DSLR on a shoestring. A must read for Beginner Grinners.
Find a Canon 20D ($300 used), unless you print 40" posters you don't need more than 8 MegaPixels and the D20's 5 frames per second burst for action and its ISO 3200 capability set it apart from the similarly priced Rebels. Buy a Sigma 18-200mm OS lens (from $250 used to as low as $375 new). Go out and shoot pictures for a month before buying the next two lenses. Use this time to learn Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO, and I mean learn these concepts backward and forward. Good lenses in the hands of someone who does not understand the basics of photography will rarely yield excellent results. Total initial cost $550.
Now go get "better" lenses, but keep the 18-200 as your inexpensive "walkaround" lens. You WILL go places where you want your camera but not $1,000 worth of lenses and you WILL enjoy not having to change lenses to get a shot. Buy a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($275 used) and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 ($450 used) and a Sigma 1.4x EX teleconverter ($125 used). These two give you wide angle up to 200mm (effectively 320mm on the 1.6 crop sensor) at f/2.8 and up to 450mm at f3.5 with the 1.4x TC. Total cost to add "better" lenses $850.
Total cost of all equipment $1,400 and you have what even the pros would call a "decent" setup. Bear in mind that many of the pros and those without financial constraints have single lenses that could not be bought for that same $1,400.
Here is the kicker, only buy used used equipment if you have to, and then only after asking the right questions: Find out why they are selling. If they give a believable reason, such as an upgrade, and are willing to tell you what they are upgrading to, and they seem open and knowledgable, it is probably fairly safe to buy. It is even safer if you buy from a regular forum poster on Dgrin or another photography forum since these people have reputations to protect.
Last comment. If money is no object, buy the best and buy it new. I have not steered you to the "best" gear, I have steered you to affordable gear that should produce excellent results, rememberuing that 50% of every shot is reflective of the user, not the equipment. My suggestions are for all of us who want to shoot, have, and share excellent photos on a budget.
Now where the Dgrin experts come in is here. If you really knowledgable Grinners put your stamp of approval on this post it will save the rookies an IMMENSE amount of research and time. I am fully aware that each of you may have an opinion that varies slightly or maybe leans toward a lens that you prefer slightly over one I have suggested. Please avoid that impulse. The newbie can find that advice many places in this forum and in a hundred places on the web. I have probably spent 200 hours reading posts and reviews and I hope to simplify that process for others.
If I were a financially limited rookie in search of guidance and I read this post and then saw 10 or 15 of you experts give the advice a "Thumbs Up", I would probably go this route. So, if you are knowledgable and can agree with this approach, leave a brief comment of support. Feel free to say it is bad advice if that is what you really think, but don't do that if you are 90% on board, that will only defeat the purpose of this advice. If you can add good information or elaborate on why the direction is reasonable, feel free to do so.
All of us rookies thank all of you for the advice and support as we begin to dabble in your photographic world.
Now go get "better" lenses, but keep the 18-200 as your inexpensive "walkaround" lens. You WILL go places where you want your camera but not $1,000 worth of lenses and you WILL enjoy not having to change lenses to get a shot. Buy a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 ($275 used) and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 ($450 used) and a Sigma 1.4x EX teleconverter ($125 used). These two give you wide angle up to 200mm (effectively 320mm on the 1.6 crop sensor) at f/2.8 and up to 450mm at f3.5 with the 1.4x TC. Total cost to add "better" lenses $850.
Total cost of all equipment $1,400 and you have what even the pros would call a "decent" setup. Bear in mind that many of the pros and those without financial constraints have single lenses that could not be bought for that same $1,400.
Here is the kicker, only buy used used equipment if you have to, and then only after asking the right questions: Find out why they are selling. If they give a believable reason, such as an upgrade, and are willing to tell you what they are upgrading to, and they seem open and knowledgable, it is probably fairly safe to buy. It is even safer if you buy from a regular forum poster on Dgrin or another photography forum since these people have reputations to protect.
Last comment. If money is no object, buy the best and buy it new. I have not steered you to the "best" gear, I have steered you to affordable gear that should produce excellent results, rememberuing that 50% of every shot is reflective of the user, not the equipment. My suggestions are for all of us who want to shoot, have, and share excellent photos on a budget.
Now where the Dgrin experts come in is here. If you really knowledgable Grinners put your stamp of approval on this post it will save the rookies an IMMENSE amount of research and time. I am fully aware that each of you may have an opinion that varies slightly or maybe leans toward a lens that you prefer slightly over one I have suggested. Please avoid that impulse. The newbie can find that advice many places in this forum and in a hundred places on the web. I have probably spent 200 hours reading posts and reviews and I hope to simplify that process for others.
