Can anyone suggest me a DSLR with lens, My budget is $1100.

[svarmasagi]

Hi,

I am planning to buy a DSLR with 1 or 2 lens. Can anyone suggest me good model within a budget of $1100. I am inclined to buy either Canon or Nikon. Please leave your suggestions.

Thanks a lot in Advance.

Thanks.

 

[fjrabon]

I'd probably go Nikon D5100 (for two reasons, auto exposure bracketing and it works with Nikon's wireless trigger, the D3100 doesn't do either of those, and they're both huge conveniences, though if you're just concerned with the quality of the images, I think the D3100 and the D5100 are pretty much equal there, both are great for the money) with the kit lens (18-55mm VR a good versatile lens, not great at anything, but will get a lot of great shots, and VR is really nice when you're toting it around and shooting by hand). Then I'd get the Nikon 35mm prime f/1.8 lens. It's not a zoom, so you'll have to move around a lot ot get the shot you want. But it's always nice in low light to have a super sharp lens, and it's razor sharp. Can't beat it for the money. If you have money left over, maybe the Nikon 55-200 zoom lens. Don't bother with the VR, as if you're shooting further out than 55mm, you'll want to use a tripod anyway, and VR actually hurts your images if you're using a tripod and a shutter trigger.

Just MHO.

edit: one other thing, don't scrimp on the tripod. You need one and you need a really good one if you're buying a camera that expensive. They'll do much, much, much more for your pictures than better lenses, and WAY more than a better body will.

 

[jwbryson1]

Get a good camera and lens and learn how to use them before you worry about getting a tripod.

 

[fjrabon]

Get a good camera and lens and learn how to use them before you worry about getting a tripod.

I disagree pretty heavily there. To me, the two biggest things that have made a difference in my photography was learning how the controls on my camera work, and how to properly use a tripod. Real photography is 75% done on a tripod and 23% of the other 25% of when it's not on a tripod (or monopod) it's because it just can't practically be shot on a tripod. As well, you can develop some bad habits early on by hand shooting for too long. I think it throws your sharpness eye off, and you get used to too much noise. A big part of learning to become a photographer and not a snapshooter (along with composition and lighting) is learning how to compose with a tripod.

If you're serious about photography, you'll want a good tripod within a couple of weeks of having your camera. Otherwise, I think you'll just think you don't have 'it' and kind of get frustrated that your images 'just don't look right' though most people will have a hard time saying exactly why.

 

[svarmasagi]

Thanks a lot for all your suggestions. Comparing below 2 lens which would be good for wedding photography:
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S cost
Nikon 35mm prime f/1.8 lens
Initially my photography includes lot of indoor and outdoor parties.

 

[MTVision]

Thanks a lot for all your suggestions. Comparing below 2 lens which would be good for wedding photography:
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S cost
Nikon 35mm prime f/1.8 lens
Initially my photography includes lot of indoor and outdoor parties.

Get the 50mm af-s 1.8g. From what I've heard the 35 has a lot of chromatic aberration.

 

[MLeeK]

Thanks a lot for all your suggestions. Comparing below 2 lens which would be good for wedding photography:
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S cost
Nikon 35mm prime f/1.8 lens
Initially my photography includes lot of indoor and outdoor parties.

Depends on what camera you purchase. If its the d5100 or d3100 you have to purchase the more expensive one of the 50mm. It can be tight for indoor groups, but its a pretty awesome length to cover the general use I its going to be your only lens.
The 35 is nicer for indoor portraits on a crop sensor. Much loved hiking lens with the crop sensor owners.

 

[PixelDust]

I would be inclined to go with the 35mm for the wider angle. I use it a lot and I have never had any issues. I hear people with the 50mm complain about how tight it is all the time.

 

[fjrabon]

Thanks a lot for all your suggestions. Comparing below 2 lens which would be good for wedding photography:
Nikon 50mm f/1.4G AF-S cost
Nikon 35mm prime f/1.8 lens
Initially my photography includes lot of indoor and outdoor parties.

Isn't the 50mm f/1.4 over twice as expensive? If I were you, to start with, I'd probably start with the 35mm f/1.8, it's plenty fast enough for indoor parties, even handshot. THough, to be honest, primes aren't good for wedding photography, because you have to be able to quickly get a lot of different shots. If you want wedding, I think this is a good one to start with: Amazon.com: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens: Electronics as you'll be forced to handshoot a lot for weddings (that was most of the 25% I was talking about earlier, shooting the non posed wedding shots), so you'll want VR. You'll need zoom, because you DO NOT want to miss a shot during a wedding while you change lenses.

