Need help with choosing a camera to buy

[Designer]

I have seen where cameras come in bundles which have a 18-55 with image stabilization lens and a 75-300 lens but doesn't say anything about image stabilization. If I am doing far away shots wouldn't I need that? Or am I overthinking this?

I am wanting to stay below $1000 for the setup if this is even possible. Do you have any suggestions for me? I would greatly appreciate your advice.

Braineack's suggested combo is what I would also recommend.

I would not recommend one of those "100-piece" kits. Your hunch is correct; one lens is image stabilized, while the other is not. The big drawback with those kits is the filler items are usually of questionable value, and most will be tried once and then relegated to a drawer, never to be used again.

I would start looking at a "enthusiast level" body (used, from a reputable reseller) and one or two good lenses. This is the first year. The second year you get some electronic flashes with modifiers, light stands, and a tripod so you can learn portraiture.

Anyway; you can start here:

Photography, Digital Cameras, Lenses, Electronics - 8PM Shipping - Adorama Camera

B&H Photo Video Digital Cameras, Photography, Camcorders

Used Camera Equipment | Buy and Sell on KEH Camera

These three resellers have very good reputations. Stay away from e-bay and Craig's list.

After you have looked at everything currently available, you will still have questions, but try to "put together" one or two body/lens combos to compare. You can read reviews online about each item.

Then, when you've narrowed your search, call the above companies to talk with a person about your choices. They may have further suggestions. Ask about batteries, chargers, body/lens caps, carrying strap, etc. You don't need to worry about a camera bag just now, you just want to get the best camera you can afford and a decent lens with which to get started.

 

[Paula67]

Thank you for posting. There is alot of great information here which I knew I would get from posting my question. I see I have alot more research to do. I realize now that I need to stop looking at the bundle packages. I need to focus on getting a good lens for now for the sports/low light shots and can add different lenses later on as the budget allows. I do not want to settle for an average lens and not get the close up shots I want. So I am willing to spend more to get a good lens.

 

[Designer]

Thank you for posting. There is alot of great information here which I knew I would get from posting my question. I see I have alot more research to do. I realize now that I need to stop looking at the bundle packages. I need to focus on getting a good lens for now for the sports/low light shots and can add different lenses later on as the budget allows. I do not want to settle for an average lens and not get the close up shots I want. So I am willing to spend more to get a good lens.

Heh-heh.

I've got one on my wish list that usually goes for over $1,500.00, used! But if you get serious, and have the money, you will eventually want to move up into the rarified air of better lenses.

This is why I and some others will recommend that you stretch your camera budget as far as it will go, because a better body can do so much more than the entry level bodies.

 

[astroNikon]

FYI, your requires of indoor/outdoor of people and sports/events really taxes a camera ability. This is nothing new.

There's many threads on this board of people doing indoor sports/events such as wrestling (dance, theater, etc), which is normally in subpar lighting, and having issues. It's always a fight between a higher Shutter Speed to stop the motion (say above 1/500), with the proper aperture (for DOF or compensating for low light) AND focusing mode (for accurate focusing on subject), plus a higher ISO for proper exposure. This is where a higher end body with better ISO capabilities PLUS a good lens (think f/2.8 or better) matches up well with events in subpar lighting.

It's very hard to recommend a camera. PLUS you'll have to push your knowledge of how to use the camera properly. No AUTO mode to let the camera decide everything. So camera plus knowledge is key here, and more knowledge and more ...

For me doing indoor sports/events and outdoor sports/events even during the evening I use a d750/d600 with f/2.8 lenses or better. They have superb ISO abilities to handle low light events. I used to have a d7000 which did "okay" but no comparison to the d750/d600.

 

[Designer]

I do not want to settle for an average lens and not get the close up shots I want. So I am willing to spend more to get a good lens.

Look up the going price for a used D610 and a used 85mm lens. I've got one of those lenses, and I absolutely love it! You don't really need a zoom lens as badly as you might think, because with an excellent prime (like the 85mm) you just shoot, and then crop later on your computer.

 

[robbins.photo]

Thank you for posting. There is alot of great information here which I knew I would get from posting my question. I see I have alot more research to do. I realize now that I need to stop looking at the bundle packages. I need to focus on getting a good lens for now for the sports/low light shots and can add different lenses later on as the budget allows. I do not want to settle for an average lens and not get the close up shots I want. So I am willing to spend more to get a good lens.

A 70-200mm 2.8 of some sort is probably your best bet. You can get decent results out of even older models. On a budget I recommend one of the Sigma's, the non-VR versions of the Tamron lens often have issues focusing accurately in low light situations. The VR version of the Tamron is fantastic - but it's also about $1300 just for the lens.

