Newb about to buy...which one?

[NewDaddyMark]

Guys I'm all in. I want a DSLR Camera and now is the time. I've narrowed it down to Nikon only as when I get into Canon it just becomes to overwhelming with the number of camera's.

Uses: I'd like to be able to use the camera to take pictures of my newborn baby girl and family. I'd also like to use the camera while on trips and in hunting situations if possible.

Thoughts: I'm thinking in hunting situations a zoom would be prefered as well as a low light lense like a 2.8 or 1.8 but I'm open to suggestions.

I'd like to keep the purchase under $1,000 if possible and dont mind buying used.

What do I need? My thoughts were a D3100, D5100, D80, D90...I'd probably buy any of the bodies used to save money for lenses. Basically I know the D3100 and D80 are going to be the least expensive so for the purpose I'm using them for if they suffice then I'd roll with them. If not I'd upgrade to the D5100 or D90...As far as lense I'm thinking a 55-200mm stock lense with the camera for indoor portraits in already good lighting and a 17-55mm f1.8 or f2.8 for other daily use and hunting...does this make sense? What should i look for?

 

[KmH]

You kind of have it backwards.

The 17-55 mm f/2.8 (used - $1000, refurbished - $1500, new - $1850) would be the baby girl, family, shooting indoors lens Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras,

and the 55-200 mm kit lens would be the lens to use for shooting wildlife, birds, and so forth when out hunting Nikon 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED IF AF-S DX VR [Vibration Reduction] Nikkor Zoom Lens

The 17-55 lens would also be good for landscape type shots on hunting trips.

Though I would suggest the Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras would be a better choice for a wildlife zoom lens.

As far as which camera body the Nikon D5100 16.2MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens is hard to beat because of it's fairly good ISO performance in low light.

The only minus' for the D3000/D3100/D5000/D5100 is they cannot auto focus the older AF-D style lenses, and don't have the Nikon CLS Commander mode..

The D90 can auto focus those AF-D style lenses (body only - from $560 used, $560 refurbished, $800 new) Nikon D90 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only but gives up a bit on the ISO performance when compared to the D5100.
The D90 also has Nikon's CLS Commander mode which is handy for tkaing the baby/famiy photos with an off camea flash unit.

 

[NewDaddyMark]

ok so in keeping in the $1000 range then you would recommend the d5100 with the stock nikon 17-55mm and nikon 55-200mm lense for beginner portrait taking of the family and hunting? I mean the other lenses i get would be much better but they run 1000 for just the lense and I need to keep it a bit under that

I'm taking your word for what it is as you seem to be very knowledgable and are a TPF Junkie so please help out. Is that setup what you would recommend for an amateur photographer trying to use it for my needs? If not what would you recommend in my price range?

 

[NewDaddyMark]

ttt

 

[Ballistics]

You know you don't have to make multiple threads asking the same question.

 

[NewDaddyMark]

im aware...thanks for the help....

Ballistics question for you...since I'm not getting a great amount of feedback i resorted to looking at peoples cameras under their posts. I notice you have a D7000 which by all accounts is amazing..I see you have a nikon 18-105mm and a 55-200mm as well...I think i understand the need for the nikon 50mm 1.8D for low light but what is the need of having a 18-105 vs a 18-55 if you have a 55-200 as well? I'm trying to decide if its better to buy a good camera and 1 good lens for now...and in doing so I'm trying to figure out what that lense should be...i was thinking get a 18-55mm stock and then adding a 55-300 later? thoughts?

 

[Ballistics]

im aware...thanks for the help....

Ballistics question for you...since I'm not getting a great amount of feedback i resorted to looking at peoples cameras under their posts. I notice you have a D7000 which by all accounts is amazing..I see you have a nikon 18-105mm and a 55-200mm as well...I think i understand the need for the nikon 50mm 1.8D for low light but what is the need of having a 18-105 vs a 18-55 if you have a 55-200 as well? I'm trying to decide if its better to buy a good camera and 1 good lens for now...and in doing so I'm trying to figure out what that lense should be...i was thinking get a 18-55mm stock and then adding a 55-300 later? thoughts?

It all depends on your budget, and what your intentions are. A zoom lens is the best to start with, because it allows you to figure out options.

The smaller the mm, the wider the angle.

18mm


brighten by Compressed Memories, on Flickr

The 18-55mm kit lens is pretty good, but I would invest a couple more hundred and have something better for low light like the tamron 17-50mm 2.8. I use the 50mm 1.8 for my portrait shots but it's to close indoors in most cases. But I do love it.


Slide by Compressed Memories, on Flickr

Park by Compressed Memories, on Flickr

Portrait by Compressed Memories, on Flickr

All were taken with the 50mm 1.8D The last shot was taken the day I bought a flash. Very good to have for indoor photography.

 

[flatflip]

Refurbished D90 with Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 equals $1085

That's the $560 body KmH mentioned and a new lens on sale today at BuyDig dot com for $525.

I bought a used Tamron 17-50 on this forum for $300 a few months ago. I also bought a new Tamron 28-75 at Adorama.com for $450. I called to inquire about a rebate and the salesman just made me a flat $450 offer.

 

[sm4him]

In case you haven't already realized it, you will likely get as many different opinions as you get responses regarding which lens and which camera body you should get with your $1000. That's because there really isn't a *right* answer...just the answer YOU decide to go with.

