Chosing system, lenses, and camera (Online Photog)

I don't much agree with this article. For anyone this applies to, someone buying their first camera, they have no idea what focal lengths they will prefer, what lenses may be better for different genres, etc. ****, most don't even know what they want to shoot! I didn't really learn what I wanted lens-wise until a couple years in. I agree that they should pick up something more than the kit lens for sure though, if they plan on staying in for a while. Also have to realize, not every person takes this as serious as we do. To most of the population, kit lens is just fine. It's like any adult hobby; you have the serious people devoted to it, and then what it is to the rest of the population. Look at wine, cigars, audio, cars, guns, etc. Beats headphones sell TONS, but you can get much better headphones for the same price if you really cared.

Also, not everyone upgrades bodies every 2 years.
Anyone asks me on how to buy their first gear i just tell them to buy an entry level dslr and a 18-105mm.
You're going to be replacing your digital camera body every 1.5–5 years . . .
I'm at eight and still counting. What am I doing wrong?
Simple; you're not sponsored by a brand to upgrade every year to year and a half ;)

But yes in general if you want a new camera body and lens and you've little to no prior experience then its hard to pick as many choices are made based upon personal preference and subtle differences.

When I chose the brand of the day was Canon - however I also knew some things I wanted to do (zoo - wildlife) which helped narrow things down a lot more and at least let me look at the brands to see that Canon had a range in the £1000 bracket for longer lenses whilst Nikon had less. So that was my choice made.

However if I had gone with Nikon chances are I'd have been just as happy (barring the lack of MPE 65 macro ;))
Reading through the comments to Mike's article on TOP, I see some dissenting and contradicting opinions, based on the idea of using adapted lenses on digital bodies, as well as using fixed-lens, smaller cameras for tasks where those types of cameras (CoolPix A, Canon G-series, Sony 1" sensor compact, Fuji X compact,etc) are strong choices. There are plenty of cameras out there these days.

The idea of a body "update" or "upgrade" every eighteen months to two years is...a bit behind the current state of the industry I think. Nikon is on a four-year upgrade cycle for refreshes, and an eight-year cycle where the big changes come. Canon is on a similar length of time cycle.

I have to say, the article does seem a bit click-bait-like to me as well...
You're going to be replacing your digital camera body every 1.5–5 years . . .
I'm at eight and still counting. What am I doing wrong?
Would you like the list alphabetically, chronologically, or in order of impact?
And we generally keep cars for 10 years, too.
Dunno if I agree with the article in general about which to choose.
I began Canon with film only because it was what was on sale and for my first SLR I didn't want to break the bank in case I didn't like it.
Move forward a few years and I had the kit lens, a cheaper 300mm zoom and a DSLR. That's when l discovered I needed more reach and a better quality lens. I looked at both Nikon and Canon since I didn't have a lot invested. I found the Canon 400mm 4.5 and found that for the price Nikon had nothing that could compete and that swayed me in the direction of Canon.
And now I my wife says I'm done..........accept maybe a teleconverter......7d MkII........:chuncky:
Actually I dont really think switching camera body every 18 months is something that unusual for a fan of the Sony FE system.

Just check out the prices people succeed to sell old A7 bodies ... its hilarious.

Most reactions

New Topics