Making the big leap

[TMBPhotography]

I am in the process of securing $1800 to get started in the DSLR world. Been debating with myself over a T3i or a D5100. Still not sure yet. Plus, I need all the extras to get started. I think portraits is where I am gonna start at but I love landscape, macro. Once I get good enough, delve into sports.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Things to think about. Been lurking around here for a while and reading up on ton of stuff. If nothing else, it will be a fun but expensive hobby. But who knows, maybe make a few bucks at it.

 

[MLeeK]

$1800 and you are looking at the entry level cameras? May I ask why? (There could be a very valid reason)
By your screen name I am venturing a guess you are going to eventually want to do this on a more professional level...
You need to be aware of that and the longevity of your camera gear.
This is my mindset: EVERYTHING is in your lenses when it comes to the bottom line on image quality. However, you don't know what lenses you will want and need at this point. You don't knwo what your style of shooting these things will be; you know probably little about controlling the image yet; you also know very little about the levels of light and how your lenses will perform with them. Until you know what you don't know purchasing lenses is a shot in the dark. It usually is NOT what you want once you get a little knowledge under your belt. In which case it makes more sense to invest in the best, most up to date camera body you can purchase within your budget. You can then use that camera for a much longer time before it becomes a pinch and you need to upgrade. In doing so it allows you to put all future $ towards good lenses instead of constantly being behind the 8ball updating bodies. You have the budget to do it.
Both the T3i and the D5100 are entry level consumer grade DSLR's. NOTHING wrong with that, but they are what they are.
The D5100 also does not have an auto focus motor in the body. Meaning that when you purchase lenses you have to either purchase the lens with the motor in it-more money in each lens-or you have to manual focus only. It does limit you to only manual focus on a few pretty great lenses.

You also specifically mention sports down the road. However both of these cameras FPS is pretty slow for sports. The canon is 3.7FPS and the Nikon is 4.
They are also not weather sealed, so shooting outdoors in inclement conditions for sports is a concern. Not something that isn't easily gotten around, but still.

Stepping up to the 60D in canon offers you more FPS at 5.3, a much better focus system plus a better viewfinder and IQ improvement. 60D kit runs about $1100 AND it includes a zoom lens with a longer reach than the T3i-nice as you are learning because the first thing people discover they want is a little zoom. Still not weather sealed. Still a plastic body

Stepping up to the D7000 in Nikon brings you several improvements over the D5100 including a MUCH improved focus system, better viewfinder, 6 frames per second **built in auto focus motor***, 2 memory card slots and weather sealing. And the kit lens also has a bit more zoom in it as well. Kit runs about $1499. Ok, so that is a bigger step than the 60D was, but it's INCREDIBLY worth it.

ONE MORe option I want to put on the table with those is the Canon 7D. Again the 7D has the same improvements over the T3i as the 60D has PLUS weather sealing and 8 FPS. It's also handling high ISO's better which is a big deal when shooting sports-you WILL max out your ISO. Kit on that about $1560.

 

[KmH]

The D5100 also does not have an auto focus motor in the body.

The T3i doesn't have a focus motor in it either. In fact, no Canon film SLR or digital SLR camera has had a focus motor in it since they launched EOS in 1987.

Meaning that when you purchase lenses you have to either purchase the lens with the motor in it-more money in each lens....

Ya, Canon has been making their customers pay for a focus motor in each lens since 1987, no choice.

Only the entry level, compact, 'baby' Nikon's, designed for more appeal to women, don't have a focus motor in them. (D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D5000, D5100)

Oh! By the way. Most of the older Nikon lenses available new today that don't have a focus motor in them used to be pro grade lenses and cost quite a bit more than the equivelent consumer grade lens that does have a focus motor in it.

 

[TMBPhotography]

Very good info there MLeeK. The reason I chose the entry level cameras was because with that $1800, I still have to get decent lenses, all the peripherals, a computer to house all my pics with photoshop on it. Yes, I am very green to this but am learning more and more by the day. Been at this for a couple months now. Its very hard to learn from you all because all your issues and resolutions pertain to DSLR's. My point and shoot just doesnt help me understand all the intricacies of photography. Yes, I am sure those of you that learned on P&S are grumbling at me right now. Sorry...... Almost everyone I have asked to help me understand something says that they will be able to once I get a DSLR.

MLeeK, I didnt quite follow you at the beginning. You said I needed great lenses but that I should get a great camera instead? I had someone else suggest getting great lenses and skimp on the camera part since they are upgraded every couple years but a lens will last 4-7 years(assuming you dont drop it or anything)

I might be able to secure a little bit more in money.... maybe. if I could afford something in the $1200, whats the best bang for my buck? As for Lenses, what do you suggest? I've heard nothing but good things about the nifty fifty. what others should I consider?

 

[jaomul]

Would you consider a second hand camera or do you prefer new?

 

[TMBPhotography]

second hand just worries me because of lack of warranty or being able to return it if it doesn't work.

