Advice on DSLR Set-up and/or Lenses

[~Stella~]

Most of my shots are portraits of children/babies and kids in their natural habitats. I consider myself an intermediate beginner and honestly I adore my camera and wonder if I can get more out of it or whether I should upgrade.

I have this one: [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ50-Digital-Optical-Stabilized/dp/B000GHVZQ0/ref=sr_1_44?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1236635903&sr=1-44"]10.1-megapixel Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50[/ame]. Not for that price, obviously...that's insane.

I don't want to be a professional, but I would like to take really nice photos of children for our family and of friends' babies as a gift to them more than anything.

1) What lenses would you suggest to get more out of my current camera for infant/child portraits?

and/or

2) If you think an upgrade is in order, please suggest camera and lenses for a decent beginner who won't want to buy another camera in the next few years.


This is the type of shot I'm getting out of the current camera:

 

[~Stella~]

I'm reading other threads on this (yes, I know how to search!) but I'm just getting more conflicted. Off to read.....

 

[Katier]

I believe your Lumix is a 'bridge' camera so you can't get extra lenses for it.

Bridge cameras aren't bad by any means but they are a compromise design. In your case it's not a terrible spec but if you want to move on with photography and enjoy it then I think you'll find it increasingly restrictive.

Therefore I think you should look at an upgrade. Some people here will reccomend Nikon and Canon but I think your best choice is Pentax.

Nikons are poor at the lower end, poor specs, lot of compromises to try and make them competitive at price. As your looking for a camera to last I can't reccomend it. Nikons are good for those expecting to go up toward pro level gear but for enthusiasts.. not a good choice.

Canon unfortunatly aren't much better in the value for money stakes. Their cameras have less compromises at the lower end but still miss features I couldn't do without.

That leaves Pentax, why pentax?

1) Best Value for money of any of the big four ( sony is the other one ).
2) Build quality is general the best for the price.
3) 50 years of lenses will work without issues ( of which first 25 years need a pentax approved adapter).

So what would I reccomend?

Pentax K200D, it's the second model up in the Pentax range. It is built like a preverbial tank, has a top mounted LCD display ( that I find invaluable ), in body Shake Reduction ( thus works on all lenses) and very good image quality ( at least as good as it's competition and a lot better than your lumix despite the same number of megapixels).

Then add to it a 50mm f1.4 ( or 1.7 ), Pentax KA fit ( K fit is fine but not as automatic a lens as the KA ) lens and you've got a lovely setup for portraits.

If you want some flexibility too you could get a 70-300 zoom for outdoor shots and maybe a 28mm or the 'kit' lens to give a wide angle option.

 

[~Stella~]

Thanks so much. I'll read this in detail later once I have everyone in bed. The Lumix will fit lenses - I have a polarizing lens that I forget to use and something else that came with it and I have a UV lens on it as protection against scratches/little children, but I don't know if what I need is even available for it. Especially since I'm not sure what I need, heh.

 

[kundalini]

Hey Stella, I did a quick scan of the link you provided and I think Katier is correct. It seems to be a bridge camera. The bridge camera is a bit more robust than a P&S and has the look of a dSLR, but has a fixed lens. I also think you are confusing "lens" with "filter". UV's and Polarizer's are filters with a purpose.

I've seen some really nice photos by you, so if you give a budget you have in mind, the upgrade to a dSLR will give a better response. Personally, I too, would forgo any of the entry level cameras by Nikon or Canon, but something along the line of a Nikon D80 or better is a good starting point. The used section of craigslist is a place to start as well. I'm selling my D80 that is in perfect condition soon, but haven't put a price on the kit. Canon has similar candidates, it's just that I shoot Nikon. Actually, you should look at the D200 or Canon equivalent. They are more prosumer in build and features, but will not have the latest bells and whistles.

Oh, one more thing....... my first SLR was a Pentax and they are good cameras too. It's just been years since I've looked at them.

Good luck.

 

[~Stella~]

You know you are right - I wasn't even thinking when I typed that. Thanks for pointing that out.

Thanks also for the encouraging comments.

I didn't have a budget in mind, per se. I just figured I'd pay what I needed to to get what I needed, if that makes sense. What can I get for $1k give or take a few hundred?

