What to buy as a beginner ? (Funny rant)

[Solarflare]

The Online Photographer: TOP Classic: Letter to George

The most embarassing part is that this is EXACTLY what I experienced ! Well, not exactly THESE cameras, and not exactly THESE events, and I didnt buy/sell THAT many cameras (in fact I never sold any camera), but the general outline.

And yes, D700 with 35mm f2, 85mm f1.8 - that would be indeed a great start.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I'm like halfway through the process!! Haha, I had a p&s for awhile, and now I'm with my 5100. But I think I spend a lot more time shooting than George did.

 

[Solarflare]

Well yeah.

But after a while you notice hmm okay this or that REALLY gets on my nerves and makes me lose shots ... so you get to the next step.

And I didnt even knew prime lenses EXISTED until about 2 years ago when I met a guy with a film slr compact that had a prime - and I was shocked how bright the viewfinder was (not 100% sure if it was all manual, which would cause an even brighter finder since the mirror wouldnt have to be half transparent).

 

[abovenormphotos]

I started off with a canon 650d. I think you guys call it the rebel t4i. A year later I picked up a canon 6d. Love both.

Though on hindsight, I should have gotten the 6d in the first place. It would have saved me the money.

Pretty much what this article says I guess

 

[Derrel]

The post demonstrated the old adage, "Buy right, buy once."

 

[LakeFX]

While this article applies to most of the members of this board, there are a lot of people who won't get as into photography or consider the higher total cost worth being able to do it incrementally.

I bought a used D90 four years ago already knowing that I enjoy this hobby and had been shooting with a film SLR. I had been thinking about an upgrade to the D7100, but reassessed and the D90 still meets my needs for now. Even if I can't sell it when I eventually upgrade, probably to full frame, I feel like I have gotten my money's worth.

Still a good article though!

 

[Solarflare]

If you had already shot film, you wouldnt have been the newbie anymore, and you would already known a bit about what you actually need, while people like me are completely clueless when we start.

For example, when I bought my first digital camera, a Panasonic compact (the merchant told me its the same as the Leica compact I actually had asked for), I believed stuff like:
1. Over time cameras get smaller, but will still yield the same results as old cameras, despite the smaller dimensions, thanks to the advances of technology
2. Everything about photography can be automated, you dont need to know about those details at all
3. Lenses are all zooms, having only one fixed focal length is just old tech and not actually done anymore at all
4. A good zoom has a lot of range
5. Leica makes better lenses than other companies

While today I would say:
1. Well, the quality of small cameras gets better too, over time. But creatively this isnt true - shallow depth of field is not possible with too small sensors, and the laws of physics (diffraction) limits maximum resolution on small sensors, and the lens designs with the least optical compromises dont offer much in respect to maximum aperture, which again points to a larger sensor for higher image quality. Thus there are very good reasons why one might want to have large sensors.
2. While some things can be automatted, you want to have at least partial control, since the camera ultimately cannot know what you want to do; also the more control the more creative possibilities, and full control isnt actually THAT hard either, you just need a lot of practice so you can do it in your sleep
3. Just like cameras, all lenses are compromises, making a lens a zoom comes at a hefty cost in other areas, especially size, weight and maximum possible aperture
4. This its only getting worse for zooms with large focal length ranges, which is why the best zooms have not much range
5. Actually the only thing Leica really is better at is making lenses really small through careful selection of glass. But other companies have their individual strengths, too, and can make just as good lenses if you are willing to pay the necessary price for high quality, and other companies have outperformed Leica, or done compareably good glas for a much smaller price.

 

[sashbar]

I still do not think D700 plus primes is a good advice for a beginner. The author presumes that any beginner will have an irresistible urge to get to his level and will be permanently driven by the need to upgrade until he gets what the author believes is a good enough camera. But 9 times of 10 it is not correct. Most people are perfectly happy with lesser cameras and will never want to upgrade. For lots of people the sheer size or cost of a FF is a big no no. They just can not justify it. Even more people simply do not see the advantages of a full frame camera, because they never print professional quality images and what they see on a screen makes no meaningful difference. So 9 times out of 10 (49 out of 50?) D700 is an epic waste of money for beginners, even for those who claim they are going to take this hobby seriously (they do not know yet, if the hobby is going to take them seriously).

I believe the best option for a typical beginner is a bridge camera like the one I had years ago (Olympus Camedia C-5060). It had a decent IQ for a 2005 5 Mp camera, all the controls you would ever need ( I counted 14 control on the body, the were even the articulated back LCD, additional top screen and 2 slots for memory cards of different kind - show me a DSLR with all that!) You could use it in manual mode or like a p&s with it's fixed zoom. It was built like brick, not too heavy but not light either, not too big and not too small, not too expensive and not cheap, it was a camera right in the middle, that gives a beginner an educated choice. Some will use Auto mode all the time, decide they need something smaller, simpler and buy a compact p&s, some will learn Manual, realise they need better glass and switch to a DSLR, some will stay with bridge cameras. Other will buy a video camera. (There was video as we'll)

i think that the idea of a photography as a permanent "learning curve", a need to upgrade and a desire to shoot like a pro is a very narrow one. Photography is a very democratic hobby. So, yes that guy does sound preposterous to me.


