Camera-Lens Recommendation

[Desmond86]

I'm looking to upgrade from a Rebel XT my father gave me a few years back. I'd like to spend close to $3000(body as well as lenses), although if I can get something marginally worse than a $3000 setup for $2500 that'd be great also. My main intents are geared towards macro and landscape. I'd like to stick with Canon, due to that being what I'm used to, but if there's a significant jump in quality for the same price from say, Nikon, then I'd be fine going that route as well. I'd also like the explore the possibilities of mirrorless, although I have heard that their whole setups are more expensive for the same quality and I am a fan of the view finder. All responses are greatly appreciated .

 

[dasmith232]

My first DSLR was an XTi. As soon as I jumped to a T3i, I noticed a HUGE improvement in the sensor with better color, less noise at any ISO speed, and the ability to use higher ISO speeds. It was awesome.

That joy will be at least the same or better with any camera that you buy at this point. Canon's sensors are way better than back in the XT days. And many Nikon sensors will have better dynamic range. And Sony sensors will add higher resolution. (And Sony makes many of the Nikon sensors.)

How does size/weight of the setup rank on your list? Sometimes, landscape photography involves hiking (and carrying equipment). I like the Sony a6K series. Even the basic kit does pretty darn well and you're all-in cost is less than $1K.

If size/weight isn't all that important, you got enough budget to consider a full-frame, if you have the interest. Any thoughts or reaction to that?

There are a few different ways to pursue macro. You can use a true macro lens, or you can play with tubes, bellows and various coupling/reversing rings. These different options will be a factor in determining working distance. If "macro work" for you includes things like spiders or other dangerous or skittish things, you'll want more working distance. Do you have a more specific sub-genre within macro?

I believe there's some truth in the statement that 90% of cameras are more capable than 90% of photographers. For someone who's going to be really serious about quality, you should start with defining your budget for lenses. Then pick the body that matches that lens.

Separately, and still important, you should spend some hands-on time with each camera option. I definitely enjoy using one camera brand over the others from an ergonomics perspective. And my preference is exactly that: mine. You may find that one brand is a more natural fit for you.

 

[Desmond86]

I'm not terribly concerned with weight, I've done quite a bit of hiking with my current camera and that hasn't even been close to an issue. I've used a bag to carry the frame and 2 lenses for some fairly long excursions. Full frame is most definitely something I'm interested in, from my understanding that's a golden egg in the camera world, and I like the idea of having that higher res for landscapes. Then again, it's hard to really gauge if it's worth it since I've never worked with one . What I largely plan on working with ,in regard to macro work, would be flora, a greater portion of that will be flowers. I would also like to be able to capture small insects, possibly some of the earlier mentioned "dangerous or skittish things", but that would be further down my road.

 

[Desmond86]

And I apologize for the lack of formatting, I don't frequent forums terribly often :/.

 

[Derrel]

I would go to Adorama's web site and look at cameras and lenses and price out some outfits. Look to the newest Canon models for the best dynamic range in Canon. If you want the widest possible DR, look at Nikon,Sony,or Pentax. See how much your money can buy these days. Nikon now has a new list of prices that they have lowered on refurbished lenses through multiple dealers, but not sure if any would be of interest to you.

I do not see full frame as being all "that" beneficial to landscape shooters until they hit the 36,42,or 50-MP thresholds of say the Nikon D800 series ($1600 used now), or the Sony A7 series models, or Canon's newest 5 variants with 50-MP.

Lenses are very useful things to invest in. I would spend more on lenses than on the camera body, and would strongly consider a refurbished body as a way to save some cash. Sorry I cannot be more specific, but this is your system to assemble. Consider all sorts of things about it that only you can know.

Consider a part-prime,part-zoom lens setup too, like the new pair of EF-S APS-C-only primes at $199 each as being one thing to consider, and then maybe a used 70-200 f/4-L-USM zoom on like a 77-D as one way to make a light yet wide-ranging system when paired with a $109 18-55 kit zoom for weekends, and then the low cost Canon 11-18mm or whatever it is for the wide-angle end of things.

 

[dunfly]

There are a lot of good options, but I will tell you what I would buy. I like crop sensors, so keep that in mind.

Nikon D7200
Nikon 16-80mm AF-S DX 2.8-4f VR lens
Nikon AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR Lens
Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR Lens ( I would add this one just to give you some reach when you need it.)