I have a D5100, bought it about 3 months ago, and love it. I have only TWO complaints about it, and I knew both of them going in...not focus motor in the camera means I have to buy the AF-S lenses or do focus manually (which is very difficult for me due to vision problems). The other "problem" is the lack of Commander mode for off-camera flash...but then, I can't afford a flash yet anyway, so that's not been a big issue.

I knew going in that I wanted to start getting more serious about my photography, and I fully expect to upgrade to a D7000 or better in the next couple of years. But for learning the DSLR world, the D5100 has been great.

I have worked with only the kit lens since I had the camera (well, that's not quite true...my sister has a 70-300 I've been able to borrow from time to time). I am now on the lookout for a great deal on a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and a 50 mm prime f/1.8.

The upshot is, I can't tell you what YOU should get--but I can tell what *I'd* do if I had it to do over:
--I'd still buy the D5100 (BUT, opt for D90 if the in-camera motor or commander mode matter much at all to you!)
--I'd get it WITH the kit lens, but then I'd stretch my budget as far as it would go, and maybe a little further, to spring for the 70-300 mm lens.

I do a LOT of nature photography, a LOT of bus/trolley/transit passengers photography for work, a little sports photography (not to sell, just to have) and have started making myself branch out and do some portrait photography, starting with the most adorable grand-nephew in the entire world. I've also played with some night photography, and the D5100 with kit lens has really performed remarkably well in all of this categories. Umm, no, that's not right either...in all of those categories EXCEPT the sports...I have to borrow my sister's lenses for that (only tried football so far).

Whatever decision you make, just have fun with it...and go ahead and start the savings account NOW for the next lens...and the flash...and the filters....and... :lmao:

 

[djacobox372]

Of those choices id recommend the d90, mostly because it accepts af lenses. You can buy a used 50mm f1.8 af for $100 or a tamron 28-75mm f2.8 af for $250-- a fraction of the price of the newer af-s versions. There's also the fantastic 70-300mm f5.6 ed af that can be had for only $90 used, which would be a nice lens to take hunting. None of these lenses will autofocus on a d3100 or d5100. The d80 is too old and u give up too much low light ability.

 

[ricbkewl]

Get a used D90 with 18-200 VR I noth about $500-600 each you will spend about $1200 but this will be your best bet. If you can afford to spend a little more on lens, get 28-70 f2.8 for about $900. When it comes to lens buy a good one once.

 

[SCraig]

There is a lot of good advice here however my recommendation is going to vary somewhat from the others. I'm certainly not going to try and dissuade you from a DSLR however I will mention that when hunting you are going to be better off leaving your gun at home or your DSLR. They are both going to be heavy, they are both going to bang against each other, and just generally get in the way of one another. In my opinion for hunting you would be better served with a pocket-sized P&S with a decent OPTICAL zoom.

That said, when I hunt it's with a camera only. For larger game it's my D90 with a Nikon 70-300 and for smaller game a Sigma 150-500.

I do like Sigma lenses and have two of them; a 17-70mm f2.8-4 and a 150-500mm f5-6.3. The long one is new, the short one I've had a couple of years. I've had very good results from both and would not hesitate to recommend them. I don't object to the fact that they aren't the fastest on the market, so far it's never been much of a problem since I don't shoot much in low light.

 

[imagemaker46]

There are lots of good cameras avaliable for around a $1000, just go to a camera store and try holding the different bodies, take the one that feels the most comfortable in your hand. Both Canon and Nikon have packages, body and a couple of decent lenses. If the camera you buy feels comfortable you are more likely to use it more often. It's like buying shoes, if they aren't a good fit at the start, they won't be a good fit in the future.

 

[Ballistics]

There is a lot of good advice here however my recommendation is going to vary somewhat from the others. I'm certainly not going to try and dissuade you from a DSLR however I will mention that when hunting you are going to be better off leaving your gun at home or your DSLR. They are both going to be heavy, they are both going to bang against each other, and just generally get in the way of one another. In my opinion for hunting you would be better served with a pocket-sized P&S with a decent OPTICAL zoom.

That said, when I hunt it's with a camera only. For larger game it's my D90 with a Nikon 70-300 and for smaller game a Sigma 150-500.

I do like Sigma lenses and have two of them; a 17-70mm f2.8-4 and a 150-500mm f5-6.3. The long one is new, the short one I've had a couple of years. I've had very good results from both and would not hesitate to recommend them. I don't object to the fact that they aren't the fastest on the market, so far it's never been much of a problem since I don't shoot much in low light.

You can always buy a good camera bag.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I can't believe I'm writing this.. but here goes...

You do need to consider Canon aswell, there are not 'too many models' to choose from. With Canon you have clear tiers aswell, the rebel line/XXXD line, then you have the 60D, then you have the 7D, then you have the 5D mk2 and the 1D is above that.

I recommend looking at the 60D, I think the D7000 is the slightly nicer camera. But you may love the way Canon works and you may also like the lenses they produce, for a start Canon make the 70-200 F4 telephotos which are brilliant lenses that don't break the bank. I chose Nikon over Canon, but I really did consider both sides of the fence before I made the jump.

Right I'm off for a lie down now.. never had so many nice things to say about Canon before.