Need advice on what Camera AND Lenses to buy

[itisgregory]

I am a serious amateur photographic hobbyist that shoots mostly landscape, wildlife and urban scenes looking to buy all new equipment. I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions and advice on what camera AND lenses to buy. I plan to show my photos on websites, photo albums and print no larger than 11x18. I have a $7,000 budget.

I have been using the Nikon D40x (no longer made) since 2006 and have exhausted ALL of its features. I have two inexpensive Nikon lenses that I do not have to keep. I have done extensive and thorough research on the Canon 5D Mark III, Nikon D4, Nikon D800 and Nikon D700 (no longer made but I don’t care) so I am not looking for any reviews on these camera. I am not interested in video now but maybe later (?) and need a high FPS. I also shoot at night in low light conditions. My ideal, dream camera would be the Nikon D4, which my budget allows but leaves very little money for lenses. I am open to Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses. I need lots of advice on what lenses I should buy.

Here is my thinking. If I were a professional photographer I would not hesitate on the Nikon D4 because the business would pay for it. I also heard that a quality lens is more important than the camera – buy a cheaper camera and put the money in the lens??

Thank you in advance for any and all helpful suggestions! If you have questions, please ask. It is greatly appreciated!

-Gregory

[Ads]

[AaronLLockhart]

That whole "The quality of the lens is more important that the quality of the camera," is really a catch 22 phrase.

In all generalization, it is correct. However, the sensor in the body means just as much to the image quality as the lens. Let's use my D5000 for an example. The image sensor in the D5k produces a 10% better image than the D40, D40x, and D60. It produces a 30% better image than the D50, and a 40% better image than the D70. However, the D5100's sensor captures a 10% better image than my D5000, The D7000 gets a 15% better image quality than my sensor, and the D800 produces a 30% better image than my sensor.

Now, the lens does have an affect on the image as well. If you are using scratched glass, etc. It will not perform well. There are also things known as "Fast glass" Lenses which offer various focal ranges and operate in low light with super clear glass, and those lenses are SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive than standard lenses.

However, fast glass on a crappy sensor is still going to produce sub-par photography. Crappy glass on a good image sensor is also going to produce sub-par photography.

In most cases, a cropped entry level body with a good CMOS sensor with a decent lens will produce just as good of images as a high end camera. Most of this has to do with knowledge and your capability in using the equipment.

[KmH]

Consider a well cared for, used Nikon D3 12.1MP FX Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)

or Nikon D3S 12.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD and 24fps 720p HD Video Capability (Body Only)
in lieu of the D4. You would then have some lens money left over.

No doubt buy the highest quality lenses you can afford. Consider used lenses too.

Your D40x has a DX image sensor, The D3, D3s, D4, D800, D700 all have FX image sensors so you would want FX lenses for those. Consider getting used lenses too.

For landscape work using an FX Nikon body, an FX lens you might want to have would be the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Wide Angle Zoom Lens

[o hey tyler]

That whole "The quality of the lens is more important that the quality of the camera," is really a catch 22 phrase.

Not really, actually. Lenses are far more important than the sensor you use, and they also hold their value longer (especially in the top tier glass range) than any camera body.

In all generalization, it is correct. However, the sensor in the body means just as much to the image quality as the lens. Let's use my D5000 for an example. The image sensor in the D5k produces a 10% better image than the D40, D40x, and D60. It produces a 30% better image than the D50, and a 40% better image than the D70. However, the D5100's sensor captures a 10% better image than my D5000, The D7000 gets a 15% better image quality than my sensor, and the D800 produces a 30% better image than my sensor.

Numbers aside, the real question is, do you actually notice a marked difference by the human eye in terms of image quality? Not really. And in most cases, it's not as relevant as the quality of glass you put in front of it. I use my 5D Mark I more than my 5D Mark II because I like the filesize better, and the Mark I still puts out beautiful raw files. It's my "money" camera, I'd say. Coupled with glass in the thousands of dollars, it does really, reallywell, and is extremely capable for a camera from 2006 without even the luxury of live view. That's the main camera I use to shoot weddings, aside from formal portraits, in which case I use the 5D2.

Now, the lens does have an affect on the image as well. If you are using scratched glass, etc. It will not perform well.

Having scratched glass does not effect image quality as much as you might think. I saw your thread earlier today in reference to dust inside your telephoto lens. I think you'd find this article interesting and pertinent to this discussion: Dirty lens article

There are also things known as "Fast glass" Lenses which offer various focal ranges and operate in low light with super clear glass, and those lenses are SUBSTANTIALLY more expensive than standard lenses.

I agree, they are substantially more expensive. And they're worth it, too.

However, fast glass on a crappy sensor is still going to produce sub-par photography. Crappy glass on a good image sensor is also going to produce sub-par photography.

LOL, okay. If fast glass on what would be considered a "crappy sensor" by todays standards will invariably produce sub-par photos, I might as well throw in the towel right now.

All 5D Mark I images, with either the 135 f/2L, 35 f/1.4L or the Sigma 85mm f/1.4.

