Need advice - purchasing the only dslr I probably ever will

alyphoto · Jul 12, 2011

Hello all, new here. I've been frustrated all day trying to wade through all of the dslr's out there and what I would need to buy in addition to make the camera do what I want out of it, how I could do this for the cheapest price...

I don't have a big budget in terms of dslrs. I would like to stay under $1,000 and this includes getting a lens. The lower the better.
I probably wont be buying another one; so while I don't need it to be amazing professional, I don't want it to be something I will completely outgrow in a year.

I do want to sell my photos; but it's mostly all macro work. Probably wont really ever be above 24" prints. Maybe sunsets/clouds here and there, maybe some landscape shots in the fall; but the majority and where my niche is in macro photography, and usually on still subjects. I don't think I'll ever be hiking into the amazon and needing to take super amazing close up shots of an incredibly rare bug that is approx. 20 feet away from me, though

most things will be within 1-2 inches of the camera, or closer. At the same time, I wont be taking many sweeping landscape pictures with incredible details/things to see.

To give a better idea, this is my deviantart account:
Alyphoto on deviantART

I just want to do what I do now, better. I currently use a P&S canon powershot s95, with an old disassembled telescope lens as my macro. It does work incredibly well, but I'm quickly outgrowing it!

What I want from the camera ... or possibly the lens that I get with it:
Great macro within an inch or closer to the subjects
High aperture for great bokeh
Capable of shooting sunsets, colorful clouds, pets (dog), views from mountains/towers - none of these done as seriously as macro photography, though.
It needs to have live-view. Would prefer 3" display, but that wont break the deal if everything else is great.
Video capture is not important to me at all. In fact, if I could get a camera without video capture so that it cost less, I would!

I almost decided on this;
Nikon - D5100 16.2-Megapixel DSLR Camera with 18-55mm VR Lens - Black - D5100 with 18-55mm VR Lens

With these right away;
Amazon.com: 52mm to 58mm Step-up Ring: Electronics
Amazon.com: Digital Concepts 1 2 4 10 Close-Up Macro Filter Set with Pouch (58mm): Electronics

And this in a few months;
Amazon.com: Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Which would be used in this way; attach the f/1.8 lens, and attach the macro filters to that, to effectively have a macro lens with high aperture without spending $800 + on lens alone. Of course an $800 real lens would be better, I just can't do that much, and I'm sure that the filters will do a lot better than my p&s.

I worry that there are better/cheaper options.
It's a lot of money to me; so I'm being very indecisive!

I was first considering a canon, though, one of the rebels. I have a canon P&S and I really do love it. My friend however talked me out of it, insisting nikon has better lens, more options that can thread to them... my friend also seems really biased towards nikon. She owns one after all. So I thought that I should ask for more, unbiased results...

What I was really thinking about doing was spending around $600 on a good dslr, and about $300 on a good lens for macro. I think that maybe this could be possible if I looked at canon more, their lens and cameras look to be a little bit cheaper; but are they as good?

I do think I've at least settled on nikon or canon. I'm just hoping someone here can push me in the right direction.

edit;
I guess I should include that this is the first one I was considering:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T1i-Dig...=sr_1_8?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1310457852&sr=1-8
with;
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00007E7JU/ref=cm_cd_asin_lnk
and;
http://www.amazon.com/Sakar-Close-U...5?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1310459936&sr=1-5

and heck; considering the cheaper price of the camera itself, i could possibly just go for;
http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-Macro-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0016Q6BXC/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1310464591&sr=1-1 instead of the non-macro + filters.

She said that Nikon had better lens, though. Is it worth the almost $300 difference for the nikon (and f/1.8 lens I would eventually get)?

And what is up with this; why is it $1,100 off??
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Kiss-Eos-400D-Digital-18-55mm/dp/tech-data/B003O6OR0G

In the end... I guess with all my personal research I've narrowed it down to the two options I listed above despite everything else I said; I babble a lot when I can't make up my mind. Unless there is a better option out there. Which of these set ups seem better?

I'm not saying I'll never get an expensive lens; maybe in the future I will. I just can't get an expensive camera and lens at the same time

Nellolive · Jul 12, 2011

I clicked you link and I thought a camera with better lens is important, since you hace settled on nikon or cannon I suggest nikon! mine is QH-18DC1200 Digital Compact Camera

oldmacman · Jul 12, 2011

If you want the best, creamiest out of focus backgrounds, a full frame camera will do that better than a crop sensor. All the cameras you are looking at are cropped sensors. With that said, you won't get a full frame body for under $1000 new, but you could get something like the Canon 5D Mark I used for under $1000.

The XTi is one of Canon's first digital cameras, hence the price change. That model is almost five years old.

Your other tripping point is the lens. The 50mm macro is not a true macro. It has a 1:2 magnification ratio versus a 1:1 ratio of true macro lenses. The ratio is the size of the subject relative the the size it will be on the sensor. So, if a bug is 3mm long in reality, it takes up 3mm of the sensor on a 1:1 ratio. In a 1:2 ratio, the bug would only take up 1.5mm, filling less of the frame.

There are all kinds of pros and cons to Nikon and Canon, and I don't want to start a Nikon vs Canon thread. Rest assured that any dSLR you buy will do the job for you. It is more about the photographer and less about the equipment. Although macro is fairly specialized and does require specific lenses, tubes or bellows.

alyphoto · Jul 12, 2011

Hi oldmacman, thanks for your reply!

