First Camera Advice?

[Eveamlizya]

I'm thinking Canon or Nikon. It's my very first DSLR and I'm wanting something fairly easy to use, in the range of $500-800 maybe up to $1000 if I can. I'll mostly be using it for portraiture and maybe some nature/wildlife photos. I'd like something that will last me a while (will "grow with me" as I become more experienced). So, here's my questions:
1) What camera would you suggest? (I've only ever owned a Nikon or Kodak...didn't like the Kodak and my Nikon Coolpix is ok, but I hate the autofocus.)
2) What lens would be good for my first and for portraiture or wildlife photos?

I've asked people about this before, but I don't get any real advice...mostly just "look at a few and see what you like." I need some serious advice about this...I'm pretty much using all my savings for this so I can't afford to buy something that's not going to last me a good while or that's not exactly what I need. Thanks in advance.

 

[Solarflare]

Well, I'm a beginner, and I dont know much about Canon, so I can only talk about Nikon.


Budget: this isnt much of a budget, but it might do to get a current camera and simple lenses that fits your needs. Its also possible to buy some older cameras used, such as a D60, which would leave room for better lenses, maybe alternatively Sigma or Tamron ones(*), and/or primes.


Portrait is basically between 35mm for full body and 85mm for face only. And one preferably wants low f-numbers, such as from prime lenses, or the really expensive zooms, to be able to reach a small depth of field and put the background out of focus.

Wildlife, I dont know, but it would probably need all kinds of telezooms, with the sky being the limit. A realistic telezoom to reach cheaply is 200mm to 300mm.


Camera: You might already be quite happy with a D5100 with the 18-105 kit lens and a telezoom, like 55-200mm for the cheapest (and most lightweight) variant. Those two things would cost about 800€ where I live, but in my experience cameras are much cheaper over there in the USA (I often pay more € than what people say they paid in $).

The alternative is the D3200. It has more megapixels, and more resolution up to ISO 400, but more noise, less dynamic range, and much less low light tolerance. Basically, as long as there is enough light and you dont have too extreme contrast, the D3200 is better. Also, there are less controls and more menu surfing than with the D5100.

I also love the swivel monitor of the D5100. It allows to protect the monitor from harm (just turn it backwards), allows to see what you're doing when using really unusual point of views, and allows you to show people how a photograph of them would look like (including the ability to take a portrait of yourself much more easily). Unfortunately the D5100 is the only DSLR from Nikon with a swivel monitor. I remember seeing Canon models with such a monitor, too, though.


Lenses: The kit lens is btw only worth it if you buy it with the camera. The alternative 18-55mm kit lens is probably of no interest for you, as it would require too much switching between your normal and your telezoom. It does have some lesser macro ability, but its manual focus is so whacky its basically useless.

You might later want to get more expensive zooms (those are quite expensive indeed, check out the alternatives from Sigma or Tamron) with f/2.8 over the full range, or even specialized primes, if you want to get portraits that have the background out of focus more easily.


(*) Sigma and Tamron lenses are by no means per se better, just often a cheap and good alternative to one of the more expensive Nikon lenses. There are more companies that do Nikon lenses, but those are manual focus only.

 

[tirediron]

The "Look and see what you like" is serious advice. The reality is that the Nikon/Canon debate is nothing more than a Ford/Chevy discussion, especially as it relates to their consumer-grade bodies. Each will have minor features that the other doesn't, but at the same price-point, the gear is so similar that things such as comfort, ergonomics, and appearance are often deciding factors.

One company I would urge you to give a long, hard look at is Pentax. IMO, their offerings are far and away the best value for the dollar, and there is a ton of legacy glass that you can have for a song from Craig's List, eBay, pawn shops, etc.

With regard to lenses, take the kit lens that comes with the body you buy and work with that until you KNOW what you want, rather than speculating beforehand.

 

[Eveamlizya]

The "Look and see what you like" is serious advice. The reality is that the Nikon/Canon debate is nothing more than a Ford/Chevy discussion, especially as it relates to their consumer-grade bodies. Each will have minor features that the other doesn't, but at the same price-point, the gear is so similar that things such as comfort, ergonomics, and appearance are often deciding factors.

This is good to know (seeing as I'm a Chevy girl lol), thanks.

With regard to lenses, take the kit lens that comes with the body you buy and work with that until you KNOW what you want, rather than speculating beforehand.

I've seen a kit on Amazon for the Canon Rebel that comes with a 18-55mm, but for a little more you can add either a 55-250mm or a 75-300mm...would this be a better option for me? If so, which would be better to get?

Other than a tripod and good case, should I consider buying any other accessories?

 

[Infidel]

I'm thinking Canon or Nikon. It's my very first DSLR and I'm wanting something fairly easy to use, in the range of $500-800 maybe up to $1000 if I can. I'll mostly be using it for portraiture and maybe some nature/wildlife photos. I'd like something that will last me a while (will "grow with me" as I become more experienced). So, here's my questions:
1) What camera would you suggest? (I've only ever owned a Nikon or Kodak...didn't like the Kodak and my Nikon Coolpix is ok, but I hate the autofocus.)
2) What lens would be good for my first and for portraiture or wildlife photos?