If I were a financially limited rookie in search of guidance and I read this post and then saw 10 or 15 of you experts give the advice a "Thumbs Up", I would probably go this route. So, if you are knowledgable and can agree with this approach, leave a brief comment of support. Feel free to say it is bad advice if that is what you really think, but don't do that if you are 90% on board, that will only defeat the purpose of this advice. If you can add good information or elaborate on why the direction is reasonable, feel free to do so.
All of us rookies thank all of you for the advice and support as we begin to dabble in your photographic world.
Canon 20D, Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Canon 55-250 IS until I find the zoom that floats my boat.
0
Comments
I wish that when I had started out, I had been given advice like this - it would have saved me a lot of money, time and confusion as a newbie. When I first started out, I bought a few lenses that are complete garbage and useless among other items I really did not need for someone starting out. Like I said, I wish I had been given advice like this when I started out.
I started out with a Minolta setup, but sold it all after Sony did nothing with the DSLR's for over a year. After that, I pretty much followed your formula:
1. Bought a Rebel XT body and the Sigma 18-200 DC OS, both new for about $800.
2. Bought the 50mm f/1.8 II for like $70 new
3. Now that I've figured out what I shoot, I'm going to go for the 24-70mm f/2.8L
4. Once my daughter starts doing things like sports/dance/etc, I'll go for the 70-200 IS f/2.8L
what a great post! Is it possible to get the same advice for a Nikon setup?
Yep, just add one step... 1) sell your Nikon gear
Couldn't resist
It's the same logic for a Nikon setup - or Pentax, Oly, Sony, etc. Tamron and Sigma make lenses for different brands.
My main issue with this post is that it steers the "noob" into the loving arms of Canon, basically disregarding all the other mfr's out there. IMO, the core idea, really, is to buy the 18-250 lens, use it for a while and go from there. Take the time to see what focal lengths you shoot at, and if you desire "better" lenses. If you decide you'd prefer Nikon, or Pentax, or any other brand, you can apply the same logic. Each camera brand has it's own pros and cons.
Shooter on a shoestring.
D70 or D80 or even a D200 used. All the mentioned lenses are available for Nikon F-mount. The Nikkor 18-200 is better than the Sigma if you can find one within budget.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
If you've any desire (however remote) to do macro work much beyond 1:1, then the Canon mpe-65 is what you'll probably consider getting at some time.
Whilst it's possible to obtain the same range (1:1 > 5:1) using various setups, there's nothing else around (for any other system) that does it with a single lens in a manner that's as convenient (esp. for field work) as the mpe.
If you've no interest in macro, fine - ignore this.
pp
Flickr
Buy a used dSLR in good (or better condition - easy enough to find) that is not on the bleeding edge. The 20D is 2+ generation off being current but I still love mine!
Buy a decent lens with a wide focal length and use it until you know what focal lengths you need/want.
Then, buy good (or better) glass on the used market. Some of the third party glass is nearly as good as the "brand name" stuff and is usually more than sufficient for the casual hobbiest - and sometimes the serious hobbiest:D The two lenses mentioned are good/excellent bang-for-the-buck, but may not be exactly what you are wanting - refer back to your experience with the walk-about lens.
The really nice thing about buying used is that when (and if) the time comes to upgrade to a higher quality lens, the used lens can usually be sold for pretty much what you paid for it - if you've taken care of it. It's like having the lens rent-free. By the same token, if it turns out that don't get bitten by the bug, you can re-sell all that gear and recover most (maybe all?) of your investment. It doesn't get much better than that.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Just to add a bit of reality and a sad bit of humor, I have to tell you that in addition to the 20D, flash and 3 lenses I kept, I bought and sold two other camera bodies, one flash and eight other lenses in a period of 60 days to arrive at my current choices. Fortunately, I Ebay pretty well and got all of my money back on the equipment I sold.
Thanks to all of you who have given your thumbs up for the advice so far. Let's get another half dozen approvals tagged onto the end of this thread so the rookie can buy with confidence. Also thanks to the contributors so far for not chasing rabbits and bringing a bunch of other options into the mix. Not sure what I would have done without the DGrin forums. You people are great.
But I will say that the results from this lens, as well as the clarity and the ease of handling have on occasion, delivered such jaw-dropping results that it has inspired me to continue to learn.
