Looking to get my 1st camera

[christianoutdoorsguy]

Hello, I am looking to get a camera. I am new and not sure how much I'll use it so not looking to go broke right off the bat. This will be used to photograph wildlife (game animals) and maybe birds. I am sure once I start I will take pictures of things I can't even begin to imagine. Once I start a hobby, I usually get full into it quickly. My budget currently allows for a Nikon D60 to D40x or Canon Xt, Xs, Xti, Xsi. Possibly trying to get one gently used to save money and the same with lenses. Any pro's/con's. I do like quality but as a beginner is the basic good enough (D/40 or Xt). I do like the larger lcd of the Xs vs. the Xt and of course more Megapix. Thank you.

 

[tomhooper]

Personally I would advise getting an Xt or Nikon equiv. Spend any money you might save on the body for glass. If you want to shoot birds and/or wildlife you will need some kind of telephoto. Better glass will give you better picture quality. You still need to learn how to take the shot and you can do that on a lesser body. As far as megapixels are concerned, you really won't notice the difference between say and Xt and an Xs.

 

[christianoutdoorsguy]

Ok, got my first camera now. I got a good price on an almost new very gently used Nikon D60 with an 18-55 Nikon VR lens. Will look at lenses now.

 

[William Petruzzo]

That was quick.

 

[christianoutdoorsguy]

That was quick.

I know, I had been looking for a bit and was getting ready to go run some errands for the day when I saw an add on craigslist in my area and was just what I was after so I jumped on it

 

[djacobox372]

For wildlife/birds you need a fast telephoto/zoom... those can be expensive. The faster telephotos will work better in low light and allow you to use a teleconverter to get in even closer.

 

[manaheim]

Personally I would advise getting an Xt or Nikon equiv. Spend any money you might save on the body for glass. If you want to shoot birds and/or wildlife you will need some kind of telephoto. Better glass will give you better picture quality. You still need to learn how to take the shot and you can do that on a lesser body. As far as megapixels are concerned, you really won't notice the difference between say and Xt and an Xs.

...and I would disagree.

Unless you've been doing photogaphy a long time and can actually really tell the difference between "cheap" and "expensive" glass... and unless you know for sure what lens you really need the most... spend more money on the body.

If you can at least get into a D80 and have wads of cash leftover for glass, then you might go buy some better lenses... fine... else, don't. The lesser bodies really kinda... um... suck. There's nothing really wrong with them, but they are limited in a way that can be seriously frustrating.

Cheaper glass is a great way to learn the limitations of photography and will teach you to get the most out of any lens. A really expensive glass is going to get you those pictures way more easily, you're therefore less likely to hit limitations, and will invariably learn a bit slower.

My favorite lens for new folks is the 18-135. Very flexible single lens that covers nearly all typical cirucmstances. I run a 28-100 on my camera 95% of the time, and it works very well. I only wish it were just a bit wider and had a bit more zoom, and I could almost glue it on the body. (ok, not really)

 

[maulrat]

Grab yourself an Canon XTi or an XSi and a Canon 70-200mm L 2.8 That should be good for taking shots at wildlife at a distance. Oh wait... damn, that really was a fast decision.