Beginning photographer with a lot of questions.

[blueberryicedcoffee]

Hey guys. This is my first post on the forum, and I have some questions about... everything. I'm still a beginner, so bear with me through this maze of idiotic questions.

A little info first. I live in Southern Illinois, and there is nothing to photograph. Okay, maybe corn. And wheat. And beans. And the occasional tobacco farm.

You get the idea. It's really flat and relatively un-scenic. It there a photography term for un-scenic? I don't know. There are some interesting places; some parks, Garden of the Gods, but that's it. It's hard to photograph this area, especially someone like me. I've realized the past two months taking photos with my Iphone 5s that I really enjoy two types of photography: Symmetrical stuff and some landscape. Mostly symmetrical architecture. I really enjoy the work some professionals like Ravi Vora and Pei Ketron put into their work to find the beauty in man-made objects.

I went to Atlanta recently and it was a lovely place to photograph. Not only the architecture, but I got some decent photos of people and got a feel for landscape as well (the mountains around there are beautiful).

So, my first question: what should I do? I'm not exaggerating when I say there's simply not much stuff around here to take photos of. No gorgeous landscapes, no fancy buildings, no beautiful people. There is a lot of dirt, if you're a fan of dirt.

So, on to my next long story.

I have an instagram account, that none of you shall ever find (maybe if I become a pro one day you guys can see it ) I am friends with a very, very successful pro photographer family on there. So, I was in Atlanta for a week, snapping some pictures and putting some on instagram occasionally. The pros were very impressed with some of the pictures I took. It made me happy. One of them said they'd like to "groom me" and make me a part of their "family" (they are a family of four, and they are very well known, great, great, great great great Wedding photographers in the area).

I guess I know what they mean. I need some "grooming". For you NFL fans, I'm like a rookie 4th rounder with a lot of upside that needs a lot of coaching and seasoning. I need a lot more experience. That brings me to my next question...

Cameras. Cameras everywhere. I won't become the photographer I want to be with my iphone. I need a DSLR. I need something that I can crop a bit without sacrificing image quality. I need Aperture Priority.

I also need one that doesn't cost $5000.

I was talking to my brother yesterday, who had a short-stint as a Portrait photographer (it didn't work out...), and he said to go with Canon. He said that any of the Canon EOS models should be fine.

I asked another professional photographer while I was in Atlanta, and he said Nikons are good. "Go with the D3300 or the D5100".

I asked my photographer family friends, and I already knew what they would say. "Canon", they said authoritatively. I know they use Canons. I've been to Weddings they've photographed, and I know they take at least $100,000 worth of Canon equipment with them. At least. This is also a family that only uses Apple products and has owned every model of the Iphone/Ipad/Macbook that has ever existed (no joke). So while I appreciated the advice, I already know what they would say.

Ta-da! That's why I'm asking you guys! I need more opinions and more advice.

I'm not drawn to any specific make/model.
I want 18 megapixels or more.
I want to be able to take good low-light photos.
I want to be able to take good portraits.

I also want to know about buying used. With buying new, you know what you're getting - a new, functional camera for full price. If you buy used, you can either 1) get a great deal or 2) get absolutely screwed. So I'd like some info on that.

And the toughest one...

I want to spend $800 or less.


TL;DR version: recommend the best camera possible for a budding photographer for $800 bucks or less.

Thanks for reading my long, boring post, and thanks for the help (unless you didn't read it, jerk) JK.

 

[IzzieK]

Wow! when you said a lot of questions, you really asked quite a bit there...the only way to learn in this community is to upload your work so it can be critiqued. When you said you do not want a camera that will cost an arm and a leg ($5K). I thought I will suggest a D800e at the least. It is less than 5K...but $800 I think someone else can help you with your choice there. You have good friends who can help you too no matter what sort of camera you ended up choosing -- it will be your shot that will be critiqued and not your camera. I learned from my friends too who are interested in photography, some good, some over their heads...and they are mostly pilots so I am not really gearing towards their advice.

Let us wait for others to pitch in their suggestions.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

for 800 bucks total youre going to be hard pressed for a 18MP+ camera I think (maybe not). By the way, MP is mostly a selling gimmick unless you plan on printing very very large. My Nikon D300 can print 17x22 prints all day long no problem with 12MP. As for cropping, compose your shot and you wont have to worry much about cropping.

buy a decent camera body and spend a considerable amount on the lens. Your lens will be what benefits you the most.