That should just about take care of your $3,000.

 

[beagle100]

refurbished 6D or used 5D3 and some nice "L" lens should take of your $3,000
But mirrorless cameras are nice ... and small ... and light (and they also take the big DSLR lens)

www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Overread16 4]

How macro do you want to go?
Are butterflies flowers and dragonflies what you want - or do you want to go a little further toward jumping spiders; springtails and eyeshots of butterflies?

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4112/4979501986_0e3e162b65_b.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5165/5378988644_f9652b3a4e_b.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5203/5313494861_c6a52bb664_b.jpg

If macro is your main interest then Canon might be worth sticking with for their unique MPE 65mm f2.8 macro lens. NOW I will say that if you're not that far into macro I wouldn't jump on that lens fast. I will also say that there is NOTHING that lens can take a photo of that other brands also can't take photos of - the difference is that you'd have to use a custom setup (eg reversing rings - macro close up lens attachments - etc..) to get that from other brands.

I'd also say that if you're just getting started with macro then a regular macro prime would be my choice for now; get used to it as high magnification macro is VERY challenging. Rewards are fantastic, but it takes practice to get there.

 

[Solarflare]

My take with Nikon:

Nikon D800 or even slightly better D800E (~$1300 used)
Tamron 15-30mm f2.8 VC (~$900, ~$800 used) or Nikkor AF-S 20mm f1.8 (~$800, ~$600 used)
Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro (~$400)
AF 60mm f2.8 micro (~$250 used) or if you got the AF-S 20mm f1.8 then maybe you'll prefer AF 35mm f2 (~$250 used) as a walkaround
[Flash] SB800 (~$150 used)

When I only give used prices that means you cant get that stuff new anymore. Obviously used prices arent reliable.

The two last entries are just for filling the budget up. Either way they are both excellent. And you probably really want a flash for macro.

Not happy with having to pick the D800 because the D810 was such a sweet upgrade which really addressed a lot of issues with the original. The D800 is a really good camera though and its optimal for both landscape and macro.

A used Canon 5D Mark II is probably inside the budget, too, maybe even a 6D. Obviously this means only the offbrand lenses alone, or possibly some Canon stuff I dont know enough about.

Dont know if the Tokina 100 is also better than Canon middle macros. Nikon has two awesome macro lenses (AF 60mm f2.8 micro and AF 200mm f4 micro), the middle one is also okay but not as good as the Tokina. The Tokina is also a really good portraiture lens. The new internal focus (all AF lenses are screwdrive lenses and make a slight sound when focusing, because the motor in the camera is driving the lens, while AF-S lenses have an internal motor and are basically completely silent) ones are mostly just more expensive, but not optically better (rather inferior, actually).

That should just about take care of your $3,000.

Well, yeah, it would do THAT.

But:

Its not full frame. The OP already has an APS-C system, he wants to upgrade to full frame (I think ?). Also the really good wide angle glas is only available with full frame and since thats the prime thing about landscape, so thats definitely what I would go for.

The only reason to get a D7200 over a much cheaper D7100 would be the buffer, but the OP wants to do mainly landscape and macro, thus he doesnt need the bigger buffer, so why the frak do you waste money for getting him the D7200 ?

Otherwise you give him a low quality poor build quality hella overpriced convenience zoom, and OK macro (but its not as good as the Tokina, its kinda dark and its not compatible with full frame either, none of these lenses is) and the worst of all Nikon telezoom options (the 55-200 is much cheaper, the 70-300 would be the optical best and is the first thats really good with sports).

Quite frankly I think your suggestions are horrible. You waste the OPs money, not spent it wisely.

refurbished 6D or used 5D3 and some nice "L" lens should take of your $3,000

Which is actually one of the reasons I dont like Canon too much. To get high quality with Canon, you're supposed to buy expensive "L" lenses. Otherwise you dont get the same tight tolerances. Nikon, Fuji, Leica, Pentax etc dont do that. Even the cheap plastic Fuji or Nikon lenses have the same optical quality as the expensive glas.

If macro is your main interest then Canon might be worth sticking with for their unique MPE 65mm f2.8 macro lens.

You can get the same thing with Nikon and the PB-6 (or some compareable) plus the AF 60mm f2.8 (or one of the fully manual predecessors). The new AF-S wouldnt work because it lacks the ability to control the aperture without a camera and the PB-6 is "dumb".