I'm looking to get a Dslr on a major budget
I've been playing with photography for a little while with a pentax p&s and now I'm really wanting to get into sports and racing photography. I'm leaning towards a Canon or Pentax Dslr but I'm a college student so I'm pretty limited in my budget. I've sold some stuff from other hobbies and come up with about a 300 dollar limit.
I'm mainly considering either a
Canon 20D with a 18-55mm kit lens and some sort of 70-200mm lens.(I was looking at rebel xt but they are more expensive than the 20D, and I don't think I would mind the weight)
Or
Pentax 10D or 100D with an equivalent lens setup. I'd probably try to add a wide lens to it if I can, but honestly I'll get the kit lens and see how I feel before going crazy buying lenses.
I'm open to other bodies but these are what I am looking at mainly.
I have noticed that pentax lenses are much cheaper and that there are many more choices in Canon lenses. The canon is supposed to be faster but I won't only be doing sports, I rather enjoy scenery and macro photography as well. I really like my pentax p&s and am attracted to the cheaper prices of the pentax stuff. I'm also attracted to the internal image stabiliztion of the pentax, as I probably can't afford IS canon lenses. The nikon stuff is pretty expensive across the board and I can't quite swing the price of a D50 or D40 so I'm looking elsewhere. I probably won't be able to buy a good canon or nikon lens until after school and at that point I would probably buy a new body as well.
Any advice? I'm spending rediculous amounts of time researching all this and I am open to anything you guys can tell me. Thanks!
I'm mainly considering either a
Canon 20D with a 18-55mm kit lens and some sort of 70-200mm lens.(I was looking at rebel xt but they are more expensive than the 20D, and I don't think I would mind the weight)
Or
Pentax 10D or 100D with an equivalent lens setup. I'd probably try to add a wide lens to it if I can, but honestly I'll get the kit lens and see how I feel before going crazy buying lenses.
I'm open to other bodies but these are what I am looking at mainly.
I have noticed that pentax lenses are much cheaper and that there are many more choices in Canon lenses. The canon is supposed to be faster but I won't only be doing sports, I rather enjoy scenery and macro photography as well. I really like my pentax p&s and am attracted to the cheaper prices of the pentax stuff. I'm also attracted to the internal image stabiliztion of the pentax, as I probably can't afford IS canon lenses. The nikon stuff is pretty expensive across the board and I can't quite swing the price of a D50 or D40 so I'm looking elsewhere. I probably won't be able to buy a good canon or nikon lens until after school and at that point I would probably buy a new body as well.
Any advice? I'm spending rediculous amounts of time researching all this and I am open to anything you guys can tell me. Thanks!
An advrider looking to step up my photo game.
0
Comments
Rapid, accurate autofocus is paramount. This requires both capable bodies and capable lenses.
If you want to do night sports or indoor sports then low-light capabilities are also required.
My recommendation for now is to learn more about photography using your existing Pentax P&S. Learn about lighting and composition and image processing. Save up your money until you have at least $600-$800. Apply that money towards a good basic dSLR and a good standard zoom and a good flash system, capable of off-camera use. Practice with that system and learn how to do some types of photography that pay, like basic portraiture. Earn and save all of the money from that endeavor until you have saved at least a couple thousand dollars. (In other words leverage that equipment and those skills to allow a more rapid advancement towards your goals.)
Once you have a couple thousand dollars to play with you can start to consider entry level sports photography using slightly older/used camera bodies and lenses.
In the mean time you will have learned some valuable skills that will aid you for the rest of your life.
Sorry to be the one to break it to you but a $300 budget just isn't enough for any sort of sports photography. Please do check out these links for suggestions on sports capable photographic equipment:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=87274
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=150072
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=121996
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=106482
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=88895
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=7533
http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/camera/lens/sports-photography.shtml
Nikon specific lens recommendations:
http://www.bythom.com/Recs.htm
Canon specific sports lens recommendations:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Outdoor-Sports-Lens.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Indoor-Sports-Lens.aspx
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Not at all. I do really appreciate the feedback and the links, Thank you! That is the whole reason I asked the question. Although I do think that I may have worded it in a way that was not completely correct. Let me rephrase and see if the answer is the same.
I am not interested at all in ever being a pro photographer. I am really not interested in being a pro football or other major sport photographer. I am only interested in photography as a hobby, and because of that if my pictures are not perfect, or not sellable I don't really care. Therefor I really don't like the idea of earning money doing portraits to get a 2k camera. If that is what is required for sports, I won't do sports. Good idea, but its not for me.