I've asked people about this before, but I don't get any real advice...mostly just "look at a few and see what you like." I need some serious advice about this...I'm pretty much using all my savings for this so I can't afford to buy something that's not going to last me a good while or that's not exactly what I need. Thanks in advance.

The passages in bold are slightly at odds with one another. You need a camera that will easily allow you to manually adjust all of the settings that affect the image. Pretty much any SLR will allow this, although the entry-level cameras tend to have more emphasis on automatic modes and fewer dedicated controls. This makes it seem easy to use at first, you will also realize that the pro-level features are useful. That said, there is nothing to prevent you from making amazing photographs with an entry-level SLR as you learn and grow.

 

[tirediron]

...I've seen a kit on Amazon for the Canon Rebel that comes with a 18-55mm, but for a little more you can add either a 55-250mm or a 75-300mm...would this be a better option for me? If so, which would be better to get?

My preference would be for the 55-250 to have total coverage from 18-250mm, which would seem more appropriate to your stated goals, however, if you think you might want that extra 50mm reach it would be worth considering. Unfortunately, as a Nikonian, I really can't comment on the actual lenses.

Other than a tripod and good case, should I consider buying any other accessories?

If you buy a tripod, but a GOOD one; Manfrotto is a well regarded name (Pro tip: Tripods are a GREAT thing to buy used - check out Craig's List), and make sure that the tripod and head are rated for at least TWICE the weight of your heaviest lens/body combination. The only other item I would get soon is a circular polarizing filter which will remove reflections from non-metallic surfaces and increase the contrast and saturation in a scene (It's what gives those rich, dark blue skies and intense white clouds in landscape scenes). Again, don't go cheap; buy at least a Hoya or Tiffen multi-coated, and if you can a Lee, Singh-Ray, Heliopan or B+W.

 

[Solarflare]

A second battery might come in very handy if you photograph a lot.

If you already plan on a tripod, a remote control could be considered. Allows to make photos without touching the camera at all.

A flash might be useful. Many cameras have a builtin one, but it takes more time to recover and is a huge drain on the battery. An external flash can also be directed at the ceiling for indirect light and no problem with "red eye".

A rain protection might be useful if you are planning on photographing in the rain.

 

[sm4him]

I really can't offer you "advice" on what you should get, I can only tell you what *I* did and that, nearly a year later now, I'm still very happy with what I purchased and how I did things:

I bought a Nikon D5100 last August. I could tell you all the reasons I chose Nikon over Canon, but the most important two were that it "felt" better in my hands, and my sister has a Nikon, so I knew we could borrow each other's equipment. That's an important consideration, if you have any other family or friends with DSLRs.
I could also tell you all the reasons I picked the D5100 instead of the D90 which my sister has, or the D7000, which I really kinda wanted...but it boiled down to $$$. Buy the D5100 right then, after having waited nearly two years to be able to buy a DSLR, or wait another 6 months or so for the D7000. Not gonna lie, I'd still like that D7000 at some point...but I'm also quite happy with my D5100. It would take quite some time before I felt like the camera body was holding me back.

I started with just the kit lens, the 18-55mm (at least in my neck of woods, this is what usually comes on the 5100, not the 18-105 that comes on the D90 or D7000). That kit lens gets a bad rap, but I actually have no complaints about it. It was completely sufficient for me to learn on, and I still use it when I need something below 50mm, as I haven't bought another better in that range yet.

I used JUST the camera and kit lens for about 6 months and learned everything I could. By that time, I had a better handle on what else I needed/wanted and started to branch out. Bought a 55-300; again this is not a spectacular lens by any stretch, but it's a GOOD lens and one I could afford. THEN I bought a flash, just a cheap one, Yongnuo 560. YOU WANT a flash! Especially if you're going to do portrait shooting.

I now also have a 50mm f/1.8 prime, a Tokina 100mm macro and a Sigma 70-300mm (which is a duplication of ranges with my 55-300, but...long story...).

But when I first bought the camera, I would have had NO idea which of those lenses would be the best for me to buy. It's better, IMO, to just get the camera and kit lens and learn that. By the time you are becoming proficient with that lens, you'll already KNOW what you want next! My "next" list grows constantly!

Just DON'T make a decision without getting your hands on the camera first, if at all possible. Because what "feels" right to one person, is just small and frustrating to another, or too big and bulky to someone else.

 

[pixmedic]

I dont know much about Canon equipment, but If you go Nikon the 18-105mm kit lens is a pretty good choice. it gives you good overall focal range, and should be an option with most Nikon bodys. The 70-300 VRII is a nice lens, but only good if you get something like the 18-55 as well so you dont lose out on much focal range.

I agree with Tirediron about the tripod as well, we use a Manfrotto tripod (found it on sale for $200 at our local photo store) and have been very pleased with its build quality, even being one of the cheaper manfrotto tripods. If you dont mind a third party lens (we sure dont) Tamron makes a 18-270mm lens that got very good reviews as all-in-one walk around lens. Im sure other manufacturers make a similar lens depending on your budget.

 

[sovietdoc]

Wow, a lot of nikonians on this forum :thumbup:


Canon and Nikon offer similar systems, but for a beginner, I'd go to the nearest store that has both their cameras and just play around with them. See how they feel in hand, how easy the controls are. As long as you don't invest thousands into glass, in the future as you photography needs grow, you may always be able to jump sides if you feel the need to switch brands.