I am beginner w/$2000 to get me started...how should I spend it?

In-body focus motor. You have the flexibility to chose either AF or AF-S lens. Take your pick. If he's going to go Nikon, that would be the recommendation I would make. Any day of the week. You can either look at ALL the lenses, or limit yourself right at the start. I'd rather see someone keep their options open.

With a body without that, as has been pointed out. You are limited to either manual focus or AF-S lenses. Now, would you like to use a 50mm f/1.8 AF lens in auto-focus or manual focus. For it being such a nice sharp lens, it would be a manual on a D60 or a D40.

I could and will justify in NOT spending the money on IS or VR technology. Get a fast enough lens with f/2.8 glass, you can have a much better system compared to some of the slower glass with VR. It's a trade-off. Fast glass lets you shoot in more situations with lower light. Especially if flash is restricted.

I have VR lenses. The only time I have it on is when I am hand holding for a sporting event or something like that where I can't use a tripod or monopod. Most other times, it stays turned off. You get sharper images that way.

Not saying don't include them in the tool kit. just don't fall for all the hype over them either. It still doesn't make up for bad technique or training.


Outside of that. Your lenses, I don't care which tag you hang on them, will be the more important investment over the body. While you may buy that uber fancy, Canon Mk1 or Nikon D3x, in the end, you will have your lenses LONG after that body goes onto the shelf.

If need be, wait until you get into your class and then make a decision based off what your instructor puts out for a sylabus.


As to my original comment:

The question was:
If you were just starting out, how would you spend $2,000?

My answer still stands.
Focus on lenses more than the body.

Get a body that has an internal focus drive also.
 
In-body focus motor. You have the flexibility to chose either AF or AF-S lens. Take your pick. If he's going to go Nikon, that would be the recommendation I would make. Any day of the week. You can either look at ALL the lenses, or limit yourself right at the start. I'd rather see someone keep their options open.

With a body without that, as has been pointed out. You are limited to either manual focus or AF-S lenses. Now, would you like to use a 50mm f/1.8 AF lens in auto-focus or manual focus. For it being such a nice sharp lens, it would be a manual on a D60 or a D40.

I could and will justify in NOT spending the money on IS or VR technology. Get a fast enough lens with f/2.8 glass, you can have a much better system compared to some of the slower glass with VR. It's a trade-off. Fast glass lets you shoot in more situations with lower light. Especially if flash is restricted.

I have VR lenses. The only time I have it on is when I am hand holding for a sporting event or something like that where I can't use a tripod or monopod. Most other times, it stays turned off. You get sharper images that way.

Not saying don't include them in the tool kit. just don't fall for all the hype over them either. It still doesn't make up for bad technique or training.


Outside of that. Your lenses, I don't care which tag you hang on them, will be the more important investment over the body. While you may buy that uber fancy, Canon Mk1 or Nikon D3x, in the end, you will have your lenses LONG after that body goes onto the shelf.

If need be, wait until you get into your class and then make a decision based off what your instructor puts out for a sylabus.


As to my original comment:

The question was:
If you were just starting out, how would you spend $2,000?
My answer still stands.
Focus on lenses more than the body.

Get a body that has an internal focus drive also.

While I disagree about the high value of an inbody focus motor, unless there is an optical difference between the lenses, you have now provided information that the OP and any newbie or any one with similar considerations can use. Something not present in your first post. :D
 
Thank you for all the input! I think I may be even more confused now about which direction to go in :confused:

Now I am thinking instead of a new 50d I might get a refurb 40d or Nikon d90 off of adorama (I am still unsure about which lens). I am still struggling between Canon or Nikon, and I have been to Ritz 2x this weekend to hold them. Here are my observations...I don't care about the video feature on the d90 and I like that it has more MP and a better LCD than the 40d. They both feel fine to hold, but I guess I do like that the d90 is smaller/lighter. I prefer the menu scroll button on the canon. Also, the canon tends to be faster, but I am not sure if the difference would matter that much in shooting college baseball. I know these are very "green" observations, but the technical differences are lost on me at this point. I guess what I am trying to say is that nothing wows or bothers me about either brand enough to make a decision. I decided against the 30d...I know it is a great body, but the quality of the LCD is quite inferior, no live view, and less MP. I will probably go check them out again tomorrow, hopefully the sales guy doesn't run from me:mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
Focus on lenses more than the body.

Get a body that has an internal focus drive also.

Why????

I agree with Farmerj, btw. I also really like Dwig's idea of spend some initial money and bank the rest for now.

FOCUS MOTOR

If you can avoid it, you should never buy a body without a focus motor and you should buy a body with as many primary controls accessible via physical non-menu-driven access. (aperature, shutter, ISO, WB, etc.) (first two being key)

Buying a body without a focus motor will cause you to spend any money you saved several times over as your purchase more lenses, and will somewhat limit your available lens selection. It's 100% a bad move, unless you have no other choice due to budgetary reasons.