I am more interested in taking pictures of rock climbing, motorcycle racing/riding, and taking pictures of my other hobbies. I really like taking pics of scenery, I want to play with macro photos, I would like to do more portraits, and artistic city shots.
That being said the biggest problems I have with my p&s(that I have been messing with for 4-5 years now) is that it has an extremely slow shutter reaction(it seems like a few seconds, so its probably 1 second) and that it has no optical zoom. I shoot a lot of 2-3 shot panoramas to get a wider view so a wide angle lens would be nice too. It really doesn't focus well up close either, so macro stuff is out.
I am mostly looking for the best camera I can get for 300 bucks that will do as much of what I want to do and I will worry about the other stuff later. Mainly I want to learn to use a SLR. I messed with a couple friend's slr's for a bit and I liked them. I think if I had one it would be an enjoyable learning expierence. I know I don't need one, I want one, and I think I could improve with one. I think I will just get whatever pentax dslr I can afford, and try it out. I was interested in the canon because it was supposed to be faster at autofocus, but if it will still be slowish then I will just get a pentax and be happy with more speed than my p&s.
My pictures are not anything amazing but this is sort of what I am talking about.
http://www.adorama.com/IOME600K1R.html
You can compensate somewhat for a low rate of keepers by just shooting more images. While the rate of keepers will never be great for sports/action photography, a large sampling will still reward you with some great images. You will still have to learn about lighting and processing and you will have to learn specifically how to leverage the qualities of the camera in order to get the most from it. You should not expect instant rewards without a considerable investment of time and learning the system.
BTW, don't sell yourself short with regard to your capabilities. I see from your samples that you try to find angles and perspectives and views beyond the ordinary snapshot.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I'll agree that waiting and learning may be your best option. Unfortunately, $300 doesn't go very far in DSLR photography and spending that amount now on a older system probably won't get you where you want to go.
$500 - $600 will get you something you will appreciate so wait and save a little longer!
If you're willing to consider used and willing to invest some time into ebay, you might be able to find something like a Nikon D40 kit. That was a nice entry camera in its day and I just let one go for $360. It was the camera I jumped to from my P&S days and I was amazed at what it could accomplish (even grabed the entire front of the church during a youth event from the light of one candle - handheld). It could do a little of everything. I took some nice scenery, some nice low light, kids events, street scenes. None of them are publication quality, but I got some "wows" on facebook and around family gatherings.
Food for thought...
For learning slr-type techniques you can pick up excellent film gear for a very few dollars outlay. My old Minolta gear is basically unsellable although still in perfect working order and doing almost everything I can do with my dslr. Then you buy a dslr when you can afford it. This is the route I would go with only $300 to spend and a lot of learning to do.
Your stated requirements from your first request changed to your second replay. You don't need a DSLR for that. You can get buy with the new Canon s95 or other high end p&s in that category.
Having gotten into the DSLR world through a low end camera, I still had to spend around 800 dollars to get a good basic setup. Since you are on a budget, you need to spend wisely. You will find you start to pay for things twice when you go cheap. IF you really want to get into the DSLR world save up. If you want to get a capable camera right now, get a high end p&s. I only recommend the canon because it is what I have and love it for the type of photography you describe when I want to go light but still get great results.
Exactly what I was thinking. Hit up some pawn shops if there are any in your area, you may get lucky.
That or shop at KEH as they have some EX rated Canon 35mm bodies for under $50, heck even their BGN stuff is decent. They've got some good deals on some non-Canon glass also.
Lol, I told myself no more toys for awhile but the EOS 1 is calling to me and they're cheap(gonna be tough not to get one). I've been wanting to see what colors the combo of Velvia/Provia plus the 135L combined yeild for fall foliage.
5D2/1D MkII N/40D and a couple bits of glass.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
The issues about only being able to use 15-20 rolls of film until I hit the same price as a cheap dslr is what got me thinking along the lines of a cheap dslr. I've taken 4k+ pictures on my p&s since I bought it in 2004. Not an amazing amount of pictures but that would be a couple grand in film.
I might have a shot at a Pentax k100d super and lens that works fine for 100 bucks. If that is the case, I might just grab it and mess with it.
I've also considered the panasonic g1 with a lens. Which I could probably get for right around my budget. A slr would seem to be superior, as it wouldn't have the electronic viewfinder. The g1 is newer than the slrs I've been looking at though, and probably would be in better shape. I wouldn't be able to afford anything but the kit lens for awhile.
