beginner setup help

[pwat92]

hey everyone,

im really new to photography but i am interested in getting into it and picking it up as a hobby, but there is just so much out there in terms of entry level dslr's. ive been doing a ton of research and i have a few options, first off i just want to tell you a little about my needs, through my research ive really come to like macro photography, i love how close you can get with all the detail, but also this summer i will be attending some outdoor concerts so i would like a fast telephoto lens to be able to capture some nice pictures in the dim lit outdoors, also i dont really want to buy another body when i learn, i would prefer to purchase a camera that is good to learn with and can also be used to good results when i have learnt and i am a "master" lol. i have about $1000 dollars to spend total on camera and lenses and cards, etc... so what do you guys think? here are some options i've thought of.

1) i found a T3i bundle which includes kit lens, as well as a ef-s 55-250mm is lens, along with camera bag and card for $798.00

2) i've heard so many times that the body is irrelevant and that you should jut buy a cheap body and pour all your money into lenses, what are your thoughts on this? given this option would it be wise to maybe go with a cheaper body like a canon t3 or a nikon d3100, and then purchase a good lens along with it? and what lense would you suggest, as a good all around telephoto lense that wont break the bank?

3) or would it be smart to buy the canon t3i or nikon d5100, or nikon d3200, with just a kit and then buy a less expensive lens like the one below?

i found this lense in my research and i really like it because of its macro capabilities, long focal length and inexpensive price but it has no image stabilization, does this really matter or can you achieve good results without the image stabilization? or would you just suggest getting some extension tubes w/ the kit lens, and getting a telephoto that has IS?

70-300mm F4-5.6 APO DG Macro - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

sorry for all the questions, any help is greatly appreciated

 

[oldhippy]

I own the d5100, which I love. If I were to buy today, this is what I'd get all Nikon
1. used D5100 400.00 used 70-300G VR2 350.00. 35 1,8 mm new 200.00
2, used D7000 and a used 16-85mm

 

[KmH]

The Sigma lens you linked to is not really a macro lens, though Sigma uses Macro in the lens description as a marketing aid.

The specifications for the lens show the minimum focusing distance as 59.1(37.4) in. That means that when the lens is zoomed to 300 mm the closest the lens can be to a subject and still focus is 59.1 inches (about 5 feet) and at 70 mm is 37.4 inches (a bit over 3 feet).

Macro is a capability to get real close to a small subject.
Getting really close makes depth-of-field (DoF) very, very shallow.
so macro photographers use special tripod heads that have focusing rails. They take a series of images, each with a slightly different point of focus, and post process stack those images to make a final image that has an apparently deeper DoF.

http://photo.net/learn/macro/

 

[pwat92]

thanks oldhippy im looking into option 1 right now as it is very interesting to me the only thing i would be concerned about is buying a used lens, any advice on what to look to make sure its in good condition other than the obvious of it being in pieces lol and also is there another place other than craigslist to look for used lenses because the selection is very limited in my area?

KmH thanks for the info i read that page and ya i see what you mean the "macro" function is just a marketing ploy, but what do you think about the lens as a telephoto without the IS/VR? because it is still very reasonably priced

 

[pwat92]

Nikon D80 Camera Body
Nikon ED 70-300 lens

i just found this but i really dont know anything about that body, and im not 100% sure if this is the same lens you were talking about old hippy anybody have anything to say it seems pretty cheap

 

[snowbear]

As far as which body to go with, go to the store and pick up each one that you are interested in. Check how each feels in your hands and how easy it is to reach the various controls. Nikon will give you the advantage of a larger used lens market.

 

[TCampbell]

2) i've heard so many times that the body is irrelevant and that you should jut buy a cheap body and pour all your money into lenses, what are your thoughts on this?

That's a bit of an over-simplification. It's not that the body is "irrelevant". If that were true, then the best photographers in the world we be seen with the cheapest possible bodies they could buy which can still attach to their lenses ...and that's clearly not the case.

What is true is that of all the things which will impact the quality of an image when you're first starting out, the body will have the least impact. Your skill, your lighting, and your glass will all make a much bigger impact (and those are in order... your skill comes first, lighting comes second, and lenses come third... even a lot of people put off learning about lighting as long as they can, they're holding themselves back by doing that.)

Every DSLR body handles the "basics" in that the body does metering, can shoot in full auto, program (like full auto but you can over-ride things), semi-auto modes such as aperture or shutter priority modes, or totally in manual mode. They all have some kind of focus system.

High end bodies usually have better sensors and are able to shoot in lower light, using higher ISO settings and exhibit less image "noise" than the entry-level bodies. They often have significantly better metering and focus systems. They may have substantially faster shooting speeds for action or sports photographer. They have a better physical build. They are often weather-sealed. The list goes on.

When an action wildlife or sports photographer buys a better body, they're often going for the more advanced focusing systems and faster shooting speeds. When a wedding or landscape photographer buys a better body they're often going for the improved ISO performance or perhaps the improved dynamic range. They may also be going for a larger physical sensor size (which impact several other things -- but full-frame sensor cameras generally start at about $2000 for the body only.) You may or may not care about some of these features.