If I had stayed on the really crappy kit lens, and never bought another lens (just as I did with the film SLRs I have owned) I would never have seen the possibilities, learned what good equipment can deliver (and what it can't). I likely would have pulled the camera out on vacations, holidays, etc. Now it is full frontal hobby, and it is a wonderful outlet.
Plus which, this lens is a keeper forever.
BTW: I've owned the sigma.
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Oh, BTW, I just checked at B&H, the Tammy is $650 (new) and the Siggy is $760 (new) - I didn't take the time to research the price of a used Tammy. This might be something to consider. But .... I actually mounted the Tammy on my 30D and found the AF to be a touch more than a little slow and a bit noisy as well (as compared to my 2.8L) - if that matters.
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
Yeah, Tammys are definately slow. My only complaint actually. I use the 28-75 f2.8 for the majority of my work, but due to the motor speed I'm actually considering the 24-105 f4. The focusing is also the downfall of this lens too.
According to those charts at DP review (they are usually very thorough) that tammy is amazing at all apertures.
Here is my attempt at providing a link to it.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/widget/Fullscreen.ashx?reviews=19,15&fullscreen=true&av=3,3&fl=70,70&vis=VisualiserSharpnessMTF,VisualiserSharpnessMTF&stack=horizontal&lock=&config=/lensreviews/widget/LensReviewConfiguration.xml%3F3
Other Gear: Olympus E-PL1, Pan 20 1.7, Fuji 3D Camera, Lensbaby 2.0, Tamron 28-75 2.8, Alien Bees lighting, CyberSyncs, Domke, HONL, FlipIt.
~ Gear Pictures
Both review as great lenses. I went for the Sigma for two reasons: DPReview said "So ultimately what we have here is a flawed gem, a lens which fully capable of delivering excellent images, but also frustratingly capable of missing focus on that once-in-a-lifetime shot, either through mis-focus or simply being too slow." and that scared me because sports is a big item for me. Plus, I got a REALLY good price on a nice Sigma ($395).
So I'll probably end up with a 50mm 2.8 macro and the DA16-45 F4.
After that I would go with Canon 70-200/4.0 non-IS, but the thing is - then you'd probably start to get your own ideas of what you need/want
Just a bump on the idea of buying used equipment....
I recently purchased a 580EX (not EXII version) here on DGRIN for $250. I was lucky to have spotted it only minutes after the original posting. I had seen no photos of the flash, but had decided that at that price, for a second flash, I was going to buy it even if it had the "lived in" look.
Upon arrival I found it to be in "like-new" condition with zero "bag rash", no scratches etc. This was a super deal. I spent $150 more than that on my "purchased new" 580EXII.
As for the 20D purchased here by the OP....
He and I are neighbors. I spotted the 20D here in the used gear forum, but had no idea who the seller was....but...there was a response in the post by none other than Mr 42000+ posts "Andy "... stating "buy with confidence". That meant a TON to me in terms of whether or not to steer my good friend to this camera.
In the end, the 20D at that price is a LOT of camera for the money....especially considering that the OP primarily will use the camera to capture photographs to display at websized resolutions.
So....
I congratulate frno on assembling a kit of excellent flexibility and quality on a budget.
...and also give thumbs up to DGRIN for being an excellent spot to buy/sell/trade gear.
Jeff
-Need help with Dgrin?; Wedding Photography Resources
-My Website - Blog - Tips for Senior Portraiture
But here's the thing... many folks migrating to DSLR are coming from a bridge camera. These folks would find a 50mm or 18-55 lens extremely limiting. So, compounding the potential frustration of getting a handle on how to use a DSLR is the limitation of a lens with insufficient reach.
Even a cheap lens on a DSLR is going to give at least as good of a result as a P&S user is used to - and most likely, better.
Also, many people aren't looking to invest major $$ in equipment - and they don't want to change lenses all the time. An 18-200mm fits these folks very well. I know plenty of pros and enthusiasts who use this type of lens as a "walkaround".
Shooter on a shoestring.
That's cheaper than some digicams.
<o:p> </o:p>
In general, most P&Ss apply various image enhancement algorithms to the photos (in camera) to make them pop. There is a reason for the various face detection algorithms to help focus, the “thin” portrait modes on some of the newer modes and settings such as rich, sepia, B&W.
<o:p> </o:p>
DSLR do not enhance the photos – mostly everything is done post process via software (DPP, Nikon Capture, PS, LR, Bibble, etc.)
<o:p> </o:p>
For people who don’t want to change lenses, keep it in the green modes, e.g. a bridge camera, I recommend a super-zoom.