In most cases, a cropped entry level body with a good CMOS sensor with a decent lens will produce just as good of images as a high end camera. Most of this has to do with knowledge and your capability in using the equipment.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! The more you know about how to handle your equipment, and compose a photo, the better your images will be. That being said, glass is still more important than the body in which you're shooting with. However, a good body won't hurt​ your images.

[AaronLLockhart]

Numbers aside, the real question is, do you actually notice a marked difference by the human eye in terms of image quality? Not really..

actually, yes. I have owned a d40, d50, d60, d70, and this d5000. The d40 and d60 wasn't that noticeable with this camera. However, the d50 and d70 produce a NOTICEABLY worse image to the naked eye than my d5000 out of an 18-55mm kit lens, which is exactly why I sold them both after only a few weeks of ownership. They take terrible images.

[pixmedic]

Im unclear as to what people mean by a "crappy" sensor...I assume that would mean that an old D1x with its 5.3 effective megapixel CCD would certainly be considered "crappy" by todays standards. But when It came out it was state of the art and im sure it was used in all manor of professional capacities with great results. Im not suggesting anyone buy a D1X or anything, but I would assume if people could take professional pictures with good glass on those old DSLR's when they came out, you should be able to to the same with good glass on pretty much any newer DSLR.

[ChrisedwardsHT]

Here is what you can do. Give me the $7,000.

[sovietdoc]

Considering how you don't need to do 20x30 inch prints, get a 5DIII. For landscape and your budget you'll need 16-35L II, for urban shots get a 24-105 f/4L and for wildlife 100-400L plus a flash 600 EX RT. If you don't want to overlap too much you can get a sigma 10-20 for landscapes instead of 16-35 II, but IQ is worse.

Should be within your budget.

[Solarflare]

Lets see:

- shoots mostly landscape, wildlife and urban scenes
- print no larger than 11x18
- $7,000 budge
- having two inexpensive Nikon lenses
- interested in either Canon 5D Mark III, Nikon D4, Nikon D800 or Nikon D700
- maybe interested in video later
- wanting high FPS
- wanting good low light performance
- alternative lens producers allowed

That compiles to:

- $7000 budget : okay, that should give some nice equipment
- 2 lenses : um, which ones ?!?
- 11x18: okay lets assume thats inch, so thats 279.4 mm x 457.2 mm = 2794x4572 = 12.7 Megapixel assuming 10px/mm for absolutely squeaky clean quality
- "mostly" : I guess/hope we can leave out macro for the moment
- Landscape : wide angle lens, possibly manual, preferably shift/tilt, tripod recommented
- Wildlife : telephoto lens, mostly: range, range, and even more range
- Urban : okay, thats probably mostly a lightweight normal (i.e. neither wide nor tele) lens
- high FPS : depends upon camera
- low light: Fast lenses (f/2 and better primes, high quality f/2.8 over whole range zooms) plus good high ISO tolerance on camera (for that see: DxOMark - Camera Sensor Ratings)
- maybe video later : AFAIK only Sony actually does a good autofocus on video right now. What even cheap camcorders manage easily.
- Canon 5D Mark III: Said to be the classic for landscape. Canon shift/tilt lenses are reportedly better than Nikons (limited in their shift/tilt ability, ugly CA problems when shifted or tilted).
- Nikon D4, Nikon D800, Nikon D700: Then also consider D3s/D3 and the upcoming D600 (probably available in October), which also fulfill your requirements

In your shoes I would either try to get a good deal for a D700 now, or preferably wait for the D600 in October (unless it sucks), get the wide and tele parts of the Nikon Trinity (14-24mm and 70-200mm), the classic 50mm prime (AF 50mm f/1.8D), a 1.4 teleconverter, a good lightweight carbon tripod from Gitzo/Manfroto/whatever, and a good camera bag to move all this gear comfortably.

[...] for wildlife 100-400L plus a flash 600 EX RT. [...]

Yeah, because flash helps a lot with animals 50-100m away. Or does Canon have some kind of superflash that can manage even that ?!?

[o hey tyler]

Yeah, because flash helps a lot with animals 50-100m away. Or does Canon have some kind of superflash that can manage even that ?!?

You clearly haven't had any experience with speedlights or their accessories, huh? The 600ex-rt is a top of the line canon flash. Also, paired with the Better Beamer, it should work well at focal lengths of 300mm or greater.

[sovietdoc]

Originally Posted by sovietdoc
[...] for wildlife 100-400L plus a flash 600 EX RT. [...]
Yeah, because flash helps a lot with animals 50-100m away. Or does Canon have some kind of superflash that can manage even that ?!?

I didn't mean tell him to shoot wildlife with 400mil and EX RT, I was just listing all things he should get and added the flash in the end. I didn't notice it looked like I was suggesting photographing wildlife with a flash. LOL

But what Tyler says is a possibility too though.

[itisgregory]

I will take your advice to invest in very good glass because of it holding its value. I have seen Nikon lenses made ten years ago still being used with excellent results whereas camera are changed much more often.

[itisgregory]

Thank for all of the detailed break-down analysis.