DSLR for outdoors ?

[Designer]

Do you guys think I should go for package deal or find good prices on body and lense separate ?

I usually recommend that you do not purchase a package deal. Packages are fine for beginners who don't really know what they need. If you examine the package deal, you will probably find many small items that have limited use in the real world, and which you may never use. If you are comfortable in knowing what you actually need, find the body and lens deal that you want.

 

[ConradM]

Thanks CdTsnap ... Nikon 7000 approx $600 here


Thanks ConradM ... I'll probably go with the more popular Canon or Nikon ... like your flickr site .


Thanks for the other replies also.

Most people do because they're the big names. But do yourself a favor and spend some time on youtube comparing the Sony cameras to everything else. I think you'll find you get much more for your dollar with Sony.

 

[table1349]

Actually, most people do because they understand that sports photography is a very demanding form of photography, on the shooter and the gear. When people buy a DSLR they are not buying a camera, they are buying into an entire system. Nikon and Canon have the most complete systems on the market today, especially for those more demanding needs.

OP, look at all the systems, they all have their good points and their bad points. But also do some research into what is needed in the way of gear and gear specifications for wildlife and sports.

Sports, unless everything you are shooting is in early afternoon daylight requires fast glass. I don't own a lens slower than f2.8. Night time and indoors you have to have fast glass. Just a nature of the business. For outdoor sports you also need long glass. 70-200 is a minimum lens and is usually a second lens for a sports photographer. My general outdoors lens is either my 30mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8 depending on the sport and where I will be shooting from. Indoors, again you need fast glass. Often in the way of fast primes.

For wildlife you need reach and at least fairly fast glass. 400mm is generally the minimum focal length you want for wildlife. Urbanized birds and squirrels you can go shorter, but for true wildlife you are going to need reach. Again unless you are shooting in the middle of the day, fast or at least faster glass will be needed.

It doesn't come cheap. High ISO can compensate some, but you are generally shooting at higher ISO when shooting indoors or in lower light. Figure out exactly what you want to shoot and then research the gear specifications for what it is you want to shoot. That will make your decision easier.

 

[lacogada]

Thanks for the reply's people.

gryphonslair99 thanks for those details.

Whew ... sticker shock. Never realized the type of lens needed was so high.
May have to take a step back and re-think this.

Thanks

 

[yioties]

My 2 cents now. If I had $1500 to spend I would get a Nikon D5200 ($600) (same sensor as the D7100) a Nikon 70-300vr (used or refurb $300-$350) a 85mm 1.8g ($350 used) and a
tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC for around $250. So all together for a camera and 3 lenses $1500 give or take $100 on the deal you are getting.
If you are shooting mainly outdoors and in decent light the 70-300 is great.
If you are shooting indorrs the 85mm 1.8g is a short telephoto and the 17-50 Tamron is your pumped up kit lens!
You don't necessarily need fast glass for outdoors as long as the light available is ok.

Personally I wouldn't consider anything other than Nikon or Canon for the quality and quantity of products available and the resell value is a + on both brands!

 

[yioties]

The quantity of used lenses on the market with Canon and Nikon is great. My 70-300 vr and 50 1.8g new would run me around $800 and I bought them used for $450. With Sony or Pentax you probably won't even find them available and if you do they will be pricey.

 

[lacogada]

Thanks for that breakdown yiotes.

I see they actually have some new ones on ebay in that price range but a little concerned about the fine print.

"Note: This camera may be an imported model. It is completely identical to the USA model and is produced by the same factories. This product comes set in English as a standard, with USA connections, and English manuals. Imported models do not carry a USA manufacturer warranty card. Your purchase is covered by a 6ave store warranty which covers you for 1 Year. Please view below in our terms and conditions for details."

 

[table1349]

For sports for the average Joe or Jane something along the lines of a 70-200 or 80-200 would get you by. You won't be able to get close enought for those up close cover shots, but you will still have some decent range.

Same thing for wildlife. You are not going to get frame filling shots, but you can still do pretty well. Look at the used market in lenses as well as say the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 or the Tamron 70-200 f2.8.

Sorry to burst your bubble there a bit but getting the kinds of sports/wildlife shots most people think about does become expensive. You just can't get as close to your subject as you would shooting portraits, weddings etc.

 

[JerryLove]

Well, considering how many reviewers have tried to fault the Sony EVF with this same statement, it's pretty easy to just dismiss it now.

Did my logic circuits fail or was it my reading comprehension.

I read your quote above to be "since lots and lots of people report the same problem, the problem doesn't exist".

 

[JerryLove]

The Pentax (I have no experience with it) is really interesting for it's low cost relative to its ruggedness and weather sealing.

 

[lacogada]

Decided on :


Nikon D5200
AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Lens
AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Lens


I'll keep my eye out for a used 70-200mm ( or 300mm ) ?


Thanks for the advice and reply's

 

[astroNikon]

to save some money you can also look at f/4 lenses
I can't afford to nikon 300/2.8 but a Tokina/Sigma 100-300 f/4 is more within reason. You lose some light gathering ability but it's much better than the normal 70-300/4.5-5.6 lenses for low light situations.

 

[lacogada]

to save some money you can also look at f/4 lenses
I can't afford to nikon 300/2.8 but a Tokina/Sigma 100-300 f/4 is more within reason. You lose some light gathering ability but it's much better than the normal 70-300/4.5-5.6 lenses for low light situations.

Thanks.