need help choosing camera

[upper]

what's the difference between a camera that have a 50mm that comes with it, and a camera that says 35-200mm? which one would be better to buy?
how big is the difference? what can the 200mm do that 50mm cant do?

 

[JimmyO]

Are we talking DSLR?
You need to provide wayyy more info

 

[davidfromoz]

I think no matter what kind of camera you want, a good first step might be to frequent these forums and go into a store and just play with a few. They are usually out on display and you can take some photos.

The number you are referring to is called the focal length. It determines how much magnification is applied to the scene (and other things). The bigger the number the more zoomed in the picture will be. A 50mm lens can only make pictures of one size. A 35-200 can be zoomed in and out. The 50mm lens will _probably_ have some technical advantages like better image quality and perhaps a larger maximum aperture. You'll have to move closer to and further from the subject if you want to frame it. The 35-200 lens will be more versatile because you can zoom in and out to frame your subject.

cheers,
david

 

[STINKY PICTURES]

My local camera store owner gave me about 2 hours of his time and I gave him about $2,000 of my money. It was a fair trade....lol...

But seriously i did my homework for about 5 weeks on this forum and then i searched out things for reading on google and then for the heck of it on ebay and then again on B&H Photo. I took all of my price info with me to my local photo store and spoke to the owner. He matched the prices and spent a lot of time with me and taught me how to work my camera. (the basics, but NOT in the manual mode,) we did a little photo shoot for about an hour after my purchase. He even printed about 40 pictures for me for free. so do your homework and read lots of past threads here and then go to a store and have them help you out. Hold some cameras, but always keep in mind what you want ahead of time if you can. thats why you have to do your home work first. I knew i wanted a professional camera, canon 40d, so thats the direction i went and i`m very happy with my choice. no need to move up again in a year or two. good luck and happy reading.

 

[Mav]

what's the difference between a camera that have a 50mm that comes with it, and a camera that says 35-200mm? which one would be better to buy?
how big is the difference? what can the 200mm do that 50mm cant do?

Longer focal length lenses have narrower fields of view, and shorter ones have much wider views. Depends on what kind of camera you're talking about.

 

[upper]

what DSLR camera+accessories(tripod/bags and stuff) would you recommend me for overall 700$-900$

 

[asfixiate]

What kind of shooting are you going to be doing?

You have to consider the fact that everyone in here researched before they got their equipment...They looked at what they shoot the most vs what types of conditions they shoot in. You are probably going to shoot different.

700-900 limits what you could be shooting drastically. Bye bye sports photography, bye bye wedding photography,

hello general photography?

Hello XT and 50mm f/1.8 lens.

Hello used digi and 85mm f/1.8

Do you want to photograph people?, cars, dogs, landscapes, etc.

New Rebel xt 409.00 New 50mm 1.8 89.99 = in your budget

 

[upper]

i want to shoot closeup of plant, picture from my school's football game.landscapes, and people.

 

[carlostau]

i want to shoot closeup of plant, picture from my school's football game.landscapes, and people.

Hehe, pretty much the whole range!
I'd start with a 18-55 for your landscape / general shots and get a telezoom for portraits, football games, closeups, etc
The other option would be getting the camera with just one 18-200.. but those are quite more expensive than getting a camera with a kit lens like the nikon and then adding a separate telezoom.

 

[NateS]

For that price range I'd look into the Canon Rebel XT/XTI with kit lens. Kit lens would be good for general shooting and landscapes.

Add a 50mm f1.8. It's a great portrait lens and awesome for the money (sub $100 for the Canon I believe). The 50mm f1.8 will also work great for sports in lower light or indoors.

Then add the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. (around $200-250). This lens is a real bargain and very, very sharp stopped down to around f/8. In bright days outdoors, this would be a decent lens for sports. It would also be good for closeups and general animal photography. As the topper....it has a wonderful 1:2 macro feature which will be great for macro's. It gets me closer than I need 90% of the time and again is very sharp.

All of that should run you around your $900 mark or so. That is actually the setup I have in NIkon and it is a great way on a budget to cover all the range you need and get really good quality pictures in most situations.

 

[Mav]

700-900 limits what you could be shooting drastically. Bye bye sports photography, bye bye wedding photography,

You can do plenty on a 700-900 budget. A new or used body with the 18-55 kit lens, a tele (even a cheap 70-300), a flash, and a prime or two (along with the cheapest crappiest but still perfectly good tripod you can find) can easily be had on a 700-900 budget, which is enough to cover a wedding or do some sports photography. I just scored a Nikon 18-55VR lens, brand new, never mounted from a D60 kit, for almost nothing. They sell for $200 new and I paid nothing close to that. Time your shots right for static subjects, and you could use this for indoor wedding ceremonies where no flash is allowed. For outdoor sports, a cheap 75-300 or one of its variants is perfectly good for that. For indoor sports, your $100 50mm f/1.8 will work great, or if you need a little more reach the $300 85mm f/1.8 that you can probably score for $200-250 used if you look around.

 

[upper]

so for overall, what would you recommend me getting? i dont mind taking out the sports, but the outdoor is a must.

 

[upper]

For that price range I'd look into the Canon Rebel XT/XTI with kit lens. Kit lens would be good for general shooting and landscapes.

Add a 50mm f1.8. It's a great portrait lens and awesome for the money (sub $100 for the Canon I believe). The 50mm f1.8 will also work great for sports in lower light or indoors.

Then add the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro. (around $200-250). This lens is a real bargain and very, very sharp stopped down to around f/8. In bright days outdoors, this would be a decent lens for sports. It would also be good for closeups and general animal photography. As the topper....it has a wonderful 1:2 macro feature which will be great for macro's. It gets me closer than I need 90% of the time and again is very sharp.

All of that should run you around your $900 mark or so. That is actually the setup I have in NIkon and it is a great way on a budget to cover all the range you need and get really good quality pictures in most situations.

isnt that the one that comes with the camera kit thing?
and is this the one you're talking about? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/391074-REG/Sigma_508101_70_300mm_f_4_5_6_APO_DG.html
and with the macro lens, can you take a closeup of like bugs(not those super closeup where you can see hairs and stuff, just enough to see it.

 

[Overread]

ahh no the kit lens is a
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens Kit
the 50mm f1.8 is a faster lens than the kit lens and also a fixed focal length (no zooming). Fixed focal lengths tend to have better quality than zooms as there is less glass because the lens does not have to adjust for the different ranges.
If you want a peek at the 400D with the sigma (note that I am using the older sigma without the APO which means that it is slightly worse than the APO version) then take a gander in my blog
(the numbre of times the sigma has appeard today I feel like an adbot )
There is also a tamron that I have read which covers the same range and which might be a good consideration. (ps note I have been shooting only since december - so I have much more to learn still)
As for the 400D its a good camera for starting off with (and some I have read consider it better than the upgraded 450D) and its certainly will last you a good while.

 

[upper]

so how do you think
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dslra300.asp

would compare to the canon above?