 

[kundalini]

I just read that Best Buy is selling the D200 body for $600. I don't know if you have a preference for primes or zooms, but for portrait work that you exampled in this thread, primes are a good choice. I like the 35-50-85mm combinations, but that may be more than you want to invest for the lot.

Again, I shoot Nikon, so a slight bias is to be expected. Give each brand a test drive to see which feels best in your hands and the menu navigation.

$1K is really a good base to get a reliable camera and something other than a kit lens. Meaning, forget a kit lens.

 

[Katier]

1K would easilly get you the kit I described, possibly even the better K20D at a push.

 

[~Stella~]

1K would easilly get you the kit I described, possibly even the better K20D at a push.

Thank you. What do you think of these Pentax options?

SLR Digital Cameras | BuyDig.com,The Internet's Digital Superstore

 

[Katier]

Limited range which doesn't really help sadly. Unfortunatly I'm from the UK so don't know US retailers to guide you on that front.

However What I would look for is probably to buy something like :-

Pentax K20D Digital SLR Camera with Pentax 18-55mm II & Pentax 50-200mm Lenses - Only £659.00 - SRS Microsystems

(that's a UK retailer but I'm sure somewhere in the US has a similar deal)

then add a second hand 50mm f1.4 or f1.7 Pentax KA fit, manual focus lens. (or if you can stretch the budget the AF equivelent)

The reason for the last lens is that for portraits a fast fixed focal length lens is best. On film cameras 100mm was often the lens of choice but for Digital lenses slightly shorter is just as good, 50mm gives the equivelent of 75mm so it is a good choice.

 

[Village Idiot]

I just read that Best Buy is selling the D200 body for $600. I don't know if you have a preference for primes or zooms, but for portrait work that you exampled in this thread, primes are a good choice. I like the 35-50-85mm combinations, but that may be more than you want to invest for the lot.

Again, I shoot Nikon, so a slight bias is to be expected. Give each brand a test drive to see which feels best in your hands and the menu navigation.

$1K is really a good base to get a reliable camera and something other than a kit lens. Meaning, forget a kit lens.

The D200 would be an excellent choice. That way you could buy a cheap, but effective prime and then spend some money on a light. Lighting is what makes portraiture and Nikon has the Creative Lighting System (CLS) in their higher end cameras that is a really robust wireless TTL system.

 

[~Stella~]

Thank you so much for your input. In an amazing coincidence, I got a check today for $1000 that I wasn't really expecting, so I'm incredibly tempted.

 

[whiplash23]

I was recently in the same boat as you are. I bought a Canon G9 around Christmas, but just wasn't happy with the shots I was getting of the kid (it was very hard to get a shallow depth of field). A amateur (but very good) photographer friend of mine used a D50 forever, and even took our family portraits with it. They looked great. I have also seen 13x19 prints taken with that camera, which also looked very good.

Based on those results and some internet research, I ended up with a Nikon D40 with the 18-55 lens, and bought a 55-200VR. All entry level gear to be sure but I couldn't be happier. I got better pics my first time out with it at the play ground than I have ever gotten before.

I made so pretty rookie mistakes (didn't used fill flash when I should, and used too large of an aperature) but I was still happy with the results.

I am sure you have run across Ken Rockwells info if you have been researching. He seems to have some unusual takes on things, but overall I found his reviews helpful.

For what it is worth, I was able to get a brand new D40 kit at a local retailer for $399, the 55-200VR ran me another $200.

To me, it seems like a huge step forward from the G9.

 

[kundalini]

I don't want to step on any toes, but IMO, the Nikon D40 & D60 would be a miss knowing what I know now, which isn't that much, but certainly more than I started out with. I have to admit that my eyesight is much worse now and I have tried manual focusing...... mostly I suck at it and depend on AF for general shooting. This is why I give those two the thumbs down. They are limited with the selection of Nikkor lenses that will AF and also meter. But that's just me.

Did I mention that I shoot Nikon? ......and may be slightly biased?

The others have similarities I'm sure.

 

[Frequent Traveler]

Hi Stella,

I'll put in the Sony A200 with kit lens for about $400.

Add one of the Minolta "vintage" AF lenses - a 70-210mm f4 (known as the "Beercan") for another $200 and you're in business!