Beginner Camera?

[Sam6644]

It wouldn't take you any longer to learn on a 5DMKII, but the 5D would be a complete waste of money for someone looking to take photos as a hobbyist.

Wow, really?

for a first camera, yeah really.

 

[KmH]

It wouldn't take you any longer to learn on a 5DMKII, but the 5D would be a complete waste of money for someone looking to take photos as a hobbyist.

Wow, really?

for a first camera, yeah really.

Nah! :thumbdown:

 

[D-B-J]

Wow, really?

for a first camera, yeah really.

Nah! :thumbdown:

I disagree!

 

[Josh66]

for a first camera, yeah really.

Nah! :thumbdown:

I disagree!

With which part?



The only possible negative I see to starting out with a better camera is that it costs more. Sometimes that's an issue, sometimes it's not. The OP has said nothing about budget.

If budget is not an issue, I say go for the best. Why screw around with anything else unless you have to due to budget constraints?

 

[D-B-J]

Nah! :thumbdown:

I disagree!

With which part?



The only possible negative I see to starting out with a better camera is that it costs more. Sometimes that's an issue, sometimes it's not. The OP has said nothing about budget.

If budget is not an issue, I say go for the best. Why screw around with anything else unless you have to due to budget constraints?

good point. alot of us are forced to choose certain levels of camera's because of budget constraints. If thats not an issue, why not go all out?

 

[subscuck]

When I upgraded to my 50D about a year and a half ago, money was literally no object. I could have bought a 1Ds and a full complement of L glass. I personally couldn't justify it based on the type of shooting I do and the fact that I don't make a living off of my gear. So I bought a 50D and upgraded my Canon 50 1.4 to a Sigma 50 1.4.

If you're a rank beginner and you buy a 5DII, and you make the commitment to learn to use it, and you do learn touse it, I see no problem. The problem I have is when people with more money than common sense buy 5D's, 1D's etc., and then sit them on the shelf because they aren't getting the Nat Geo type pics they thought they would with no understanding of cams or photography. It's the mindset of a great cam/lens will give me great pics. And then they post on forums asking "I've got a 1Ds and 100-400L, what settings should I use for my kids soccer game?" or "How do I put my 1D in portrait mode?" Really?

At the end of the day, it's their money to spend and I ain't the one holding the purse strings. Sometimes though, a little common sense is in order.

 

[Sam6644]

I'm just saying, for someone who might not even feel like taking many photos a year from now, there isn't much of a reason to spend over $2000 on a camera when as a beginner, they will get pretty similar results out of an $800 camera.

Having a $2400 camera isn't going to make him get good at photography any faster and I doubt having a more expensive camera will effect the enjoyment he gains from taking photos.

If it becomes something you really like and think it's a hobby worth investing multiple thousands of dollars in, you can always sell your camera and upgrade.

I mean, if you're the kind of person who just like to be sure you have the most expensive thing you can afford, even if you don't understand how to use it to it's limits, or require the technical quality it provide then yeah, I guess it makes sense to spend more than twice as much as you need to on a new toy.

If you want to learn photography, feel out a new hobby and have some fun while still having a fantastic piece of equipment that will fulfill all of your needs and then some, there is not reason to spend anymore than $600-800.

People in this thread are starting to sound like the sharks at the local camera store trying to make commission or something. You going to insist he purchase a third party warranty too?

Somebody buying a 5DMKII as their first camera is just plain silly and frivolous.

 

[Josh66]

People in this thread are starting to sound like the sharks at the local camera store trying to make commission or something. You going to insist he purchase a third party warranty too?

Wow, really?

People blow tons of money on stupid **** every day.

I remember when sportballer (I think that's his name) first joined here...

He was saying how he would love to have a 5D ... and how he just bought a Lotus.

It's all about priorities.

In his most recent thread, he said he sold the Lotus and bought a Hassy with a digital back. Again - it's all about the priorities.

Not everyone has the same budget... Some people just like to have nice things.

I don't know how many people I know that drive a BMW or Mercedes, but other than their car have few 'nice things'. Everyone has something they dump too much money into.

Last time I bought a new car, I could have gotten a Mustang - I got a Taurus instead.

 

[usayit]

Somebody buying a 5DMKII as their first camera is just plain silly and frivolous.

I agree.. on the other hand, it is their money.

I've seen beginners place unnecessary stress on themselves to produce professional level results simply because they plopped down so much of their money on expensive equipment.

There is also subtile design differences between high end professional cameras and consumer level cameras that appeal directly to their intended markets. These differences can result in a much different experience.. one that caters to beginners and another to the more advanced user.

 

[endofnight]

Sparky1358- For some reason I have always been fond of Canon. I don't know if this is true but I always thought that they "take" better pictures. I will definitely go out and hold both brands to see for myself before buying though!

Derrel-Thanks for the recommendation. I have pretty much decided against the 5d mach II. Although, I have no problem saving up the money for one, I think it would be better overall if I got a cheaper camera.