PS BTW I have met two professional photographers recently, one before Xmas and the other in September, we had a chat about cameras, because both were well equipped, and both told me in pretty similar terms how much they wanted to ditch their bulky FF gear and get something light and compact. One of then said he did not understand hobbyists who buy a full frame. I wonder how widespread are these feelings amongst professionals. But something tells me these two guy would not recommend a D700 to a beginner

 

[dubiousone]

Great article, bookmarked it!
I suppose a lot of people go through those exact sequences of events; I did for the most part. When I was a kid photography was a hobby; I started with a Mamiya because I couldn't afford a Pentax and had a small selection of primes and zooms, mostly Vivitar. That old kit is long gone but I still have my second SLR, a Canon A-1. I went digital with a Canon Powershot around 1990-something, used it mainly for work and snapshots. It was 'ok' and I lived with the crummy lens and annoying shutter delay for a long while. Of course by then, photography as a hobby had fallen victim to that thing we call life. Fast forward to mid-2013.

I decide I wanted a 'real' DSLR; I go shopping, local stores, spent quite a lot of time at 'big boxes' just playing to decide what I wanted. I finally settled on a used Nikon D50. The store I bought it from is a small local place, mostly used gear and accessories. That day I also bought a pristine Pentax K1000SE because after almost 40 years of lusting, ( I always wanted one, all a kid making a buck ten an hour could afford was a Mamiya) I finally got my Pentax! That of course led to an ME Super, a Spotmatic, four different Mamiya's, three Canon's and the odd duck, a Ricoh Diacord TLR that I haven't been quite brave enough to load and shoot because roll film freaks me out!

Obviously I'm somewhat of a gearhead, I have re-discovered my old hobby and darned if I'm not having WAY more fun than I ever did back in the day! (Gotta stay off those online auction sites though...bad enough my camera store guy knows what a sucker I am for old film cameras; this week he got me for fifty bucks for a clunky but sweet in its own way Vivitar copy of a Pentax ME and last week got me for a bill and a half for a pristine nearly new Canon AE-1 Program with a kit of lenses that was waaayyy too nice to let some student get ahold of plus some really nice used glass...geez)

Yes I'm reliving my youth, yes I spend way too much buying cool stuff I like and not enough time shooting but I'm really doing much better; spent the afternoon yesterday downtown roaming and shot three rolls in three different cameras! I normally take my camera bag everywhere because you never know what might pop up. What's in the bag? A DSLR and whatever the film camera of the week is. I find shooting film, especially with one of my favorite full manual needle meter (no goofy LED's thank-you-very-much but I can live with the F-3's LCD + and - ) helps me to remember exposure and DOF; knowing I can't just look at the LCD to see if I 'got it' forces me to think about all those little things that are way too easy to take for granted and only pop up when you look at the finished photo and realize it's crooked or not framed properly or poorly composed...you get the idea.

I'm still a beginner; there's a lot to lea and the best part is how much FUN it is learning! Yes, my current 'lust' is for a Nikon D7100 or Pentax K-3. Do I NEED one? Week before last I took out a newly repaired Mamiya 500DTL with a couple of lenses I wanted to try. Well, that old camera worked beautifully once the shutter was fixed and that roll of Fuji Superia just looked...awesome! The images are better somehow, can't put my finger on it, maybe it was the lenses, a Mamiya 50mm 1.4 and a Tamron adaptall 90mm so no, I do NOT need a new DSLR. But I want one because I'm beginning to outgrow that D50.

I went with the D50 because it was simple even compared to the 'entry level Nikons' I think it was better I learned on a simple camera and the Pentax K100DS (which has the same sensor as the D50) is a similar but more full featured camera. I suppose it was but a small step up from the D50 but that's not why I got it; I couldn't pass up the price (150) and yeah (big sigh) I'm a real sucker for 'deals' but in this case all it did was open my eyes to the Pentax line and send me into new highs of camera-lust!

Generally speaking, someone just starting out would go from a P&S to a DSLR or maybe one of those intermediate models but I'm thinking that a Nikon D5100/5300 series type or whatever is comparable in the Nikon or Pentax line would be an better first step. It would do way more than that little P&S and then you wouldn't have the other two in the closet! I suppose all the coolio-whiz-bang features are daunting to some; a two hundred page manual and a menu system with eight pages and several sub-pages of the sub-pages can be particularly frustrating but like everything, it takes time to learn. Patience.