BUYING EXPENSIVE GLASS

If you're just starting out, really don't do this. You could spend a ton of money on a really nice lens only to find out that you don't actually need that particular focal range for what you are doing. For example, you dash out and buy a nice 80-200 2.8 for $1000 only to find out what you really love more than anything is landscapes... doh!

What's more is that "lesser glass" will confine you more, and force you into situations where you hit the limitations of the lens quickly, and that will force you to learn more about photography, and why good glass is good and why you want it.

People will then say "oh no! then you spent all that money on glass you won't use anymore when you buy the good stuff!" pffft... average lenses cost like like $100-300... and 300 is kind of an outlier. You're not really tossing all that much away, and the truth is that frequently these lenses are still usable and by the time you're ready to retire them you'll be able to pretty much make them sit up and bark anyway, so you'll get decent images out of them, so they won't be a total loss. Worst case, sell 'em and get at least 1/2 your money back. Whoop-dee.


In Nikon land, don't buy anything less than a D80/D90 if you can afford it. D200s are a great buy nowadays if you can track down a new one or a gently used one. D300s are great if you have the cash, but not necessary by any means. Just DONT buy a D40/D60/D5000 unless you have no choice for budgetary reasons.
 
my first DSLR was a Nikon D60, it gets the job done and cost £400 incl 3 years insurance (I'm very clumsy lol)
 
The only reason I could see a photography class mandating a film camera, is if the focus is on dark room processing and NOT basic universal photographic techniques.

That's what I thought about my 24-70 until it quit.

Sure. However I'd bet money on a LEN's motor quitting before a BODY. I mean you have to be intentionally trying to **** **** up to be able to get at the tiny screen and where it is housed (at least on a Nikon body).
 
The only reason I could see a photography class mandating a film camera, is if the focus is on dark room processing and NOT basic universal photographic techniques.

That's what I thought about my 24-70 until it quit.
Sure. However I'd bet money on a LEN's motor quitting before a BODY. I mean you have to be intentionally trying to **** **** up to be able to get at the tiny screen and where it is housed (at least on a Nikon body).


It wasn't the motor that quit on me. It was an internal focus ring housing that broke in one place according to Canon service. My guess is that it was bad when it was installed and over time a crack separated into a break. Which turned a smooth focusing lens into one that stuttered like a kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Sure was a p*sser when it happened. But like I said, I was able to keep going with a backup piece of glass.

From Nikon's site:

The Nikon Silent Wave Motor uses ultrasonic traveling waves, converted to rotational energy, to focus AF-S NIKKOR lenses. The ultrasonic waves, moving in a spiral pattern inside the lens barrel, drive the cylindrical motor that moves the lens elements. This powerful and responsive high-torque motor system provides instant startup, high-speed autofocusing and incredible accuracy.


The Silent Wave Motor represents a significant advance in AF lens technology. Conventional autofocus lenses are driven by a motor in the camera linked to the lens by a gear system. Using inaudible ultrasonic frequencies—in effect, ultrasonic vibrations—rather than a gear system results in incredibly smooth, silent and precise AF operation.


Seems like that is Nikon's direction for lenses as well. At least their better lenses.
 
MHO, that is completely the wrong way to approach this.

You will outgrow the body you choose now. Either that or you will not continue with photography as a hobby. All digital cameras become "obsolete" in a few years as technology advances.
So what? Do they suddenly stop working after they become obsolete? The D40 is, technically, obsolete (discontinued) and *SHOCK* mine still works just fine ;)

If you want a body that you will not outgrow (at least not quickly), look for something that has the features and handling that you need. I'm finding that the D40 lacks a number of things that I could definitely use, like wireless flash, in-body AF motor, more dedicated controls, DOF preview, etc.

For Nikon, I suggest a D90 or better. It's about 80% of the D300 (the current king of Nikon crop frames) for 60% of the price. If you get with the 18-105 VR kit lens (good general purpose lens) for $1300, you can then also get the 70-300 VR (good lens for outdoor baseball and portraits in good light) and 50/1.8D (good for portraits and general low-light use) and you'll be right at your budget.

For Canon, I suggest a 40D (a 30D might be similar, but I don't shoot Canon, so I don't know). I understand that the 50D adds rather pointless resolution and video recording in exchange for poorer ISO performance. No idea about lenses, though.

While I disagree about the high value of an inbody focus motor, unless there is an optical difference between the lenses, you have now provided information that the OP and any newbie or any one with similar considerations can use. Something not present in your first post.
The difference is that you can get great used lenses for cheap that are just as good as (or better than, in some cases) the current iterations, as long as you don't mind AF that is a little noisier and less ergonomic.
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that (barring someone being an idiot) their focus drive on-body will last longer than the actual bodies use.