<o:p> </o:p>
I only recommend a dslr for a newbie only if they need the faster shutter speeds or are willing to move it beyond any of the green modes (full green, P, etc).
That's the way I started. Taking great pictures is all about the photographer and not the equipment. I learned on kit lenses and found out where better lenses would benefit me. Some people just need a basic DSLR kit for shooting kids and family events where the shuuterlag would be a hinderance. Some want to jump to the flexibility of DSLR and want to learn without spending a ton of money. I think we sometimes forget the new user needs and it is not always what experienced photogs need or want.
Actually, DSLR jpg's do allow you to make those adjustments in-camera. Saturation, sharpness, now even highlights and shadows.
Shooter on a shoestring.
Faster performance.
Ability to shoot ISO 800/1600 with good results.
More powerful flash.
There's no reason to mock people who don't have the $$ or inclination to have multiple lenses. Some of us shoot for the pure joy of it, despite the fact that we don't have the budget for "good" glass. I've been able to get results I prefer from my meager Pentax setup compared with my Fuji S6000 bridge camera, of which I was quite fond.
Shooter on a shoestring.
The most important factor in any photograph is the person behind the camera and the willingness to click the shutter.
I still believe dslrs are wonderful, but not everyone needs a big, bulky camera with amazing P&S on the market such as the G10 & LX-3 & superzooms.
I believe that the dslr are best for those who want to learn exposure (relationship between Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO), willingness to change lenses, need less shutter speed delay or require long zooms (great than 12x) and occasionally desire to process photos (post, or manually change settings in camera while taking the photos).
And as the OP pointed out, this doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.
But for most people, P&S is good enough. And in some ways, a P&S is better because you'll take it with you due to the smaller size.
And I do understand the lack of resource, hence my suggestion to forget about the "unversal" lens, get a much cheaper and much faster 50mm prime and actually start learning the ropes. Both cheaper *and* better.
After learning about DSLR's with a Rebel XT, I was chomping at the bit: I could see that the IQ was a little off with the kit lens and lower end zoom (I had the 18-55 "kit" lens and the 70-300 or something like that.) I feel that without the low cost entry level camera, I would have not been sufficiently interested in going forward with photography as a hobby. Curious, but not serious.
The OP in this thread has excellent advice for starting out, but I think that a person should get as much info about available gear as they can possibly get. This way, they can be informed about what the next step is as they advance in their passion, even P&S'sers.
I would also echo sentiments from earlier in the thread that IME the jump in quality when moving up to a dSLR can INITIALLY be a little frustrating, as the learning curve is MUCH steeper from digi point n shoot to dslr than the same jump was in 35mm and, as was said, initially the resulting pictures may not be as good until the photographer catches up with him/herself. That certainly caught me off guard when I got my first dSLR - also, that my approach with the dSLR wasn't the same as with its 35mm counterpart, so I had to relearn a lot of what I did know. While I caught up, I had to learn a great deal more than I expected to really make the most of the new gear when I got it.
Great thread; great advice.
One thing I think that a lot of people forget about is that if a person is on a seriously limited budget and are in a basic P&S camera that the bridge camera is a great way to move up a major step without all the confusion of "the right glass" etc. I am about to move now to used DSLR (either Nikon D70 or FujiFilm S2). The three reasons are 1) manual focus on my FujiFilm S5200 is unusable 2) usable at higher ISOs without the noise problems (ISO 800 and 1600) and 3) when I am shooting in RAW the processor is just to stinking slow and it is like 5 seconds recovery before I can take the next shot.
I know though that glass is going to cost me an arm and a leg to get close to the "lens selection" I have in my bridge camera right now, and mine is only 10X optical. The new S8100 is 18X optical which is a reach of something like 480 mm zoom. And the macro in that one is pretty awesome too. Interestingly enough FujiFilm also now has the S100fs for like $800. Initially I thought "why would someone want to spend $800 and not get DSLR". But when I was at the photo store and was looking at the Nikon D60 with the kit lens I was like realizing already that I am going to have to buy at least two additional lenses right away to get the zoom and macro capabilities I will want. So now $699 becomes like $1699 or more right away minimum. (OK so I am going for less expensive used stuff, but still).
When I first got my S5200 I was thinking at the time of DSLR but did not have close to the money. I was so happy that my friend suggested the S5200. I have worked it to death, and gotten some really awesome stuff. Like some here have posted before the photo is in the photographer not in the camera.
Well I probably just started a holy war, but figured I had to put in my two cents worth for the lurkers there with as tight of budgets as me.