A Canon T3 or Nikon D3100 are designed specifically to address the low-end market. These are the _most_ basic DSLRs made by their respective manufacturers. A Canon T3i, T4i, or T5i (just announced and doesn't start shipping until the end of the month) would be a much better option than a T3. A Nikon D5100 or D5200 would be a much better option than a D3100. These are the high-end of the consumer/entry range. The T3 and D3100 are the low-end of the consumer-entry range. There's a mid-range line and of course there are pro bodies as well.

If you go with a Nikon camera in the entry-level range (D3xxx through D5xxx models) then you'll want to stick to Nikon's "AF-S" lenses (note the "-S" suffix) and should generally avoid the "AF" lenses. The AF lenses auto-focus IF they are attached to a Nikon body that has an in-body focus motor. The AF-S lenses have their own (in-lens) motors -- so they can auto-focus on any Nikon body. There's no differentiation on the Canon side because Canon always used in-lens motors... they never had an in-body focus motor system. You will likely find ALL the lenses you could ever possibly want from either make ... don't bother to count which system has more lenses because you'll never buy even 1/10th of what they offer for sale. There are _very_ few lenses made by one for which the other really doesn't have a lens in the same category (I can think of only a *few* exceptions and they're highly specialized lenses that the average person would probably never want.)

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Whoever told you that the body is irrelevant is wrong. Although there is a benefit of investing more money into glass as oppose to a body, having a good body is also very important. I'm telling you this from experience. I shot with a Nikon D5100 for a few months and then switched over to the D7000 and I can tell you it made a huge difference for me. Although better lenses will ultimately generate better image quality or improve your low light performance, a better body will allow you to take photos more efficiently, more quickly and with much more enjoyment. From a better body you can benefit from a larger viewfinder, better controls, better customization of controls, dual command dials, more focus points, faster response and much more, all of which contribute to better photo taking and many of which also contribute to better image quality. Having said that, I wouldn't get the bottom of the barrel when it comes to body or you'll soon get an itch to upgrade if you're like most. Get something like the Nikon D7000 and you will be happy for a while. Start with a kit lens, shoot for a month or two and then decide which other lenses you need (not the ones you think you want now).

 

[pwat92]

wow thanks a ton TCampbell, that was really helpful, i pretty much it narrowed down to a canon t3i/t2i (from what ive read virtually the same camera minus articulating screen), or the nikon d5100, so its a battle of nikon vs canon, i have been to the store and handled both cameras both felt good in my hands, i liked the button layout on the canon better but i like the screen layout with the aperture diagram better from the nikon. so for me it pretty much comes down to lenses, not so much the amount available but the cost, from what i can see the nikkor lenses seem to be a little more pricey, is this because they are better? and if as was stated above the nikons have a better amount on the used market, this is a big advantage, but if i have to buy only AF-S lenses this could be a disadvantage (could because i dont know if there are a ton on the used market, and because i assume they are more expensive). does anyone have anything that helped them to decide between canon and nikon, because i know i am not the first newbie to be faced with this decision.

 

[pwat92]

Whoever told you that the body is irrelevant is wrong. Although there is a benefit of investing more money into glass as oppose to a body, having a good body is also very important. I'm telling you this from experience. I shot with a Nikon D5100 for a few months and then switched over to the D7000 and I can tell you it made a huge difference for me. Although better lenses will ultimately generate better image quality or improve your low light performance, a better body will allow you to take photos more efficiently, more quickly and with much more enjoyment. From a better body you can benefit from a larger viewfinder, better controls, better customization of controls, dual command dials, more focus points, faster response and much more, all of which contribute to better photo taking and many of which also contribute to better image quality. Having said that, I wouldn't get the bottom of the barrel when it comes to body or you'll soon get an itch to upgrade if you're like most. Get something like the Nikon D7000 and you will be happy for a while. Start with a kit lens, shoot for a month or two and then decide which other lenses you need (not the ones you think you want now).

oh **** i was writing my reply as this was posted, i like this idea but its a little out of my price range and i didnt think the results would be worth the bump in price i found this which is the cheapest bundle i could find which would allow me to just start shooting for one price, i haven't really done much research on this camera, so that will be tonights homework, but what do you think of the bundle?

Nikon D7000 16.2 MP DSLR Camera with 18-105 mm VR Kit Bundle

 

[Designer]

oh **** i was writing my reply as this was posted, i like this idea but its a little out of my price range and i didnt think the results would be worth the bump in price i found this which is the cheapest bundle i could find which would allow me to just start shooting for one price, i haven't really done much research on this camera, so that will be tonights homework, but what do you think of the bundle?

Nikon D7000 16.2 MP DSLR Camera with 18-105 mm VR Kit Bundle

That is a popular bundle in its price range. If you can afford it, you will be pleased.

OTOH; the D5100 is not a particularly bad camera either.