 

[MTVision]

I disagree pretty heavily there. To me, the two biggest things that have made a difference in my photography was learning how the controls on my camera work, and how to properly use a tripod. Real photography is 75% done on a tripod and 23% of the other 25% of when it's not on a tripod (or monopod) it's because it just can't practically be shot on a tripod. As well, you can develop some bad habits early on by hand shooting for too long. I think it throws your sharpness eye off, and you get used to too much noise. A big part of learning to become a photographer and not a snapshooter (along with composition and lighting) is learning how to compose with a tripod.

If you're serious about photography, you'll want a good tripod within a couple of weeks of having your camera. Otherwise, I think you'll just think you don't have 'it' and kind of get frustrated that your images 'just don't look right' though most people will have a hard time saying exactly why.

I have to disagree with you. I have a tripod and the only time I've used it is with self-portraits. I've shot a waterfall handheld at 1/15 with my 55-300 VR and it was sharp as can be. A tripod is great to have and landscape photographers should have one but if you are shooting portraits or kids you don't need a tripod or a monopod. Composing with a tripod, IMO, is no different then composing without. I'm also not sure that a tripod, in itself will help reduce noise. A tripod is good to have but I agree with buying a camera and a nice lens (and learning to use those) before buying a tripod. It all depends on what the OP will be shooting too.

The d5100 is a nice camera - I have it. It has the same sensor as the d7000 and it handles high ISO's pretty well. It's missing some of the dedicated controls that the d7000 has but you won't be disappointed by the image quality.

 

[fjrabon]

Depends on what camera you purchase. If its the d5100 or d3100 you have to purchase the more expensive one of the 50mm. It can be tight for indoor groups, but its a pretty awesome length to cover the general use I its going to be your only lens.
The 35 is nicer for indoor portraits on a crop sensor. Much loved hiking lens with the crop sensor owners.

Maybe I'm totally wrong about this, but don't the D3100 and D5100 have the same size sensor? The D3100, D5100 and D7000 are all crop sensors, right? The latter two just have more megapixels, more or less?

 

[kundalini]

The biggest advantage that a tripod offers....................











It slows you down to concentrate on framing your shot.

 

[MTVision]

Isn't the 50mm f/1.4 over twice as expensive? If I were you, to start with, I'd probably start with the 35mm f/1.8, it's plenty fast enough for indoor parties, even handshot. THough, to be honest, primes aren't good for wedding photography, because you have to be able to quickly get a lot of different shots. If you want wedding, I think this is a good one to start with: Amazon.com: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens: Electronics as you'll be forced to handshoot a lot for weddings (that was most of the 25% I was talking about earlier, shooting the non posed wedding shots), so you'll want VR. You'll need zoom, because you DO NOT want to miss a shot during a wedding while you change lenses.

That zoom wouldn't work for weddings. It's slow and horrible in low light. A lot of people who shoot weddings use 2 camera bodies - with 2 different lenses. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a great zoom but it's super pricey.

There is a 50mm f/1.8 af-s for about 220.00 and it will work on the d5100. It is a much better lens than the 35mm f/1.8 and from what I've read its better than the more expensive 50 f/1.4

 

[MTVision]

Maybe I'm totally wrong about this, but don't the D3100 and D5100 have the same size sensor? The D3100, D5100 and D7000 are all crop sensors, right? The latter two just have more megapixels, more or less?

No you are right. They are all cropped sensors. The d5100 and d7000 do have more megapixels then the 3100 - at least I'm pretty sure.

 

[fjrabon]

I have to disagree with you. I have a tripod and the only time I've used it is with self-portraits. I've shot a waterfall handheld at 1/15 with my 55-300 VR and it was sharp as can be. A tripod is great to have and landscape photographers should have one but if you are shooting portraits or kids you don't need a tripod or a monopod. Composing with a tripod, IMO, is no different then composing without. I'm also not sure that a tripod, in itself will help reduce noise. A tripod is good to have but I agree with buying a camera and a nice lens (and learning to use those) before buying a tripod. It all depends on what the OP will be shooting too.

The d5100 is a nice camera - I have it. It has the same sensor as the d7000 and it handles high ISO's pretty well. It's missing some of the dedicated controls that the d7000 has but you won't be disappointed by the image quality.

If you're shooting just portraits for your kids, you probably don't need to spend $1100 on a camera either. A tripod means you can use longer exposures, instead of higher ISOs, which Nikons are much better at reducing shutter speed noise than high ISO noise.

Composing with a tripod isn't categorically different, but it requires a lot more thought, since you don't want to continuously set up and take down a tripod.

If you can have a tack sharp shot at 1/15 a second, zoomed to at least over 55mm, with just VR, you're better than most. I've talked to plenty of pros who say that even with steady practice, shooting after breathing, etc they don't feel comfortable doing much more than double the inverse rule with VR.

I guess we just disagree there though. Though I will say, pretty much every book you read about that, even in the VR/IS age, say that most types of photography are drastically benefited by a tripod.