I paid roughly $400 for my Sigma 70-200mm HSM I, and it gives pretty respectable results.

20160903_8873 by Todd Robbins, on Flickr

That was shot with a D600. If you can increase your budget an inexpensive full frame like the D600 would be the best option, paired with a 70-200mm 2.8 lens of some sort. Action photography in lowlight, as others have mentioned, is pretty challenging even with good equipment.

 

[Braineack]

Yeah, that Sigma 70-200 is probably the best lens for this budget. I've seen the non-stabilized versions sell for $250.

I recommended the 85mm 1.8G because it can be had for under $375; a AF-D copy, around $250. And 85mm is still long--even on a FF sensor.

The point was, you need both a good low-light sensor, and a fast long lens.

 

[KmH]

Note that for action shots we usually need to use a shutter speed faster than an in-the-lens image stabilization (IS) system ineffective.
Most, if not all, IS systems should be turned off at shutter speeds faster than 1/500 so they don't unnecessarily consume battery power.

IS is only able to correct for camera motion. Expecting IS to correct all motion is something many new to using IS capable lenses don't realize IS is not capable of doing.

Also note that IS is a solution to a problem, and if you don't have that problem, having IS turned on can become a problem of its own.
Which means, only turn on IS when it's needed. Other wise, leave it turned off.

 

[robbins.photo]

Yeah, that Sigma 70-200 is probably the best lens for this budget. I've seen the non-stabilized versions sell for $250.

I recommended the 85mm 1.8G because it can be had for under $375; a AF-D copy, around $250. And 85mm is still long--even on a FF sensor.

The point was, you need both a good low-light sensor, and a fast long lens.

The 85 is a thumping sharp lens, only thing I noticed on mine was the CA was awful in lowlight. Not sure if the problem was just with my individual copy or if it is common to the lens itself, but I ended up selling mine as a result. Of course shooting wrestlers it might not be as much of a problem as it was shooting kitties with white whiskers against a dark background....

 

[Braineack]

I think it was your copy, plus Lightroom has a remove CA button.

 

[robbins.photo]

I think it was your copy, plus Lightroom has a remove CA button.

I think it was your copy, plus Lightroom has a remove CA button.

Which should be renamed "remove some of the chromatic aberration, for the rest enjoy 6 hours of editing whiskers in photoshop."

Ok, I guess that is a bit long for the name of a button... lol. I'm guessing it might have just been my copy, hadn't read reports of other 85 1.8 AFS-G's being quite so bad, but since then I've kind of avoided them.

 

[Braineack]

yeah i dont have that issue:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8310/29624513910_738dcc7ac0_o.jpg

 

[beagle100]

Yeah, that Sigma 70-200 is probably the best lens for this budget. I've seen the non-stabilized versions sell for $250.
I recommended the 85mm 1.8G because it can be had for under $375; a AF-D copy, around $250. And 85mm is still long--even on a FF sensor.
The point was, you need both a good low-light sensor, and a fast long lens.

The 85 is a thumping sharp lens, only thing I noticed on mine was the CA was awful in lowlight. Not sure if the problem was just with my individual copy or if it is common to the lens itself, but I ended up selling mine as a result. Of course shooting wrestlers it might not be as much of a problem as it was shooting kitties with white whiskers against a dark background....

yep, the Canon 85mm 1.8 is a thumping sharp lens (didn't notice the CA) only around $200 (used) - good for wrestling and other pics (if you're close enough)

 

[robbins.photo]

Yeah, that Sigma 70-200 is probably the best lens for this budget. I've seen the non-stabilized versions sell for $250.
I recommended the 85mm 1.8G because it can be had for under $375; a AF-D copy, around $250. And 85mm is still long--even on a FF sensor.
The point was, you need both a good low-light sensor, and a fast long lens.

The 85 is a thumping sharp lens, only thing I noticed on mine was the CA was awful in lowlight. Not sure if the problem was just with my individual copy or if it is common to the lens itself, but I ended up selling mine as a result. Of course shooting wrestlers it might not be as much of a problem as it was shooting kitties with white whiskers against a dark background....

yep, the Canon 85mm 1.8 is a thumping sharp lens (didn't notice the CA) only around $200 (used) - good for wrestling and other pics (if you're close enough)

Yup.. Sadly though the Canon aps-c sensor cameras lag far behind their Nikon counter parts in low light performance

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[beagle100]

yes, it is very sad Nikon image quality lags far behind Canon counter "parts" and low light
But that 85mm ... it's dyno mite !!
There's a good reason professionals shoot with Canon !