Cant go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. Although from my experience with entry level DLSRs, I favored Nikons over Canons by a long shot. My school required photo students to purchase their kit package which consisted of a Canon Rebel of sorts (I already had Nikon gear so I refused to buy the schools kit), and it was awful :thumbdown: Then again this was also about 6 years ago so they may have better entry level Rebels now.

 

[e.rose]

Thanks for the TL;DR version.

I have a very low attention span for wordy posts with no pictures. (Which is highly ironic, because I talk too much for my own good).

If it makes you feel any better, my first camera was a Canon T2i, which was a great little camera for a while, and I dropped about $800 on it.

I haven't been keeping up with gear, but maybe check out what's new in the Canon Rebel world around that price range and start with that.

It'll be a GREAT place to start learning! :sillysmi:

Oh... and WELCOME to the forum.

 

[tirediron]

...A little info first. I live in Southern Illinois, and there is nothing to photograph. Okay, maybe corn. And wheat. And beans. And the occasional tobacco farm.

You get the idea. It's really flat and relatively un-scenic. It there a photography term for un-scenic? I don't know. There are some interesting places; some parks, Garden of the Gods, but that's it. It's hard to photograph this area, especially someone like me. ....

Then you're very lucky! It's EASY to take pictures when you are in an area with lots of natural scenery, amazing architecture, or unique populations. Being able to capture good images in a less exceiting area is where the real challenge. Set yourself a goal of going out at least three times per week and coming home with one (yep, just one!) interesting image each time. You might click the shutter 100 times, but all you're after just ONE good image.

As for the camera, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Pentax all make excellent offerings. Sony's sensors are the best (most Nikon cameras use a Sony-dervived sensor), Pentax is the best bang for the buck, and Olympus makes a great small form-factor camera. Nikon & Canon are the two 'big boys' and have the greatest variety of lenses and accessories, but are NOT the cheapest. As mentioned, DO NOT concern yourself with mega-pixels. Only a few years ago we were shooting bill board adds with <4Mp! Based on your budget, I would opt for a used Nikon D300s; an excellent "semi-pro" body with good build quality, 12mp sensor, and lots of exterior controls.

 

[JustJazzie]

No good advice here, but I thought Colorado was the only state with a "Garden of the Gods" our is giant red rock formations. A local photographer named Lars Leber photographs it quite often, if you are interested in what another GOTG looks like,

The experts will chime in with some great advice. Welcome to TPF!

 

[sashbar]

I asked another professional photographer while I was in Atlanta, and he said Nikons are good. "Go with the D3300 or the D5100".

+1 The guy knows what he is talking about.

 

[robbins.photo]

I have an instagram account, that none of you shall ever find (maybe if I become a pro one day you guys can see it ) I am friends with a very, very successful pro photographer family on there. So, I was in Atlanta for a week, snapping some pictures and putting some on instagram occasionally. The pros were very impressed with some of the pictures I took. It made me happy. One of them said they'd like to "groom me" and make me a part of their "family" (they are a family of four, and they are very well known, great, great, great great great Wedding photographers in the area).

I guess I know what they mean. I need some "grooming". For you NFL fans, I'm like a rookie 4th rounder with a lot of upside that needs a lot of coaching and seasoning. I need a lot more experience. That brings me to my next question...

Cameras. Cameras everywhere. I won't become the photographer I want to be with my iphone. I need a DSLR. I need something that I can crop a bit without sacrificing image quality. I need Aperture Priority.

I also need one that doesn't cost $5000.

I was talking to my brother yesterday, who had a short-stint as a Portrait photographer (it didn't work out...), and he said to go with Canon. He said that any of the Canon EOS models should be fine.

I asked another professional photographer while I was in Atlanta, and he said Nikons are good. "Go with the D3300 or the D5100".

I asked my photographer family friends, and I already knew what they would say. "Canon", they said authoritatively. I know they use Canons. I've been to Weddings they've photographed, and I know they take at least $100,000 worth of Canon equipment with them. At least. This is also a family that only uses Apple products and has owned every model of the Iphone/Ipad/Macbook that has ever existed (no joke). So while I appreciated the advice, I already know what they would say.

Ta-da! That's why I'm asking you guys! I need more opinions and more advice.

I'm not drawn to any specific make/model.
I want 18 megapixels or more.
I want to be able to take good low-light photos.
I want to be able to take good portraits.

I also want to know about buying used. With buying new, you know what you're getting - a new, functional camera for full price. If you buy used, you can either 1) get a great deal or 2) get absolutely screwed. So I'd like some info on that.

And the toughest one...

I want to spend $800 or less.


TL;DR version: recommend the best camera possible for a budding photographer for $800 bucks or less.

