Which Next Camera is for me?

bellaphoto

Hello,

I started Photography 3 years ago and all i use is a simple basic Nikon D40, but i am so ready to step up to the next level ... I photograph children alot!, sometimes childrens sports (so i need a fast action camera). I want something that will photograph sharp crisp photos but at the same time, i need a camera that does well in low light and with action? too much to ask? I also do occassional weddings..... small ones. What do you reccommend Nikon or Canon and please keep it under $1000.00
Also, i need a great lens for closeups(i love to focus on eyes) and a good portrait lens, again, keep it low cost please...... Thank you soooo much to everyone for any feedback. I am overwhelmed at how many cameras there are!!!:huh

RominasPhotography
R. Ludovico
BellaPhoto

ziggy53

Reliable action "and" low-light photography generally require the very best in both camera and lenses.

I suggest that at the very least you would need a Nikon D90 camera body. For action lenses you might need to look at used third party lenses in order to keep the costs down.

Can you give an example of what sort of action photography you want to pursue? Sports? Motorsports? Gymnastics?

What are the lighting conditions you might encounter?

bellaphoto

I do children sports like soccer and football, usually early morning or right at sundown, sometimes at night in low light... i dont do too much of that so i am not concerned if i dont find a camera thats made just for sports.. I do about 75% childrens portraits outdoor natural light, but i do have to chase them alot!!! sometimes the eyes come out blurry ....

Kyle D

I agree with Ziggy, if you are bent on upgrading your body then a D90 at the very least. But, you may want to look into a used D300 instead for the better AF performance, higher fps continous shooting, and larger buffer (the weather sealing is a bonus too as is the more durable shutter). However, you may want to upgrade your glass first.

I myself still shoot a D50 and mainly do equine and equestrian photography. During the spring/summer/fall this is mainly out doors, but during the winter I'm stuck doing it in dark and poorly lit arenas. Most of the time I'm pushing the D50 at iso 1600 but still manage to get shots thanks to the 50mm f/1.8 I use indoors.

As for lenses, look into the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 (a beautiful little lens, the best $100 I've ever spent), Sigma/Tamron/Tokina 70-200 f/2.8 for a sports tele-photo. Basically get the best lens with the largest aperture that you can afford used. By buying used you can get yourself better quality gear. For a "close up lens" you could always try and see if you can hunt up a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro lens, I just picked one up off of eBay for $200 CAD and can't wait to use it.

Qarik

bellaphoto wrote:

Hello,

I started Photography 3 years ago and all i use is a simple basic Nikon D40, but i am so ready to step up to the next level ... I photograph children alot!, sometimes childrens sports (so i need a fast action camera). I want something that will photograph sharp crisp photos but at the same time, i need a camera that does well in low light and with action? too much to ask? I also do occassional weddings..... small ones. What do you reccommend Nikon or Canon and please keep it under $1000.00
Also, i need a great lens for closeups(i love to focus on eyes) and a good portrait lens, again, keep it low cost please...... Thank you soooo much to everyone for any feedback. I am overwhelmed at how many cameras there are!!!

RominasPhotography
R. Ludovico
BellaPhoto

To be frank with budget of $1000 all you can do is upgrade the body. From Nikon POV D90 is the best bang for the buck. If you need good close up lens then you need to spend around $400 for a macro lens which can double as your portrait lens. For a good sharp sport lens you need to plunk down $2000 for 70-200mm type lens. Though you can use this to shoot weddings as well. There really is no way around it.

There are other lens that are cheaper of course but don't perform as well.

borrowlenses.com

You should strongly consider a D300 body, they are about $1,000 these days. For lenses if you are on a budget try an 85mm 1.8

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005LE75

bellaphoto

Thank you for the reply, i will definitly look into upgrading. Everyone who replied pretty much sticks with Nikon? what about Canon? I hear great things about Canon as well, I my consider switching to that someday in the near future? any recommendations or are you faithul to Nikon?

Romina

ziggy53

bellaphoto wrote:

Thank you for the reply, i will definitly look into upgrading. Everyone who replied pretty much sticks with Nikon? what about Canon? I hear great things about Canon as well, I my consider switching to that someday in the near future? any recommendations or are you faithul to Nikon?

Romina

I was thinking that "you" were a loyal Nikon shooter.

The truth is that Canon and Nikon are the best selling brands of dSLR on the planet. That doesn't mean the other brands are worse, just less popular. There has never been a better or less expensive time to own a quality dSLR system and the choices are amazing.

If you want to switch to a different brand that's fine, but I don't recommend switching too often because it can get expensive.

craig_d

bellaphoto wrote:

I am overwhelmed at how many cameras there are!!!

It can be quite confusing. There are a number of manufacturers and over the years they have released a large number of models. I suggest you first simplify by figuring out what to ignore. Your price limit of $1000 is a handy tool in this regard.

For example, Nikon has a number of cameras, but many of them are overly similar to each other and not many are below $1000. The D3000 and D5000 aren't that different from your D40, so ignore them. That leaves you with the D90 as the only option unless you want to pay more for a D300.

Canon's product line is cluttered with older models that are still in production even though newer, more capable models have basically replaced them. Ignore those, and ignore anything that isn't signficantly more advanced than your Nikon D40. That leaves you with the Rebel T1i as the only option unless you want to pay a little more for a 50D or significantly more for a 7D.

So: Compare the Nikon D90 against the Canon Rebel T1i and perhaps the Canon 50D, and if you can handle paying several hundred dollars more, compare the Nikon D300 against the Canon 7D. I think any of these cameras will do the job well. And one thing you should do is visit a store that carries these cameras and see how they feel in your hand.

