Can anyone suggest me a DSLR with lens, My budget is $1100.

[fjrabon]

Go try to get something like this with a tripod. Over 80% of my stuff is gotten without a tripod. Does this mean that one never needs a tripod or that it's not a good idea to have a tripod? NO.
But the assertion that 75% of REAL PHOTOGRAPHY comes off a tripod is a JOKE and completely out of line and in my opinion bad advice. You wouldn't have had time to get this shot off a tripod OR a monopod no matter how fast you are.

If I were the OP I would seriously consider the Pentax K5 at around 1000.00 til the end of this month. I feel at that price that it's the best bang for the buck BY FAR and leaps and bounds ahead of the Nikon 5100

Sorry if I wasn't clear about this, but by real photography, I meant pro photography, photography that people pay money for. And 75% of that is definitely shot on a tripod. The other 25% is primarily the non-posed portions of weddings.

 

[LightSpeed]

Go try to get something like this with a tripod. Over 80% of my stuff is gotten without a tripod. Does this mean that one never needs a tripod or that it's not a good idea to have a tripod? NO.
But the assertion that 75% of REAL PHOTOGRAPHY comes off a tripod is a JOKE and completely out of line and in my opinion bad advice. You wouldn't have had time to get this shot off a tripod OR a monopod no matter how fast you are.

If I were the OP I would seriously consider the Pentax K5 at around 1000.00 til the end of this month. I feel at that price that it's the best bang for the buck BY FAR and leaps and bounds ahead of the Nikon 5100

Sorry if I wasn't clear about this, but by real photography, I meant pro photography, photography that people pay money for. And 75% of that is definitely shot on a tripod. The other 25% is primarily the non-posed portions of weddings.

Yeah I hear ya.
I don't do the people thing. I'm an out in the field, landscape, wildlife, bug shooting kinda guy.
Course I don't expect everyone to be like me.
My point is , with camera bodies out there capable of 1600 -3200 and higher ISO and creamy smooth images, with very little noise, using fast prime lenses along with optical stabilization - and lighting.
You can see where I'm going with this.

 

[fjrabon]

Yeah I hear ya.
I don't do the people thing. I'm an out in the field, landscape, wildlife, bug shooting kinda guy.
Course I don't expect everyone to be like me.
My point is , with camera bodies out there capable of 1600 -3200 and higher ISO and creamy smooth images, with very little noise, using fast prime lenses along with optical stabilization - and lighting.
You can see where I'm going with this.

I mean to me, on a 27" mac screen, even the really, really nice cameras look pretty noisy to me at 1600 ISO. I definitely would almost never call anything above ISO 800 creamy smooth. Some are passably noise free, but on a good enough monitor, or a big enough print, you can definitely tell the difference. Of course if you're just shooting for Flickr and 4X6, it doesn't matter nearly as much. But good glass doesn't really matter in those cases either. I can much more easily tell a photo shot above 800 ISO than one shot on a super sharp lens.

 

[svarmasagi]

Firstly thanks a lot for your time and interest. Okay considering all your valuable opinions, i think below combination makes gud KIT. Correct me if i am wrong.
Nikon D5100 + 18-55 & 55-300mm VR Lenses + 50mm f/1.8.
Thanks again

 

[MTVision]

Sorry if I wasn't clear about this, but by real photography, I meant pro photography, photography that people pay money for. And 75% of that is definitely shot on a tripod. The other 25% is primarily the non-posed portions of weddings.

I don't know where you got your statistics but I still think you are off. There are tons of good photographers and horrible photographers who get paid money that don't use tripods. Tripods are useful but knowing how to use the camera is way more important IMO.

 

[svarmasagi]

I will surely get the tripod as you guys suggested. I understand that it adds value to pictures i take. Surely so you think that rest everything is fine with that combination.

 

[MLeeK]

Just for your information. I was looking deals at this website. "Nikon D5100 Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) W/ 1-Year USA Warranty"

I would most definitely NOT be trusting that website!!!
If it sounds too good to be true... it's too good to be true

DealForDigital.com - dealfordigital.com/ - Reviews, Ratings and Prices at ResellerRatings

Stick to Adorama.com or BHPhotovideo.com

 

[fjrabon]

I will surely get the tripod as you guys suggested. I understand that it adds value to pictures i take. Surely so you think that rest everything is fine with that combination.

Yeah, it's a good starting combo. It's basically what I have started with, except I went for the 35mm instead of the 50mm and I got the D3100 (because I didn't care that much about auto bracketing, though there are times I wish I had it), because I was going to shoot a decent amount of landscapeds with it, and I wanted the wider 35mm. My next purchase will probably be the 50mm lens or a wide angle zoom, can't decide. I'm very happy with

 

[svarmasagi]

Sure thanks for the info. If you guys can conform me on below model i will go ahead and buy the same from COSTCO.
Nikon D5100 + 18-55 & 55-300mm VR Lenses + 50mm f/1.8. + Tripod.