Thanks for reading my long, boring post, and thanks for the help (unless you didn't read it, jerk) JK.

Well best bet would most likely actually be a Nikon D3200, with the 18-55 Kit lens. If you need the bells and whistles, maybe a D3300 - but I think the 3200 would probably suit you just fine. A good external flash unit, you can go with a Nikon SB of some sort or save a little money and go with an offbrand like I did, a Yongnuo - I chose the off brand because I just don't use the flash much so it didn't make as much sense for me to invest a lot of money in one as it might for eomeone that uses it more often. For portraits I'd probably add a 50 mm AF-S G 1.8 Prime lens - and then work with those two lenses for a while before deciding if you wanted to add anything else. That should keep you well below budget, actually - give you an amazing 24 mp sensors with great low light abilities and outstanding dynamic range.

Unfortunately though it sounds like this wedding photographer you know shoots Canon - which means if you do go with Nikon and he does want to "bring you into the family", whatever that might mean, that you wouldn't really be able to borrow lenses/other gear so that might be a consideration.

As far as Canon in the 18 mp, under $800 range your options are going to be a little more limited, probably a T3I of some sort again with the kit lens to start with - it will give you an 18 mp sensor but won't give you quite the lowlight abilities of the Nikon. Upside is it would be compatbile with the lenses your photographer friend is using assuming he's thinking of loaning you lenses and other accessories to use.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thanks for the TL;DR version.

I have a very low attention span for wordy posts with no pictures. (Which is highly ironic, because I talk too much for my own good).

Oh ya, taking a no comment on that one.. rotfl

 

[TCampbell]

Hey guys. This is my first post on the forum, and I have some questions about... everything. I'm still a beginner, so bear with me through this maze of idiotic questions.

A little info first. I live in Southern Illinois, and there is nothing to photograph. Okay, maybe corn. And wheat. And beans. And the occasional tobacco farm.

You get the idea. It's really flat and relatively un-scenic. It there a photography term for un-scenic? I don't know. There are some interesting places; some parks, Garden of the Gods, but that's it. It's hard to photograph this area, especially someone like me. I've realized the past two months taking photos with my Iphone 5s that I really enjoy two types of photography: Symmetrical stuff and some landscape. Mostly symmetrical architecture. I really enjoy the work some professionals like Ravi Vora and Pei Ketron put into their work to find the beauty in man-made objects.

There's never "nothing" to photograph. You may need to pick up a copy of Michael Freemans' book "The Photographer's Mind" and "The Photographer's Eye" and start training yourself to SEE subjects. The subject is only PART of what makes the photo interesting... it's how you choose to portray it and work the eye and brain of the viewer.

Let's pick on sunsets, shall we?

We only have one sun. Yet there are millions of sunset photos. Some of them are mediocre and yet others are stunning. Those "stunning" sunsets usually don't actually look quite as stunning as the photograph portrays... the photographer works to frame, capture, and then "tease" the beauty out of the image. The angle of your perspective makes a big difference. You'll get one version of the sunset while standing on the ground... quite another from a rooftop where you can capture quite a lot of foreground detail (especially with a gradient neutral density filter to allow you to darken the top half of the exposure so you can increase the exposure for the lower half.)

Also... are there no people in your town?

When I was younger, I had to go shoot photos to expand my way of seeing the world... e.g. "birds eye" views, "worms eye" views, "texture" (think tree bark, gravel, peeling paint) and the list just went on and on. If you want to learn to see things, you'll need to get used to looking for it. Trust me... it's there.

You should definitely pick up and read a few good books as these may really help open up your mind.

I went to Atlanta recently and it was a lovely place to photograph. Not only the architecture, but I got some decent photos of people and got a feel for landscape as well (the mountains around there are beautiful).

So, my first question: what should I do? I'm not exaggerating when I say there's simply not much stuff around here to take photos of. No gorgeous landscapes, no fancy buildings, no beautiful people. There is a lot of dirt, if you're a fan of dirt.

Dirt is good. What's wrong with dirt? I've seen some amazing photography featuring dirt. In fact... I've seen some amazing photography gracing the page of publications like National Geographic... featuring dirt!

So, on to my next long story.

I have an instagram account, that none of you shall ever find (maybe if I become a pro one day you guys can see it ) I am friends with a very, very successful pro photographer family on there. So, I was in Atlanta for a week, snapping some pictures and putting some on instagram occasionally. The pros were very impressed with some of the pictures I took. It made me happy. One of them said they'd like to "groom me" and make me a part of their "family" (they are a family of four, and they are very well known, great, great, great great great Wedding photographers in the area).