That's what I thought about my 24-70 until it quit. But then why do most of us recommend that someone is say a wedding shooter, that they should have two bodies? SH*T happens. (I learned that little * trick from one of the moderators;))

You're comparing apples and oranges. In camera screw drive is not the same as a ultrasonic built in motor.

Seriously, the OP is not going to shoot weddings right off the bat, and I've never heard of anyone burning out the in-camera screw focus motor. With Nikon when you have the AF motor it opens up a whole world of amazing, yet inexpensive glass. Buy the AF-S stuff if you can afford it, it's great, but it's pricey.

to the OP: Nikon or Canon you can't go wrong. My only suggestion though is don't buy the D5000 from Nikon, it's worth the little bit extra to get the D90. So models to consider: D90, D300, 30D, 40D, 50D.
 
FOCUS MOTOR

If you can avoid it, you should never buy a body without a focus motor and you should buy a body with as many primary controls accessible via physical non-menu-driven access. (aperature, shutter, ISO, WB, etc.) (first two being key)

Buying a body without a focus motor will cause you to spend any money you saved several times over as your purchase more lenses, and will somewhat limit your available lens selection. It's 100% a bad move, unless you have no other choice due to budgetary reasons.
For Nikon. And Nikon, only. It's been said before...

Back a few decades... Canon chose lens focusing motors, NIkon chose in-body. At any rate, I agree with this. But Nikon is expanding, now, to completely change over to lens focusing motors.

By the way, I don't see a problem in IS/VR lenses.

They help quite a lot. And there's nothing big on 'technical': it's like arguing PP or not.
 
I started photography just under a year ago with a Canon XSI and some cheapy lenses I had found in a camera bag.

You would be fine with one of the Canon Rebel cameras to start off with, investing more money in the lenses. You seem to have diverse wants in terms of your photography.

Portraits require a flash, a lense that can give some good brokeh (fuzzy background), have a focal range from 85-110mm (give or take).

Wildlife photography will require longer focal ranges, 300mm and up, with good quality, fast glass. Baseball will also require longer lenses, 200mm and up, with f/2.8 lenses that will allow you fast shutter speeds to freeze the action.

The thing with sports photography is that you often find yourself shooting continuously...as in keep your finger on the shutter and the swinger swings and then pick the best image from the bunch. I don't know any sports photographers who just snap 1 picture at a time.
For this, you need to look for the fps capability of the cameras, which the Canon Rebel line lacks.

A 40D sounds like a good start. You could probably find some good used ones, with people upgrading to the 50D or 5D Mk II. This should run you almost $800 (check www.keh.com for used models).

You then need to look into accessories for the camera such as memory cards, extra battery, flash unit. It starts to add up...I'd look at some third party lenses, something like the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. A great lens for cheap. A bit slower to focus though.

Or something like the 50mm f/1.8, which will suit alot of portrait needs, but be too short for sports (same with the 28-75).

So I'd probably do a
$800 40D,
$500 the accessories,
$375 a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
$250 and if you really want to do sports right away, a cheap telephoto zoom like the Canon 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS800+. Not the best for night games, but should be ok for games during the day. Good enough to start with until you can save for the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

Thats just under $2000.

Next things to look into buying would be a tripod, a battery grip. Maybe look into a wider angle lens if you feel the need for that.
Then look at upgrading that telephoto to something faster.

Just my 2 cents :)
 
For Nikon, I suggest a D90 or better. It's about 80% of the D300 (the current king of Nikon crop frames) for 60% of the price. If you get with the 18-105 VR kit lens (good general purpose lens) for $1300

Or, you can get a Nikon D80, MB-D80 battery grip, and 18-135 lens for $750 on eBay.
Nikon D80 10.2 MP, Nikkor 18-135mm lens, MB-D80 Grip - eBay (item 170343874718 end time Jul-12-09 11:23:48 PDT)

Even if you don't grab that specific auction, getting a D80 is much, much cheaper than a D90 and, except for small increases in image quality as afforded by newer technology, is exactly the same as a D90 for still-image shooting. It's still got what's important - the two wheels for controlling aperture and shutter speed at the same time, the internal focus drive, and off-camera flash trigger support from the popup flash. As far as I'm concerned, the $500+ that you save can be put towards a very nice lens.

Or you can get a Nikon D200 for around the same price, maybe a little more, and get the same image quality as the D80 with the ruggedness of the D300. Either way, buying new Nikon cameras really doesn't make sense when the used market is so good.

I stand by my original F5 recommendation though - getting a camera nearly of the same quality of the D3, with the same built-in vertical grip, for only $400?! How do you beat that?
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
D90 is CMOS vs the CCD of the D80, D90 equals much better high ISO performance than you'll ever dream of with a D80 or D200.

Just depends on your needs but there's really no comparing a D80 to a D90 other than look and feel (I've had both, along with a D200). If you don't need the extra ISO you can save some money and maybe get some fast glass to help with it down the road.

I do enjoy having the video though :D
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top