Next Step Below a Professional Camera?

[Village Idiot]

Thanks for the input guys. I'd really like to avoid the used route if possible, not worth it to me to save a couple hundred bucks on something that has even the slightest chance of being damaged or stolen. I guess what it sounds like I should do is pinpoint who has good entry point lenses and purchase a camera based on those, as a starter?

Canon 1D MKIV and Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L, EF 16-35 f/2.8L, and 70-200 f/2.8L IS MKII should get you started.

All for a mere $10,550.

 

[Village Idiot]

Most important thing is the lens. Then the body.

Gotta disagree with that; neither the lens nor the body is more important than the other. Without the lens, the body cannot capture an image. Without the body, the lens cannot do its job. Ergo, neither is "more important than" the other. Additionally, full-frame d-slr cameras which have very large pixels perform absurdly well in dim light and at elevated ISO settings, and out-perform crop-body cameras of similar technology. And, the full-frame cameras do not demand ultra-good lenses to produce overall total, high-resolution images. The very-newest Sony-sensored cameras from Sony,Nikon, and Pentax, with the newest-generation 16.2 MP sensors,are setting new standards for picture quality and for the recovery of detail in under-exposed images. Those new bodies are VASTLY better performers than say, a Nikon D70 or a Canon 20D.

The next step below a professional camera is a "serious enthusiast's camera" model. Usually priced around $1,599-$1,799 or so.

Poke a hole in a body cap and test out that theory.

 

[The_Traveler]

Although it seems to have alot of complicated and/or unnecessary features.

The features may only seem unnecessary to you because you know little about photography right now..

I'd really just like to have a good and simple camera that can take incredible pictures with the right efforts. Any suggestions?

Virtually any modern camera with a reasonably good lens can take 'incredible pictures' in the hands of someone with sufficient talent and skill.
It is no more the camera that makes superb photographs than it is a brush that makes wonderful paintings.

 

[KmH]

A buddy of mine bought a D5100 this year, and its a pretty decent little piece to work with. Although it seems to have alot of complicated and/or unnecessary features.

I'd really just like to have a good and simple camera that can take incredible pictures with the right efforts. Any suggestions?

The camera/lens just records the scene that the photographer chooses, arranges, lights, etc. In other words, the mind set that the camera is making incredible pictures is well off the mark.

The D5100 is an entry-level consumer camera (2 levels below the Pro cameras), so it has a plethora of dubious features so it can appeal to as large a buyer base as possible. The next step up, the Prosumer camera's (D300, D700) forego a lot of those automatic bells and whistles but cost quite a bit more.

To get really simple you could just make yourself a pinhole camera. Pinhole camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I buy used gear almost exclusively, but I am experienced and know what pitfalls to be wary of. however, as o hey tyler mentioned there are several reputable sellers of used gear, and a 3 digit budget doesn't go very far.

I recommend a camera that has a hot shoe and that allows lens interchangeability , so that means a DSLR.

A used D50 would be a good, low budget starter camera. The D50 has an auto focus motor in it. Most of Nikon's entry-level cameras don't. But most of Nikon's lenses have an auto focus motor in them, so a focus motor in the camera is not needed. Note that none of Canon's cameras have an autofocus motor in them.

In light of the auto focus motor considerations, you could also consider a used copy of any of Nikon's entry-level cameras; D40, D40x, D50, D60, D70, D70s, D80, D90, D3000, D3100, D5000, D5100.

 

[futuredreams]

Most important thing is the lens. Then the body.

What makes me laugh about this thread, is the term "professional" is so relative. i've known "pro's" that shoot with Rebels. Jose Luis, one of my favorite photographer, uses a rebel and fairly crappy lenses (at least he used to, haven't talked to him in a while). What you use, really doesn't matter all that much.

Well said. A good example is, the other night I wanted to play basketball, for the first time in 10 years. So I bought a basketball at walgreens for 6.99. Nothing like a 100$ spalding leather pro ball, but had I handed the 6.99 cheap rubber ball to michael jordan, he could make it swoosh just the same. Whereas I can't make anything swoosh except for the sound of flushing a toilet :lmao:

 

[futuredreams]

Once again I thank all of you for the excellent advice and insight. This is almost more important than the hardware itself.

The features may only seem unnecessary to you because you know little about photography right now.

This is only partially true, I took film classes in school with the privilege of a multi million dollar studio provided by sony, primary difference being that it was video and not still photography. There is very much a difference, I understand, however I hope that with proper guidance as I am getting now that it should not be too difficult to create good things.

 

[Dao]

Most important thing is the lens. Then the body.

What makes me laugh about this thread, is the term "professional" is so relative. i've known "pro's" that shoot with Rebels. Jose Luis, one of my favorite photographer, uses a rebel and fairly crappy lenses (at least he used to, haven't talked to him in a while). What you use, really doesn't matter all that much.

Well said. A good example is, the other night I wanted to play basketball, for the first time in 10 years. So I bought a basketball at walgreens for 6.99. Nothing like a 100$ spalding leather pro ball, but had I handed the 6.99 cheap rubber ball to michael jordan, he could make it swoosh just the same. Whereas I can't make anything swoosh except for the sound of flushing a toilet :lmao:

But .. basketball and camera gears are total different animals.

It is very very tough to take a photo of a bird on a tree with just a regular slr camera and a standard kit lens. Even if you are the best photographer in the world, it is still very tough. Photography gears are tools. You need the right tool to do the right job.

Can I use a tooth brush to clean the toilet bowl? Yes I can, but if I can afford a toilet bowl brush, I'd rather pay the extra for that.

 

[dallasimagery]

I also know of a certain local "photographer" who is the opposite - he has very expensive, high end equipment, and frequently uses them to take photos that would barely pass for passport material.

It's mostly the photographer controlling everything that makes a great photo.

 

[AlexColeman]

Under most circumstances, you're going to be hard-pressed to tell the difference between an image shot with a D40 and one shot with a D3s. The extra money you pay as you move up the quality ladder is for a [relatively] small featureset including greater low-light performance, higher burst-rate, and better build-quality.

Slight disagreement, but it might be out of the scope of this thread- while the beginner may produce similar results with either a D40 or a D3s, challenging situations or photographic skill and experience merit a better camera and correspondingly better results.

 

[tirediron]

Slight disagreement, but it might be out of the scope of this thread- while the beginner may produce similar results with either a D40 or a D3s, challenging situations or photographic skill and experience merit a better camera and correspondingly better results.

No disagreement at all; to clarify, what I meant was: under average conditions a scene shot by a skilled photographer with those two cameras will produce images which are indistinguishable from each other. It's when you get into the extremes, highlights, shadow, greater dynamic range, etc that the reason for the extra cost of a higher-level body becomes clearly apparent.

 

[The_Traveler]

Slight disagreement, but it might be out of the scope of this thread- while the beginner may produce similar results with either a D40 or a D3s, challenging situations or photographic skill and experience merit a better camera and correspondingly better results.

No disagreement at all; to clarify, what I meant was: under average conditions a scene shot by a skilled photographer with those two cameras will produce images which are indistinguishable from each other. It's when you get into the extremes, highlights, shadow, greater dynamic range, etc that the reason for the extra cost of a higher-level body becomes clearly apparent.

Another axis to look at. A skilled photographer shooting street shots will get much better images than the unskilled standing next to him/her with the same equipment. It's the eye that counts in many situations not just the skill.