 

[fjrabon]

I don't know where you got your statistics but I still think you are off. There are tons of good photographers and horrible photographers who get paid money that don't use tripods. Tripods are useful but knowing how to use the camera is way more important IMO.

It was either from one of Joe McNally's books or one of the Scott Kelby books. Can't remember which though. It said pretty much 100% of pro sports shots are shot on a monopod, pretty much 100% of pro landscape is shot on a tripod, probably 70% of pro nat geo type shots are on a tripod, 100% of pro studio portraits are shot on a tripod, etc.

Of course you need to know how to use your camera, but to me, for many types of photography, the two go hand in hand. For all the landscape, any anything zoomed over about 75mm, I'm using a tripod, so I basically consider the tripod like part of the camera. Though I think having a good pistol grip ball head tripod with a quick release plate is a key with that. I'd have probably gotten frustrated with the cheapo tripods and never used them and just handshot everything.

 

[RichardsTPF]

Nikon D5100 + 18-55 & 55-300mm VR Lenses + 50mm f/1.8. + Tripod

Two kit lenses and the nifity will cover your needs for a while. You also gonna buy a extra battery and a flash. Then save money for good glasses.

 

[tirediron]

...THough, to be honest, primes aren't good for wedding photography, because you have to be able to quickly get a lot of different shots. If you want wedding, I think this is a good one to start with: Amazon.com: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens: Electronics as you'll be forced to handshoot a lot for weddings (that was most of the 25% I was talking about earlier, shooting the non posed wedding shots), so you'll want VR. You'll need zoom, because you DO NOT want to miss a shot during a wedding while you change lenses.

I'm guessing you haven't shot too many weddings, have you?

 

[MLeeK]

...THough, to be honest, primes aren't good for wedding photography, because you have to be able to quickly get a lot of different shots. If you want wedding, I think this is a good one to start with: Amazon.com: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens: Electronics as you'll be forced to handshoot a lot for weddings (that was most of the 25% I was talking about earlier, shooting the non posed wedding shots), so you'll want VR. You'll need zoom, because you DO NOT want to miss a shot during a wedding while you change lenses.

I'm guessing you haven't shot too many weddings, have you?

TOTALLY agree with tirediron on this one. I wouldn't walk into a wedding with a D5100 or any lens that was less than a fixed f/2.8. Well, MAYBE the D5100 if I were the second shooter or I was damn good with the camera and it was my only option. The D7000 would be my ideal BACKUP if I were shooting Nikon, but NOT even that would be the best option to shoot a wedding with.
Can you? sure. You can do anything you want to do. Should you? well, probably not. It's a recipe for more headaches than you want to contemplate. Especially in your average church dungeon sanctuary.

 

[fjrabon]

...THough, to be honest, primes aren't good for wedding photography, because you have to be able to quickly get a lot of different shots. If you want wedding, I think this is a good one to start with: Amazon.com: Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens: Electronics as you'll be forced to handshoot a lot for weddings (that was most of the 25% I was talking about earlier, shooting the non posed wedding shots), so you'll want VR. You'll need zoom, because you DO NOT want to miss a shot during a wedding while you change lenses.

I'm guessing you haven't shot too many weddings, have you?

TOTALLY agree with tirediron on this one. I wouldn't walk into a wedding with a D5100 or any lens that was less than a fixed f/2.8. Well, MAYBE the D5100 if I were the second shooter or I was damn good with the camera and it was my only option. The D7000 would be my ideal BACKUP if I were shooting Nikon, but NOT even that would be the best option to shoot a wedding with.
Can you? sure. You can do anything you want to do. Should you? well, probably not. It's a recipe for more headaches than you want to contemplate. Especially in your average church dungeon sanctuary.

I understand that, sure. I also understood that the OP said his budget was $1100 TOTAL, I said multiple times you aren't going to get legit results with an $1100 budget doing weddings, but that was the only thing the OP mentioned he was after, so I said what I thought would give him the best results, given the price range and the subject. Sure, it's fine to say 'you need better equipment' but that's not really what he asked. I don't really see the point in responding to a post asking about an $1100 budget by recommending that he should actually just go ahead and drop $10,000 or so.

I then said later that he should probably just rent lenses if he ended up doing weddings. I know plenty of people who went cheap and had their photos taken by somebody with near that equipment, who rented lenses for a lot of their early weddings, and obviously the pictures weren't mindblowing, but the bride happily paid for them, and the people worked their way up. Most independent wedding photographers don't start by laying out 30K on equipment. Most of them start with a mid range amateur camera, rent lenses, and just constantly reinvest every single dollar they make into better equipment while they build up their portfolio.

 

[Noxire]

Primes bad for weddings wut!?

OP buy a good prime or two, it's an investment that will prove itself for years to come.