I did change the lens I was looking at to this one;http://www.amazon.com/Tokina-Macro-...1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1310465543&sr=1-1
I believe that is a true 1:1 macro lens. Although, it doesn't have too many reviews.

And yes, full frame is way out of my price range and honestly probably much more than I will ever need. I think I'll be satisfied with either set up I listed above in the end, I just want to know if that's correct; if the canon + true macro lens will make me happier than the nikon, f/1.8 lens + macro filters. Or, as happy, as it were.

It would be about $100 cheaper than the nikon and filters, but those are filters i would be using with the nikon for about $1100, not a true macro lens.

oldmacman · Jul 12, 2011

alyphoto said:
Hi oldmacman, thanks for your reply!

I did change the lens I was looking at to this one;
Amazon.com: Tokina 35mm f/2.8 AT-X PRO DX Macro Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo
I believe that is a true 1:1 macro lens. Although, it doesn't have too many reviews.

And yes, full frame is way out of my price range and honestly probably much more than I will ever need. I think I'll be satisfied with either set up I listed above in the end, I just want to know if that's correct; if the canon + true macro lens will make me happier than the nikon, f/1.8 lens + macro filters. Or, as happy, as it were.

It would be about $100 cheaper than the nikon and filters, but those are filters i would be using with the nikon for about $1100, not a true macro lens.

I have done macros with bellows, tubes and true macro lenses and it is easiest, by far, with a true macro lens. While tubes can give great results, there are frustrations with changing lighting conditions (depending on the quality of tubes) and focussing issues. Whether you go Canon or Nikon, I would seriously consider a true macro lens as that is your primary reason for shooting.

I don't know that specific Tokina lens, but they have a good reputation on other lenses. The smaller the focal length, the closer you have to get, though, which can be tough for some bugs.

Overread · Jul 12, 2011

What kind of macro subjects are you thinking of working with - I'm trying to get an idea how much magnification you need, esp since you say that insects isn't going to be a big part of what your interested in shooting - and many other close up types of subject can often be done with more close up rather than full macro gear.

The more info you can give the better.

Edit = spotted the devient art link

For flowers much of this work is close up, not full macro, yet you've got some water/dew drops in there and some other shots leaning toward much more magnified work; so whilst I think you'll probably get a lot with a close up, you'll be also wanting to reach for more magnification. In that case I'd shy away from the Tokina 35mm as a first macro lens, its not a bad lens (far from it as it has some great optics) but it is very tricky to use since it forces you very close at the 1:1 magnification point and for some that can be a little too close (since this close distance makes both focusing and also lighting more tricky much of the time). It can be worked with certainly, but expect to have some time getting a good lighting arrangment setup.

A better approach would be something like the Nikon/Canon 60mm macro lenses or a Sigma 70mm macro lens - other budget options would be Tokina 105mm macro, Sigma 105mm macro and Tamron 90mm macro. Each one has some great optics and whilst reviews might try, there really isn't much to tell them apart in real world shooting (esp after processing and printing). These will give you a close working distance, suitable for indoor work whilst also not being too close that lighting becomes a major problem to achieve.

If you end up heading down the macro filter/diopter/close up lens attachment line I'd avoid all those kits you've found - they work but the glass is cheap and it marrs you final result noticeably. A better approach is a quality attachment - Canon make a 500D close up lens (fits on a screw thread so can fit any brand) whilst Raynox make a series of them Eg DCR 250 and DCR 150 which have a range of diopter powers (higher the diopter number the more magnification).
However these work best (magnification wise) on longer focal length lenses, and since you're more at the budget short lengths you'd get more magnification from a set of Extension tubes - a Kenko set for either Nikon or Canon would set you in good standing if combined then with something like a 50mm f1.8 regular lens and is a very capable alternative should you not be able to afford one of the proper macro lenses.

As for brands - for what you want - Canon, Nikon - heck pretty much any leading DSLR will do what you need it to do - matched with some good optics you should have no troubles at all. Heck even something like the XTI/400D can still produce some fantastic work when used correctly and when matched with good lenses - though more modern cameras do offer more features, controls and a general improvement in image quality (though the biggest jump in that comes from good lenses)

alyphoto · Jul 12, 2011

Thank you. It sounds more and more like I would defiantly want a true macro lens.

What does this look like;

Amazon.com: Canon EOS Rebel T1i 15.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3-Inch LCD and EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens: Camera & Photo coupled with Amazon.com: Tamron AF 60mm f/2.0 SP DI II LD IF 1:1 Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo ; there is 1 used for $328, which brings my total cost just under what I was aiming not to pass.

I know the Canon is 5 years old, but I was under the impression that that wasn't as big of a deal with DSLR's as it is with compact P&S cameras. I feel like I would be just as happy with it as the Nikon D5100; am I deluding myself to save a few hundred, though?

I WOULD rather spend the little extra if in the end I wont want to replace it in a year or two.

Overread · Jul 12, 2011

Here's the thing - for controlled close up macro work the important of gear is very similar to studio or product work in that the majority of the quality of the result is coming from the lens and the lighting long before the body comes into play. The faster AF, different metering modes, better usable high ISOs, other gadgets - of a better/newer/higher end DSLR are all good things to have, but when you have subject you control, that isn't running away and which you can light as needed with reflectors and flash units - and which will let you take shot after shot without problems; in such a case the advantages of a new camera body become more restricted, they advance, but you wont' see that big jump a good lens and lighting will give.