Advice re choice of camera please?

celticmoon · Jul 21, 2012

Hi! I am looking for a suitable camera, and would love some input as to which would be most suited for my purpose, and also which lens / lenses I should get...

I have some experience using mid range Nikon and Canon cameras, as I've borrowed others' cameras, but am now looking to upgrade my own as my Olympus compact camera, while great for a compact, is falling short for my needs.

I will be doing mostly pet portraits and action pictures. So guessing unless there's a great multi-use lens, I'll be needing 2. The tele lens should be up to at least 200-250 mm. And though I know it's a matter of pressing the button at the correct time, the more pics per second the better... I'll have about 30 seconds at my disposal during a run in which I should be able to get in position and get good angles for several hurdles AND get the pics - every percentage chance of those being good pics counts

So cameras - I'm looking for a mid range camera as this is just a hobby; I've been looking at Nikon 5100, Canon 600D/650D and Sony A57. From what I mentioned above you can see I find the Sony appealing with 10 pics per second.. I will also need good resolution to have an option to enlarge quite a bit, plus the editor in a magazine that uses some of my picture is quite rigid about having high-res pictures.

Also the lens/lenses should not be too pricey, around mid range. I don't suppose to my use that I'll get the money worth out of a really expensive professional lens. So any advice?

Dao · Jul 21, 2012

You left out one of the most important factor, your budget.

As for mid range cameras, I will look for one that at least has a top display screen on the camera with 2 wheels. So If you need to change settings such as aperture. shutter speed, iso, white balance, AF, AF points ... ... ...etc
In that case, I do not need to go through the menu, or series of menus to change one setting.

Derrel · Jul 21, 2012

Nikon D4, 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S G Nikkor lens, 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S G VR Nikkor tele-zoom....sweet two-lens setup, PERFECT for animal portraits and action work...buy once....buy right...you would have a setup good for at least 5 to 10 years of normal use for "most" publications. Images that are screen printed do not benefit, really, from ultra-high rez images; the SCREEN ruins ultra-high rez images by converting everything to...tiny little dots!!!!!!

This (the D4 kit) is the suggestion for a person with a hefty budget and a desire for top-quality gear. Something more pedestrian, like a Canon 7D + 2 Canon zooms, is probably more likely to be in your future. The Canon 7D is quite a nice camera!!! It feels great in-hand, and has a nice feature set, plenty of rez, and so on. I know a guy who shoots with the EOS 60D; it's a pretty nice mid-range camera as well...plenty of rez, great feature set, well-made, fits the hand nicely, and is priced competitively and fairly as well. HONESTLY, I would worry more about getting a GOOD LENS than about which camera body I bought. Two come to mind: Canon's 17-55 and Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 lenses, made expressly for their crop-sensor bodies...those two lenses are GOOD QUALITY lenses, and will be very,very useful.

jaomul · Jul 21, 2012

Alternatively the canon 40d(used) plus a 70-200L f2.8 if funds allow or the f4. I am not putting in IS as this will be decided by yourself, if in good light and shooting fast shutter you may not want it. Lenses mentioned above are putting you in right direction as a second lens. i find the tamron 17-50 f2.8 nice and its relatively cheap but above canon 17-55 has a better reputation

celticmoon · Jul 21, 2012

Budget except for mentioning mid-range and the camera's I've been looking at, was left out as I don't know quite the price level in dollars. I'm not looking to spend too much, the D4 is WAAAAAY out of my range

As I said I'm a hobbyist, but I'd like to get my money's worth when I buy - I don't want to end up spending my money on a crap lens...

I find the Nikon cameras I've been trying fit my hand better than the Canon ones, though still haven't found a place where I can try out Sony cams. The Sony A57 is around my max price not including lenses.

Thanks so much for your inputs, you're giving me a great starting point when it comes to finding suitable lenses! Do any of you have any experience with a combi lens, like Tamron 18-270 mm? I'm thinking for travel and such?
From friends of mine with an interest in photography, I've been told that the kit lenses are wasted money?

Derrel · Jul 21, 2012

I dunno...the kit zooms that are being sold these days are small,light in weight, and optically "decent"--AND they give the owner decent wide-angle coverage, down to 18mm on APS-C, which is not too bad...FAR better (wider) than we "used to have" when d-slr's were newer. On new gear, the kit lens is priced into the kit at a very affordable point...I do not consider them "wasted money"--especially for the beginning shooter, OR for the user who wants a small,light,versatile, easy-to-use lens that allows the camera to be used in 75% of situations without ever changing lenses. If that is a waste of money,well...

The thing about d-slr's and hobbyists: there are "some people" who are willing to put up with MONSTROUSLY HEAVY lenses like the Nikon 14-24, and then a 24-70, just to get that ultimate zoom lens quality. OR, people who will pay, say $900 for the lens portion of the Canon 5D-III kit that comes packaged with the Canon 24-105mm f/4 L-series, Image Stabilizer USM "kit zoom" (yeah, that's a real kit--with a $900+ L-series zoom in it!!!). Contrast that with something light and small, like a Nikon D3200 with an 18-105mm or 18-135mm higher-end kit lens... To the user who is willing to buy the 14-24 Nikkor AND the 24-70 Nikkor, or the $900 Canon 24-105 zoom for his "walk-around" set-up, then yes, the Kit lenses are a waste of money. On the other hand--if you want to be able to slip a d-slr and an 18-55 into a small, cheap $9.99 fanny pack from Walmart, then the lower end kit lens, the 18-55 kit zoom that ALL the makers now sell, is worth its weight in GOLD as far as an all-in-one solution for, as I said, 75% of situations

Dao · Jul 21, 2012

The cameras you mentioned are not considered as mid range.

In my opinion. these are -
Nikon: D7000, D90 and D300S (Currently listed in Nikon USA site)

Canon: D60 and 7D (Currently listed in Canon USA site)

You can also look for refurbished or used one if you are looking lower your cost.

As for pets portrait shots, kit lens is not a bad choice. Just pair it with a fast prime lens such as 50mm f/1.8.
So, maybe just get a kit lens and start learning first before you buying more expensive lens(es).

Get and learn about lighting equipments and shoot it with the kit lens may result a better image than shoot with expensive lens. Chances are with good lighting, you maybe shooting at f/5.6 or f/8 anyway.

sovietdoc · Jul 21, 2012

Nikon D4, 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S G Nikkor lens, 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S G VR Nikkor tele-zoom....sweet two-lens setup, PERFECT for animal portraits and action work...buy once....buy right...you would have a setup good for at least 5 to 10 years of normal use for "most" publications. Images that are screen printed do not benefit, really, from ultra-high rez images; the SCREEN ruins ultra-high rez images by converting everything to...tiny little dots!!!!!!

You also forgot to mention that unless you are a professional photographer who makes money by taking photos, a normal "mortal" would need about the same amount of time to save up as much cash....