Sony, Pentax, and other companies also make decent cameras, but I'm less familiar with their product lines and I don't think any of them has as wide a range of lenses and other accessories as Canon and Nikon (though I'm sure they all have the essentials).

RedSox

50 1.8 might not auto focus on the D40, since it has no built in motor for the AF. You will need to look at the Sigma and I think Nikon has a new AFS 50mm lens as well.

It only makes sense to switch to other brands, if the other brand can do what Nikon cannot do or it saves you money.

I am a Canon user. I honestly don't think there is not much that Nikon cannot do but Canon can, unless you are looking for some exotic lenses that Nikon doesn't have. I am not 100% sure, but for premium lenses, Canon might be a bit cheaper than Nikon. Now I am looking into buy used equipment and did some research recently. I might be wrong but I found that there are more used Canon equipement in the buy/sell section than Nikon. So if you go with Canon, you might have more alternatives to trade/aquire your gears.

Eric

ojn

Qarik wrote:

For a good sharp sport lens you need to plunk down $2000 for 70-200mm type lens. Though you can use this to shoot weddings as well. There really is no way around it.

There are other lens that are cheaper of course but don't perform as well.

It seems that the used prices for the Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 have started to come down, so buying one of those used could be an alternative when on a budget.

I found one (the two-ring, still-in-production version) in excellent condition for $600 locally on Craigslist. Very happy so far.

Ozzwald

The d3000 and 5000 would be good upgrades,they both have a CMOS sensor which is an upgarde to the d40. How ever the controls are limted like the d40, I would consider a decent upgarde to be a d90 or 40d for canon. Great low light iso, but the 40d has a slightly higher fps. But if you already have lens from nikon might as well just stick with them. If you are on a budget just get the 55-200 cheap sharp lens. It lacks low light performance but will fit your budget. Also with the d90 your are able to use af on some of nikons older lens. If your budget allows you can add a 50mm and 85mm. These overlap the 55-200, but great lowlight performance and close ups

cab.in.boston

Ozzwald wrote:

The d3000 and 5000 would be good upgrades,they both have a CMOS sensor which is an upgarde to the d40.

D3000 has a 10MP CCD sensor. It is the D40 replacement as the entry level Nikon DSLR. D5000, D90, D300s all have 12MP CMOS sensors.

HeatherWB

Since you mentioned that you're open to options in Canon-land, I'll assume that you don't have much invested in the way of glass.

In that case, I'll definitely put in a plug for the Canon 40D, which can be had for around $600-700 used. In addition to getting a more solid body, you'll be getting 6.3 FPS, which will come in handy for sports-type of shots. Pair it with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and you've got a nice beginning to your Canon system.

HTH,
Heather

Ozzwald

cab.in.boston wrote:

D3000 has a 10MP CCD sensor. It is the D40 replacement as the entry level Nikon DSLR. D5000, D90, D300s all have 12MP CMOS sensors.

sorry, thanks for the correction.

Brett1000

HeatherWB wrote:

Since you mentioned that you're open to options in Canon-land, I'll assume that you don't have much invested in the way of glass.

In that case, I'll definitely put in a plug for the Canon 40D, which can be had for around $600-700 used. In addition to getting a more solid body, you'll be getting 6.3 FPS, which will come in handy for sports-type of shots. Pair it with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and you've got a nice beginning to your Canon system.

HTH,
Heather

I would go for one of the newer Canon's but the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a great lens

bloomphotog

Bellaphoto, I took a look at your website and judging from the work you have posted there I think a new camera is not the best way "step up to the next level".

The D40 is a GREAT camera for the usage you described. IMO, I think you'd be better off spending your $$$ on better glass, a flash and a reflector for your portraiture work.

Most of the time, your camera body itself is the last thing you need to upgrade when trying to improve your work.

What do you currently have in your lens collection? Besides a glass upgrade, I would also suggest a Nikon SB-400 or SB-600 flash and this reflector. The flash will allow you to start bouncing your light and the reflector is a must have for outdoor portraiture. Here's an example of what that 70" reflector can do in natural light:

bellaphoto

bloomphotog wrote:

Bellaphoto, I took a look at your website and judging from the work you have posted there I think a new camera is not the best way "step up to the next level".

The D40 is a GREAT camera for the usage you described. IMO, I think you'd be better off spending your $$$ on better glass, a flash and a reflector for your portraiture work.

Most of the time, your camera body itself is the last thing you need to upgrade when trying to improve your work.

What do you currently have in your lens collection? Besides a glass upgrade, I would also suggest a Nikon SB-400 or SB-600 flash and this reflector. The flash will allow you to start bouncing your light and the reflector is a must have for outdoor portraiture. Here's an example of what that 70" reflector can do in natural light:

Thank you, thats great advise too, i am still learning alot. i have never used a reflector, that was my next step toooooo. i appreciate it very much

Romina

insanefred

I agree with bloomphotog. You get better results with better glass and other equipment (not saying a better camera won't help). Possibly look into your work flow as well. Do you shoot raw or jpeg? If raw, what converter do you use?

bloomphotog

insanefred wrote:

I agree with bloomphotog. You get better results with better glass and other equipment (not saying a better camera won't help). Possibly look into your work flow as well. Do you shoot raw or jpeg? If raw, what converter do you use?

+1 for the workflow audit.

For example, my workflow:

Shoot 14-Bit Lossless NEF/RAW(Adobe), import into Lightroom 2(with the latest version of ACR), Sort, Edit, Export to .TIFF(SRGB) for print, or .JPG(SRGB) for web, backup the keepers to my RAID array.........AND backup .JPG's to SmugMug!