The nikon D40/D50 were suggested to me by a friend, and you guys. One thing that is hard for me to understand is how that camera is ok(although its 4-5 years old now) and yet its competitors are not recommended. The canon rebel xt or a 20D(which are different cameras, but the same price) and others aren't good enough? Basically what is confusing me at the moment, is what is the problem of an old camera that would cause me to be spending twice? Is it that they are basically worn out? Or just that the features aren't up to par with modern stuff?
I'm not too worried about spending the money and only getting 5 year old technology, I'm using 6 year old technology currently so it will be a step up. If I can sell it later and basically get what I paid, or at least 50% a couple years from now I'd consider that fine. If it will fry itself and be useless next week that would suck. Its possible, but if its unlikely I will take the chance, if its gauranteed that it will die quickly then I won't take the chance.
I understand what you guys are saying the camera won't make me better, no more than my bike makes me a good rider. That said I think my bike is closer to what I want from it than my old bike was and allowed me to raise my skills with practice. Does that analogy make sense?
I have more than 300, I just want to use some of it for other hobbies so that was my self imposed limit. I can stretch it if I must but I'm not convinced I need to. I will keep an eye on that E-600, and I'm going to research it.
I understand that I will need to work on composition and lighting. I appreciate the feedback and that is one of the reasons I joined this forum.
In response to that, here is a few more. I appreciate the compliment, but I can also still see how these are not as good as they could have been. I still enjoy sharing them, if nothing else they do show I have played with different ideas.
Messed with this one in gimp.
This one was post processed as well, and I used a polarizing filter(my sunglasses, which unfortunately show up a bit in the pic, part of the reason I want lenses that I can attach filters to)
Morning fog, I should have put the camera past that rope.
Off the subject: VLA and Double O arch?
Roak
<== Mighty Murphy, the wonder Bouv!
In your opinion(or anyone else's) would it be better to get a older higher level model, or a newer lower entry-level model? I'm getting the impression newer is considered better, and more likely to last longer.
Specifically what I am comparing at the moment are Pentax K2000(entry level 08-09) or a Pentax K10D(mid range 06/07) plus the usual Canon 20D, rebel stuff. They all seem to be about the same price, although I was very surprised how inexpensive the K2000's are(200 bucks or so). I thought they were old or something so I was ignoring them. The 20D and rebel xt are older so I may rule them out.
I want that Oly... Ziggy seemed to really know his stuff.
I'm listening, but still not quite there yet.
Roadkey-Yes sir, that is one of the VLA dishes, and double O in arches national park. I took a ton in both places, I was amazed by moab, and the vla is just cool.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Shooting film is a different style. You do NOT shoot hundreds of shots because it is too expensive, even if you used slide film which was much cheaper. People plan each shot carefully, especially measuring the light. I take more shots in an afternoon now with digital that I would take in a year with film.
Re your level question on the used digitals, a big difference is how they feel in your hands and the ease of operation. You said you wanted to use big lenses so I guess they will feel better on a bigger body.
I had the E-420 out for pit shots but decided to try it and see what happens, this was a fast shutter speed and zoomed in a bit too much but if you pick an AF point and set it to C-AF it can track decently.
Overall it is a great little camera and I sold mine which was in great condition for 300 earlier in the year. Here is another bike related shot:
The nice thing about Olympus cameras is even though you are buying their basic consumer model it has features and customization options other manufacturers don't offer till their higher models. Plus there is a great graphic menu for changing most settings on the LCD so you rarely need to go into the menus.
The other things you get are:
Cheap and sharp lenses (their consumer grade stuff is actually pretty good and better construction than say Canon/Nikon) the telephoto is about 100 new, and a great macro lens if you are into that is under 200 and very sharp
Plus you basically don't have to worry about getting dust on the sensor since their anti-dust system is the best on any DSLR.
A E-420 is in your price range for sure, and if you can swing a E-520 you get IS which is nice.....but the 420 is a camera you will have for a long time even if you end up with Canon or Nikon later down the line due to the tiny size the Olympus is a great travel camera.
I guess I'm just going to have to find some more money. Anybody need a winchester?
Thanks for the writeup on the E series cameras. That is probably what I will go with. I'm trying to afford that 600 but if not there is also a 520 for 260 I might get. I could get one lens at a time which would be more affordable for me.