You mention the 7d which I have heard great things about but I'm actually considering this camera:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T2i-3-0-Inch-18-135mm-Standard/dp/B003MAKXMA/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1280254819&sr=8-4]Amazon.com: Canon EOS Rebel T2i 18 MP CMOS APS-C Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD and EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS UD…[/ame]

Do you know anything about it? It's cheaper than the 7d. The HD video is pretty awesome, and the pictures look great.

I will probably end up buying a T2i. What do you think?

Subscuck- "The problem I have is when people with more money than common sense buy 5D's, 1D's etc., and then sit them on the shelf because they aren't getting the Nat Geo type pics they thought they would with no understanding of cams or photography. It's the mindset of a great cam/lens will give me great pics. And then they post on forums asking "I've got a 1Ds and 100-400L, what settings should I use for my kids soccer game?" or "How do I put my 1D in portrait mode?" "

the 5d's and 1d's seem harder to use. Do you think I will trouble with the Canon t2i?


Well, like I said before, I think I'm gonna get a Canon t2i. Anybody know what the Nikon "equivalent" is? Anymore information would be nice. Any comments or information on the Canon t2i would be especially helpful.

Thanks again for everyones help!

 

[KmH]

. Anybody know what the Nikon "equivalent" is? Anymore information would be nice.

The Nikon equivelent is the D90, the first dSLR to come with video. The T2i has better video and is Canon's second attempt to compete with the D90, but the D90 is still a little better as a still camera:

DxOMark - Compare sensors

 

[subscuck]

the 5d's and 1d's seem harder to use. Do you think I will trouble with the Canon t2i?

I think you missed my point a little. You will struggle with any SLR until you understand the mechanics of photography and how your camera works and fits in with said mechanics. A T2i or Nikon equivalent will not be easier to learn, but they will have auto modes on them that will give you a crutch to take pics with until you start learning about the photographic process. The more you understand about what makes a picture, the more you will understand aperture, shutter speed, ISO, metering, etc. The more you understand those things, the more consistently you will get the "amazing" pics you're looking for.

Get an entry level body and sink some money into nice glass. At some point you'll outgrow the body, but not the glass. The glass will give you better IQ with an entry level body, and you'll keep them when you upgrade the body. Remember, the biggest difference is you and what you know, not the camera. I would also suggest you get "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. There are other good books out there as well, but that's a good one to start with and if you read and apply it, you'll be well ahead of the curve.

 

[endofnight]

Ok, I have made a temporary decision: the Canon t2i. But here's the thing. After looking at online test videos and sample pictures for both the t2i and the D90 I am now more confused than ever!

Hate to start another debate but would love to get everyones opinion again...

D90 vs. the t2i (& maybe the Canon 7d)

not sure if the 7d would be wise for me as a beginner. What do you think? Can I justify that price?

what are your opinions on both? Pros and cons on both?

I've already looked at some comparisons online. They are mostly technical gibberish. I would rather hear from you guys.

Most likely I'll get the t2i. Still love to hear what you guys think.

Thanks!

 

[Sam6644]

The Canons both blow the D90 away in video.

The 7D has a metal, weather-sealed body.

The D90 will likely be replaced by a new camera very soon.

The t2i is cheaper than the 7D and the D90.

The t2i is less than a year old, the 7D is about a year old, and the D90 is over two years old.

Canon high quality lenses are generally a little cheaper than Nikon ones.

The t2i has the same sensor and metering as the 7D which means that you can technically produce the same high quality images with either camera.

the t2i and 7D's sensor performs circles around the D90 in low light.

All three cameras have live view and video, the Canons have allow fully manual control over video exposure as well as many different frame rates and resolution settings. The Nikon's video is automatic exposure, no resolution or frame rate options and only half the resolution of the Canons (Nikon = 720p, Canon = 720p and 1080p)

The Nikon has more focus points than the t2i, but the same as the 7D.

The D90's focus points are more spread out than both of the Canons but only has one cross-type focus point. The 7D has 19 cross-type points.

The D90 is an awesome camera. I used the hell out of it until I bought my 7D.
The 7D is a much better camera than the D90, but costs twice as much.
The t2i shares the 7D's sensor, but is in a more simplified body and costs half as much as the 7D.

I think the D90 is built a little more solidly than the t2i.

I own a 7D and will likely be buying a t2i to use as a backup body in the next couple months.

The D90 is great and was, what I thought to be, the best camera by far at it's price level, but I think the t2i is a real knock out at $800. The D90 is likely to be replaced in the Nikon lineup before the end of the year, so you may experience a little buyer's remorse if you drop the coin on one now, only for it to be upgraded in October or something.

 

[KmH]

The Canon 7D competes with Nikon's D300s, not the D90. The D300s shares the DX portion of Nikon's top-of-the-line pro camera's auto focus module, including 3D-tracking, and has 51 focus points, 15 of them being cross-type points.

The 7D will likely be replaced within the next 24 months or so. To prevent buyers remorse, perhaps you should wait for the 8D.

The T2i doesn't share all the same image sensor parts the 7D has, which is part of the reason the 7D costs so much more.

There is as yet no clear indication, beyond some rumors and conjecture, that Nikon will be replacing the D90 anytime soon.

No one will know for sure until Nikon makes an official announcement.