 

[jaomul]

That's a fair concern. You can get many for/against any camera you have your eye on when you post here. As above it has been said about focus motors and lack of etc.
For the money you are talking the cameras you listed are well regarded and image quality will not be an issue and for the most part will cover all you want with everything you listed but may struggle with sports. Its not even that they wont cope but when things are fast moving the entry level cameras don't focus as fast. Anyway you probably know all this.
Image quality beyond the camera will come down to lenses. You no doubt know this to.
If sport will be a big part of your shooting you will be better served waiting to buy something with a fast focus in the Canon 60D/Nikon D7000 circa but then you will have very little left for lenses.(Canon and nikon aren't the only choices but most popular, The pentax K5 would be my camera of choice in this league if I were starting out).

Lenses wise, the 50mm f1.8 from canon/Nikon is a nice portrait lens, the sigma 105mm is a nice macro and portrait lens but the operation is a bit annoying. The kit lens will serve the purpose for landscapes and can be improved with a more specific lens when you find a focal length you like. Sports is different, you can only pick when you know your focal length most suitable, with fast lenses being the best.

If you could find good second hand gear and dont need video check out the canon 40D or 50D, both great semi-pro spec cameras. The nikon D300 is another good option. Also the Nikon D90 which on paper is less than the others mentioned but a highly recommended choice. All these nikons have built in motors which allow use of many lenses including older, cheaper alternatives

 

[MLeeK]

You need good lenses, but right now you don't know what those lenses will be. You don't know what your style would be or what you will need. You have to get some learning and shooting in to know. I can guess what you'll need, but that's a guess. You may be a prime kinda guy, you may be a zoom kinda guy. You don't know what you need to purchase in good lenses-add to that the fact that $1800 is NOT going to buy you a camera and GOOD lenses, let alone a computer system AND CS5. You are looking at more than that in just the two lenses that you will *probably* need. No camera, no nothing.
SO... my answer is to purchase the most up to date camera body that suits your needs now and for what you are looking to do ahead of you. That way what you invest down the line can be spent in good lenses and you won't have to re-spend in upgrading the body.

Kieth I have no clue what your problem is with the pointing out the fact that the D5100 and D3100 series have no AF motor and the lenses will cost more. It's a fact of life-and you yourself say that it will limit you on many of those older professional lenses. That alone can afford someone some awesome lenses on a TIGHT budget.
Yep, canon has been making us pay for the AF motor forever in EOS. It's a fact of life. HOWEVER I find it funny that canon lenses generally cost less than their Nikon equals. For example the 24-70 f/2.8 Nikon $1886 and the 24-70 f/2.8L Canon $1279. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR/IS II Nikon $2400; Canon $2200.
So lets not skew the costs by saying Canon is making you pay with every lens...
Not to mention that we are in no way limited to not being able to use any of the older lenses because of the lack of AF motor either in the body or the desired lens.
That's not saying that the D5100 is a bad camera. It is by NO means bad. It will just cost you more money in the end. If it weren't for that fact? I'd definitely choose it over the T3i.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

A lens will last you 4-7 years? I would disregard the advice of this advisor. A great lens may last you for 10-15-20 plus years years if it fulfills your needs! And you don't need to upgrade your camera body every two years either, you need to upgrade your camera body when you are finding limitations in your current camera body.

 

[MLeeK]

As for what lenses I'd recommend-The Nifty Fifty is a great bang for the buck. If you go with the D5100 it'll run you $217; the D7000 or above $127; canon $110. For that amount of money there isn't another lens that will give you the low light ability and sharpness that it does.
It's absolutely worth buying at this point in the game. It will do several things for you:
1. give you the ability to shoot without adding flash in much lower lighting situations
2. give you a taste of a much sharper lens than the kit lens
3. allow you to learn about exposure on a lens whose f/ does not change as you zoom-that is a little tough at first when you get your settings in there, then zoom and they change on you...
4. give you a taste of a prime lens vs a zoom-you'll have to decide what your style is and this will definitely help a bit.

As for zooms for the things you intend to do? The 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 f/2.8 are the go to lenses. Just the 24-70 will take the majority of your budget-lens only... There are budget options starting at about $450 at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and starting at $700 for the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8-that one is great for portraits, not so great for sports and has no AF motor in it-no good on the D5100. If you are seriously thinking sports down the line the focus is slow. It does work, I have used one for sports, but the focus is noticeably slow for sports. Which bumps you up to the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 NON OS model which starts at about $900 or so. Still a little slow on the focus, but not so bad. Better on the focus would be the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8OS which is about $1400. Nikon does not make a non VR version of this lens, but you can get your hands on an older, used 80-200 f/2.8 which is a pretty impressive lens-I believe it will auto focus on the D5100. Ask Tevo what he just paid for his cuz I don't know. Canon does make a non IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 at $1359.
Your lenses may well be with you for the life of your career. Invest in them wisely.