When the really picky people are talking about image quality (IQ) they are usually comparing some small differences, such that most beginners would not notice on their own. They also consider attaching different lenses to the same body for comparison. The differences then are manifested in the lenses that they compared.

Yes, there is a difference in camera bodies, and that includes the firmware that each manufacturer has included. Start reading the specs on pro level camera bodies and you will see some significant differences from the entry-level ones.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

Whoever told you that the body is irrelevant is wrong. Although there is a benefit of investing more money into glass as oppose to a body, having a good body is also very important. I'm telling you this from experience. I shot with a Nikon D5100 for a few months and then switched over to the D7000 and I can tell you it made a huge difference for me. Although better lenses will ultimately generate better image quality or improve your low light performance, a better body will allow you to take photos more efficiently, more quickly and with much more enjoyment. From a better body you can benefit from a larger viewfinder, better controls, better customization of controls, dual command dials, more focus points, faster response and much more, all of which contribute to better photo taking and many of which also contribute to better image quality. Having said that, I wouldn't get the bottom of the barrel when it comes to body or you'll soon get an itch to upgrade if you're like most. Get something like the Nikon D7000 and you will be happy for a while. Start with a kit lens, shoot for a month or two and then decide which other lenses you need (not the ones you think you want now).

oh **** i was writing my reply as this was posted, i like this idea but its a little out of my price range and i didnt think the results would be worth the bump in price i found this which is the cheapest bundle i could find which would allow me to just start shooting for one price, i haven't really done much research on this camera, so that will be tonights homework, but what do you think of the bundle?

Nikon D7000 16.2 MP DSLR Camera with 18-105 mm VR Kit Bundle

Yeah I really think you'd be happy with that purchase. You'd be getting a camera which is advanced enough for you to enjoy for at least a few years and a lens that will serve you well for most situations. If I was in your shoes that's exactly what I would get. Trust me, you won't regret going with a higher end body like the D7000 vs the 3Ks or even 5Ks. It really is worth the extra few hundred bucks.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

oh **** i was writing my reply as this was posted, i like this idea but its a little out of my price range and i didnt think the results would be worth the bump in price i found this which is the cheapest bundle i could find which would allow me to just start shooting for one price, i haven't really done much research on this camera, so that will be tonights homework, but what do you think of the bundle?

Nikon D7000 16.2 MP DSLR Camera with 18-105 mm VR Kit Bundle

That is a popular bundle in its price range. If you can afford it, you will be pleased.

OTOH; the D5100 is not a particularly bad camera either.

When the really picky people are talking about image quality (IQ) they are usually comparing some small differences, such that most beginners would not notice on their own. They also consider attaching different lenses to the same body for comparison. The differences then are manifested in the lenses that they compared.

Yes, there is a difference in camera bodies, and that includes the firmware that each manufacturer has included. Start reading the specs on pro level camera bodies and you will see some significant differences from the entry-level ones.

Having had both the D5100 and D7000 I can tell you that image quality from the two cameras will be identical (they even share the exact same sensor). Shooting in manual mode, you will be able to capture photos much faster with the D7000 body, you'll benefit from a much better focus system, you'll have a larger viewfinder with better coverage and you'll have a more responsive camera, all which can contribute to better image quality indirectly. But the D7000 is just such a more pleasant camera to shoot with in my opinion and even to hold.

 

[TCampbell]

wow thanks a ton TCampbell, that was really helpful, i pretty much it narrowed down to a canon t3i/t2i (from what ive read virtually the same camera minus articulating screen), or the nikon d5100, so its a battle of nikon vs canon, i have been to the store and handled both cameras both felt good in my hands, i liked the button layout on the canon better but i like the screen layout with the aperture diagram better from the nikon. so for me it pretty much comes down to lenses, not so much the amount available but the cost, from what i can see the nikkor lenses seem to be a little more pricey, is this because they are better? and if as was stated above the nikons have a better amount on the used market, this is a big advantage, but if i have to buy only AF-S lenses this could be a disadvantage (could because i dont know if there are a ton on the used market, and because i assume they are more expensive). does anyone have anything that helped them to decide between canon and nikon, because i know i am not the first newbie to be faced with this decision.

It's not fair to generalize that the Nikon lenses are more expensive than the Canon lenses... you can find examples that go both ways. Although perhaps the particular lens you compared might have worked out that way.

The cameras which are priced at about the same price point will be about equal in terms of features and quality... that's on purpose. The two companies are very competitive in that regard.

The good news is, they're all very good so it's not like there's a "wrong" choice.

 

[pwat92]

arrgh part of me really hates how many choices there are lol, im slightly leaning towards to d7000 because i really dont want to be back on the market for a body in 2 years i would really like this one to last me i like the high fps just because i can shoot sports if ever i decide im into that, but what i really like is the fact that there are two dials which is something that isnt really advertised but i see it as being i big plus, and also i like the fact that it has a weather proof body, looks like its time to go back to best buy and handle these babies again, one more QQ with the d7000 would i still have to buy af-s lenses? or is it internal?