I guess I know what they mean. I need some "grooming". For you NFL fans, I'm like a rookie 4th rounder with a lot of upside that needs a lot of coaching and seasoning. I need a lot more experience. That brings me to my next question...

Cameras. Cameras everywhere. I won't become the photographer I want to be with my iphone. I need a DSLR. I need something that I can crop a bit without sacrificing image quality. I need Aperture Priority.

I also need one that doesn't cost $5000.

I was talking to my brother yesterday, who had a short-stint as a Portrait photographer (it didn't work out...), and he said to go with Canon. He said that any of the Canon EOS models should be fine.

I asked another professional photographer while I was in Atlanta, and he said Nikons are good. "Go with the D3300 or the D5100".

I asked my photographer family friends, and I already knew what they would say. "Canon", they said authoritatively. I know they use Canons. I've been to Weddings they've photographed, and I know they take at least $100,000 worth of Canon equipment with them. At least. This is also a family that only uses Apple products and has owned every model of the Iphone/Ipad/Macbook that has ever existed (no joke). So while I appreciated the advice, I already know what they would say.

Ta-da! That's why I'm asking you guys! I need more opinions and more advice.

Your inexperienced friends are only recommending Canon and Nikon because they've never used a Hasselblad H5D-50. And at $50k for the body only, I think you should buy two! ;-)

All kidding aside... The camera is a machine. Nothing more. You make the pictures. You take the blame when they don't turn out. You get the credit when they do turn out.

If you pick the brand BECAUSE someone else shoots with it... that would be the wrong reason.

Frankly just about any DSLR camera built today is extremely good regardless of brand. In 2014, they're all good cameras. You will have a large selection of gear if you look at Canon and Nikon (both of whom have approximately 75 lenses (give or take) in their current offering of lenses at any given moment in time.) They also tend to have the broadest 3rd party support -- everyone makes accessories to work with their cameras. Don't go down the "my camera is better than your camera" rat-hole because for every one feature you can find where one model is better... you can find something else where the "other" model is better.

I'm not drawn to any specific make/model.
I want 18 megapixels or more.
I want to be able to take good low-light photos.
I want to be able to take good portraits.

I also want to know about buying used. With buying new, you know what you're getting - a new, functional camera for full price. If you buy used, you can either 1) get a great deal or 2) get absolutely screwed. So I'd like some info on that.

And the toughest one...

I want to spend $800 or less.


TL;DR version: recommend the best camera possible for a budding photographer for $800 bucks or less.

Thanks for reading my long, boring post, and thanks for the help (unless you didn't read it, jerk) JK.

There are a few reasons to pick one model over another (model.... not brand), but usually this is due to some niche in photography that you want to pursue. For example... there are some cameras with faster continuous shooting sppeds and better focusing systems and those are going to lend themselves better to action photography then something with a slow frame rate or minimal focusing system. But if you're shooting landscapes and architecture... frankly you're probably maximizing your depth of field and the focusing system doesn't much matter and since the land and buildings aren't in any hurry to go anywhere the shooting speed of the camera isn't so important. Shooting portraiture? The model is following your instructions so here again... the speed factor is not important and even if the camera has a minimal focus system, you don't need to be in an enormous rush to get the shot.

In the order of importance to how much of an impact something will have on your photography it's:

1) You - your skill. Your knowledge of the camera and your "eye" to see the shots. Sometimes including your ability to interact with your subjects ... to anticipate something about to happen or to provoke a reaction (e.g. make them laugh or smile for example).

2) Lighting... yep here in #2. Photography is all about the interplay between light and shadow (and without shadow you don't get good light).

3) Lenses... lenses create the angle of view. Don't stand in one spot. Don't zoom simply because you don't want to move. Move to the best spot and use the lens to get the angle of view you need. Lenses control the depth of field (or lack thereof when you deliberately want de-focused parts of an image.)

4) And here in last place... the camera. I hate to be equipment-limited. If something is holding me back I'd rather it be me and not my gear. So it's not that the camera is unimportant... it is possible to have a camera hold you back. But I will say it is probably the least important.



With that out of the way...

Canon's "entry" range is in two halves... there's a bottom end to the entry range and a top end to the entry range (before going into the mid-range and pro bodies).

At the bottom end of the entry range, the current body is the Canon EOS Rebel T5 -- $499 with the "kit" lens (more on that in a moment)
At the top end of the entry range, the current body is the Canon EOS Rebel T5i (notice that little "i" suffix... it's a big deal). It's about $750.