Not to throw a wrench into any plans, but I would personally think twice about investing much into the 4/3 system at the moment. Olympus has recently said they don't have plans to replace the E-620 or other recent DSLRs as they feel their mirrorless PEN cameras will fill in that niche.
Recent article:
http://www.dailytech.com/Olympus+Cedes+the+Entrylevel+DSLR+Market+to+Micro+FourThirds+Cams/article19861.htm
Any of the above Oly's would serve you very well, but if you're investing into a new system, I'd want some assurance that I wouldn't have to buy all new lenses the next time I plan to upgrade my body...
I don't think that Olympus will stop making dSLRs, just no more entry level dSLRs. The E-30 and E-5 lines will probably continue for some time. If Olympus would produce a feature reduced E-30 for a couple hundred less, instead of the E-620/E-600, that might appease the loyal Olympus users who miss the entry level line.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
They've also said they see a time when they won't make any DSLRs - presumably when their other technology is capable of satisfying prosumers/pros.
That said, DSLRs as we know them likely aren't the future anyway.
I'll just make 1 comment to this.
If someone wants to in the future go beyond the base E-420 kit and move to Canon/Nikon in a serious way a half decent lens from either of those companies will cost more than was spent on the Olympus camera and lenses combined, and a good lens we are talking a few multiples. Having a 4/3 camera could be great because people will start unloading their higher end gear for cheap. If your goal is to get the best gear possible then no 4/3 is not the ticket right now but if you want good gear cheap it sure is. I bet a lot of dedicated Olympus high end amateurs and pros will switch due to this in the next year or 2 once saving up and their gear will be a steal for ever gets it.
Just be aware that Nikon and Canon have something like 80% of the market share. If you go with either of those, you are guaranteed that software support will exist. Like lens profiles in Lightroom, etc.
And, I guess you've discovered that you won't get far with $300 in sports photography. Might as well stick with a superzoom P&S camera.
Yeah, sell your guns, get a job, quit school and use your student loans - don't tell your parents, sell your school books, sell crack, rob a bank, do what it takes!
Oh, excuse me, I got a little carried away there. You may want to wait to sell your guns until AFTER you rob the bank. :-)
zooms
and
primes
They've got lots of Canon lenses too:
zooms
and
primes
Personally, I recommend the 20D. But the Pentax's are good cameras too.
Since it seems the OP was looking to go with Olympus (which I think is a wise budget choice), I don't have much experience to add. I was going to mention that if going the Nikon route, it may be better to avoid the D40 / D60 crowd as you're then locked into more expensive AF-S lenses. It's one of the reasons I don't intend on chucking my "old" D50.
So, what did you end up getting?
Just a thought.
Is this so? I thought you had to be a registered owner of a high-end Canon camera to qualify. Not everybody can join this program
Nope - you're confusing it with the "Professional Services" thingy. The Loyalty Program is something completely different, and open to anybody with a broken Canon camera to trade in.
Discussion thread here and I know at least one person IRL who's done it and been entirely happy. You DO have to phone them, though - there's no direct link online, so you have to ring up and talk to somebody.
Actually I just started messing with my old canon more and I bought a new wide angle lens for it(for a whopping 10 bucks at the local store). It takes some cool pics and I'm really excited about it. So for now, I'm using film. B&w to be exact, and I'm surprised by just how much more depth it has in that type of film than a converted digital file. Its pretty cool
I will probably get a dslr next semester, or later this year. That Canon thing sounds cool, I'll look into it. i have been very impressed that my old rusty Ae-1 still works great.
In other words, I did nothing, yet.
Well it always drives me nuts when I find unanswered questions online and while this isn't exactly a grand deep question I still thought I would go ahead and say what I got. I had been playing with film but lately I have had some really inconsistent and frustrating results. That and processing fees made me finally decide to get a dslr, sorta.
I picked up a Panasonic G1(under "budget" no less). I'm really excited about it and it was what I wanted from the start. I decided on it because of the availability of adapters to use old (cheap) lenses, and the popularity should mean there will be more available options later on. I think it makes more sense than the 4/3 option for me at my budget. Right now I am using my FD lenses. I want to pick up a kit lens sometime but for now I can't afford it and I think the old glass will do just fine. I actually really like the manual focus lenses I have. So far my Canon 50mm/1.8 and 135/2.8 seem to give the best results and are my favorites.
Thanks again everyone for the advice and the compliments on my pictures. I read back through this thread while I was thinking about different cameras and it continued to help.
Congratulations on the new camera.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums