Best camera to purchase?

dcmoody23 · Dec 31, 2009

Hi, I'm 16 and I'm a SERIOUS art student (currently in high school). I currently don't own a camera but have saved up some money and am looking to make a purchase. I want something that will be good for sports photography, but at the same time is rather versatile for different types of photos (especially people & macro). I am looking to spend around $1500, but because I want something that will last me and that I can use in my art portfolio and in art school while training with photography I will spend more if it is worth it. I have been looking at the Nikon D90 for a while now but I'm concerned after reading reviews about a slow shutter speed (for sports).. I am looking for both a camera and a lens or lenses, or a package where i can get a discount (but with good lenses please) would be great too.

Any help or suggestions will be much appreciated.

Thanks.

percent20 · Dec 31, 2009

Just from research, your price point and my bias I would say get a D90 and a couple of extras with your $1500.

icassell · Dec 31, 2009

I would seriously consider a clean used body which will leave you more to spend on glass. I don't know the Nikon line, but a used Canon 40D can be had for the mid $500's if you look around.

iBats · Dec 31, 2009

haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha

a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera

and dont forget the monopod hehe

percent20 · Dec 31, 2009

icassell said:
I would seriously consider a clean used body which will leave you more to spend on glass

100% agree with this.

OP you are fortunate to have saved up 1500. I had to sell a bunch of my stuff to get to 375 to buy a Nikon D40 refurbished. I haven't had any problems with it so far and generally prefer factory refurbished things over brand new.

check Digital cameras, all other cameras and everything photographic from Adorama Camera for some good deals on cameras.

PhotoXopher · Dec 31, 2009

iBats said:
haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha

a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera

and dont forget the monopod hehe

D90 Body (4.5fps) = $800 shipped.
Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 or Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 = $800

Total = $1600

iBats · Dec 31, 2009

sports he said, 200mm arnt that great

Canon EF Telephoto lens - 400 mm - F/2.8 - Canon EF

and his budget was 1500, and d90 wasnt fast enough for em...

dcmoody23 · Dec 31, 2009

iBats said:
haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha

a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera

and dont forget the monopod hehe

Okay first, I'm 16, and so laughing at my 1500 budget isn't exactly something I respect (although I will spend more)... this would be high school sports I'm photographing, too.. I'm just looking for something I can use in my portfolio.. A temp., not something I'm going to be using when I'm 50.

iBats · Dec 31, 2009

i know you're 16, im 17 and also a serious amateur photographer im just saying that you have to realize sports photography is the most expensive form of photography, especially if you go pro, and fine im not telling you not to expand your portfolio, go ahead, just realize that 1500 bucks will get you a decent body and a decent lens, dont expect shots that will blow your mind

dcmoody23 · Dec 31, 2009

Primarily looking for something I can use a learning tool, a cornerstone, a beginning.. I'm sure you all remember what camera broke you into the world of photography, and I doubt it was a camera with a $7100 lens... Yours posts are rather insulting and degrading..
An F.Y.I. to you is that I was fortunate in inheriting over $10,500 that are in stocks, however I refuse to touch that money until the economy recovers... So don't bother recommending me a $6,000 camera

I appreciate all of the serious responses, though.

The used camera sounds like a good idea, but I'm quite skeptic of spending some of my savings on something that would have no warranty. I'll be sure to look further into it, however, and appreciate your opinions.

dcmoody23 · Dec 31, 2009

iBats said:
i know you're 16, im 17 and also a serious amateur photographer im just saying that you have to realize sports photography is the most expensive form of photography, especially if you go pro, and fine im not telling you not to expand your portfolio, go ahead, just realize that 1500 bucks will get you a decent body and a decent lens, dont expect shots that will blow your mind

Okay, thanks. I will keep the sports for personal entertainment & learning for now then and use something that can showcase my eye for phototraphy in my portfolio. I didn't intend to use the sports photographs in my portfolio anyways.

PhotoXopher · Dec 31, 2009

Why not?

Looks good to me:
James Rodgers on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Nikon D90 and 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

gsgary · Dec 31, 2009

iBats said:
sports he said, 200mm arnt that great

Canon EF Telephoto lens - 400 mm - F/2.8 - Canon EF

and his budget was 1500, and d90 wasnt fast enough for em...

It all depends what sport he wants to shoot, FPS don't matter i shoot sports all the time with 1D's and use one shot and 300F2.8L but it can be done with less
Old 10D and 70-200
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Sports/Bramham-Horse-Trials-Canon-10D/Image00002/161364455_CXMVG-L.jpg

Old 10D and cheap 19-35 Cosina
http://gsgary.smugmug.com/Cars/Roger-Albert-Clarke-Rally-2007/Image00023/578292032_MCwyG-L.jpg

DScience · Dec 31, 2009

iBats said:
haha sports photography with a budget of 1500 bucks ahahahaha

a good fast 400mm lens can run you 6 grand, and if you want something with fast fps 4.5+ then you gotta spend at least 1600 on the camera

and dont forget the monopod hehe

Wow, are you serious? This kid is 16, and in my opinion the fact he saved up $1500 by himself says a lot! He said he wants to shoot some sports, not make it on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Thus, he doesn't NEED a $6,000 lens RIGHT now...Why do you have to come in here and smash his hopes and dreams...starting off with a a D90 at 16 could lead to a professional career in photography, and down the road he could fork over the flow for the real pro gear.

dcmoody23 · Dec 31, 2009

PhotoXopher said:
Why not?

Looks good to me:
James Rodgers on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Nikon D90 and 70-200 f/2.8 lens.

Wow, that's a great shot! That was really taken with a d90 and a 70-200 f/2.8 lens (runs about $800 you said)? When I get home from work I'm definitely going to consider putting my order in for the two & see what I can find for deals..
Thanks a lot PhotoX!