It turns out you can still get the Canon T3 (the old low-end of the entry range) and you can also still get the T3i (the old "top" of the entry range). So those cameras are actually less expensive.

Nikon's "entry" range is also in two halves...

At the bottom of the entry range it's the D3300 ... $599 with the "kit" lens.
At the top of the entry range it's the D5300... $850 with the "kit" lens.

Like Canon, it turns out you can still get the predecessors... in fact you can get two. You can still get the D3200 as well as the D3100 on the low end and you can still get the D5200 and D5100 on the higher end.

All of these (except the D5300) are under your $800 budget.

You can ALSO shop for "refurbished" cameras in addition to used. A true "refurb" is refurbished by the manufacturer, usually has the identical warranty as a new camera (because you usually buy it direct from them) and saves you a chunk of change.

Now about those "kit" lenses. Those are something to get you started shooting. You can get any of these cameras in a "body only" version but you must have at least one lens to use the camera. If you want to buy the camera in the manufacturer's "kit" version, these consumer grade entry level bodies (high or low end of the entry-range) almost always include an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. That lens is wide angle (but not ultra-wide) through moderate telephoto zoom range (nothing too extreme.) They are optically sound and fine lenses. Usually they will not have the fastest performing focus motors. They may use a lower build quality than the higher end lenses. But optically they're great!

The camera and single lens are just the foundation of the "system". The benefit of a camera with removable lenses and the ability to add on components is that it's just so gosh darned versatile. You don't have to settle for an all-in-one general-purpose lens. You can get THE lens which is most idea for the task at hand. And... you don't even have to BUY lenses because there are plenty of outfits that will RENT you gear.

You may eventually want to add a lens (or two) ... I particularly suggest getting (not right away though) a low focal ratio "prime" lens (a "prime" lens is any lens that does not zoom). This is because a lens such as a 50mm f/1.4 will offer a shallower depth of field (depth of field is the range at which subjects will appear to be in acceptable focus) and that deliberately shallower depth of field can mean you are able to have a tack-sharp subject and yet a gorgeously soft and de-focused background -- a very nice look. Also you can shoot in lower light because the lens naturally collects more light when shooting at a low focal ratio (keeping in mind that it's also making your depth of field shallower.)

As for the megapixels... that's overblown. Most of the cameras I listed above are either at or above 18MP but it really wouldn't matter if it wasn't. For YEARS Nikon shooters were limited to things like 12 megapixels even after their competition was offering higher resolutions. You can find their photos all over the pages of things like Sports Illustrated. Notice how crappy those 12 megapixel images look? No? That's because they DON'T look crappy... they look amazing. The truth is that most of us don't use all the megapixels our cameras collect. We generally display images at much lower resolutions than the camera used when capturing the image.

As for "I have an instagram account, that none of you shall ever find." That's a shame... you should NEVER be ashamed to show your work. Don't let anyone else intimidate you or embarrass you. The ONLY way you're going to learn is to show your "best" work other photographers... and then take the critique (even if brutal at times... though this site tends to be gentler than most). WE promise to be honest. YOU promise not to melt. In so doing... you will hopefully learn and improve.

 

[dennybeall]

I like the Nikon D5300 for it's flexibility and quality pictures. With the 18-140mm lens its a little pricey but a nice combination that will let you take stills and nice HD video. Many Nikon folks say the D7100 is a better choice for just a little more money. Add a dual battery base and a 30$ external mic and you've got a lot of quality capability. Not a pro setup but a great starter package.

 

[studioh22]

I like the Nikon D5300 for it's flexibility and quality pictures. With the 18-140mm lens its a little pricey but a nice combination that will let you take stills and nice HD video. Many Nikon folks say the D7100 is a better choice for just a little more money. Add a dual battery base and a 30$ external mic and you've got a lot of quality capability. Not a pro setup but a great starter package.

I agree with Denny. I'm also using the Nikon D5300 and I really love it. In my own point of view, it's better to invest on quality equipment than buy a low quality camera then find yourself wanting to sell that camera to purchase a better camera.

 

[limr]

There's never "nothing" to photograph. You may need to pick up a copy of Michael Freemans' book "The Photographer's Mind" and "The Photographer's Eye" and start training yourself to SEE subjects. The subject is only PART of what makes the photo interesting... it's how you choose to portray it and work the eye and brain of the viewer.

THIS!!! All day long.

OP said:

No gorgeous landscapes, no fancy buildings, no beautiful people.

This assumes that only beautiful subjects make beautiful pictures.

Everything else TCampbell said in his awesome post was spot on and really great advice.