quality Nikon glass has that advantage in that it's more like renting over a long period of time, like $10 a month or less for a year or two. This makes pro glass cheaper than consumer glass or third party glass.

Canon has a similar advantage, but not the others. The problem is the lack of customer base willing to buy top used glass. There are plenty of Nikon owners trying to get good used pro-level glass.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

Please listen to the ones that advise you to look at the major brands that you respect and choose one you like for its features and the lenses available for that model that you can use......that is in your price range. If you look at the most expensive pro body Nikons and Canons and the lenses for them, the one you choose to buy will come in second to the other in some category. It is likely that the differences won't matter at all, unless you get hung up on the numbers that won't matter. Example: D3S at ISO 102,000 wins over 1D4. The images are not fit to print unless you got a pic of Bigfoot or the Ivory-billed woodpecker. In fps,nikon 9fps and canon 10fps. Any real difference? The D3X and the 1Ds3 probably will turn out the same in comparison. I think this sort of thinking applies to mid-range and entry level DSLR's. Jump in and enjoy now, as all equipment is increasing in price. Get ready for the next hurdle...printers are the the same as to deciding on a choice. Spend energy learning and shooting. Hope this helps. I had to get over the spec battles, and I won't go back.

The more more you search and read,and research the more indececive you are likely to get.A number of forum members with no mean credentials have given suggestions and all you need to do is go get a cam- just any dslr and begin using it.Canon 1000D is a good cam...you may be amazes at what great you can create with that "entry" level machine.You can get the cam as well spare some $ for a 50mm1.8 to go with it. and some for tid-bits like filters etc.
--
student4ever

Ha ha .. so many choice indeed these days it is mind boggling. Some tips that might help:

1 - quality lenses are the most important consideration and they keep their value unlike bodies. In that respect, Canon has the widest choice and many affordable great ones. Nikon's are more expensive, some say they are better. Zeiss make some of the best, expensive too and not autofocusing.

If you go crop sensor, Nikon (and Tamron) has more crop dedicated lenses. But the future seems to be full size. So if you think you'll be at it in the long run, full size is better..

2 - used bodies are very affordable .. in the Canon line, the 40D or Xsi are good starting poiints. In Nikon, the D90 ..

Some thoughts on camera choices and photography, see the New York Time article and follow ups there.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4050967137/in/set-72157605888833527



Final word: jujst to get your feet wet, consider a used Xsi or such and a Tamron/ Tokina or Sigma 24-70 2.8 - hard to beat for value given there are so many out there - once you know what you want you can keep teh body as backup and resell that lens ..
--
NYCandre - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/

I can understand being lost given that today there are so many excellent choices. If you are not getting anywhere make a list of dpreview's gold and silver award winners, handle them and then jump in with the one you feel partial to. Keep it simple and start with the kit lens unless the kit is considered mediocre. You really don't have to sweat this decision imo. If you learn to master any of these cameras you will get incredibly good images and be a great photographer.