Good Starter Cameras?
Can you please make some suggestions on good starter DSLR's? I know which one I'd ideally like to have but I think I may be spending more on too much of a camera for my needs right now. I don't want to get a camera that has a ton of features that I wont really use. So I think for a first DSLR I'd rather keep it a little more reasonable and when I need to upgrade I will. I want to stick with either Canon or Nikon and I certainly don't want to forfeit quality. Thanks in advance!
0
Comments
We need to know what type of stuff you shoot
Good Luck.
Do you intend to shoot sports/action?
How rugged? Weather seals?
How responsive would you like the camera to be? What frame rate?
Do you desire/require a full-frame (FF) body?
What is the primary purpose for the camera, what type of photography?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I would seriously recommend renting from Borrow Lenses or another service to try out a cam or two...I would not drop any lower than the D7K in Nikon......for the reasons listed above .....
What cam are you currently using???
Are you talking horse agility/jumps?
Will this be indoors?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
A little bit of everything but definitely jumping. At this point I don't plan to do indoors but if that situation were to arise, I would hate not to have a decent camera for it.
This has been my approach and, by searching for great deals and/or buying gently-used or refurbished from reputable dealers, I've been able to keep a "rolling upgrade" that met my needs without killing my budget (too much
If budget is limited, my own advice would be, at this point, to go with either one of the "top of the entry-level" cameras (eg the newest/best-featured Canon Ti series, and whatever the Nikon equivalent would be), or better, a used mid-grade camera such as a Canon 50d. This will keep camera body costs down and let you get an appropriate lens. In the tough conditions you may find at a horsehow ou will need one that focuses fast, can stand up to some weather and dust and, likely, a telephoto. Something like the Canon 70-200 2.8 or f4 will likely do well and, in your circumstances, you will probably benefit from the build-quality and weather-sealing of the L lenses. Be warned - the lenses will probably cost MORE than the body, but for your stated needs, they will definitely yield better results.
On the other hand, if you have the $, then something like the Canon 7d would be a wonderful camera, but it is definitely NOT a "starter" camera - it has a lot of features which in some ways make it harder to use straight out of the box than the entry-level models; it's a very powerful machine, but does take a little getting to know.
I'm sure Nikon users will chime in with brand suggestions.
ETA: I know most people recommend against the Rebels, but I was very happy with my xsi for a lot of shooting! They can take great pictures, they just don't offer the handling niceties of their more expensive siblings. Some will argue that build-quality is "poor", but speaking from my own experience, my xsi has stood up to 3 years of hard use and never missed a click! That said, since you're already doing what sounds like semi-pro work, you probably do need the features of the other models. What have you been shooting on to date?
Very insightful, thank you. I have shot with a friends T3i and really enjoyed it. However, I enjoy shooting-period. Not to mention that dslr's are a new thing to me. I've been using my Kodak Z812. It's a p&s but the bulky kind not the pocket cameras. It takes great photos, just not the quality I need by far. I've done a lot of kids portraits with it that turn out great but when I try to shoot cross country jumping, it's pretty hit and miss. Every now and then I get a good clear shot but their usually blurry. I've also done senior portraits with it that turned out well, I'm just ready to upgrade to something more reliable. I need to know I'm not going to have blurry shots because I do a lot of action photography. Anywhere from kids playing, horses running or animals playing. I want to be able to catch the action in a good crisp shot.
Part of me thinks I just need to bite the bullet and buy the 7d because I know I like it and a lot of people here suggest it and it sounds like it would be able to do everything I want without fail. However, I kind of started leaning towards the d7000 because I had a chance to handle it in store and loved it. It just sounds to me like I'd be getting a better camera if I went with the Canon. Grr, such tough decisions!!
IMHO, tho. I think you should be focusing more on the lens.
I would rather shoot with a Canon T3i + 70-200L F2.8 IS than shooting with a 7D with the kit lens (18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS )
my opinion anyway.
This raises another question....
Am I better off to buy the T3i and invest in top of the line lenses? I mean, how much difference would it be? Would I still have the quality? What exactly would it mean for me to go lower on the body but higher on the lenses? I am on a budget here so I guess what I'm asking is, what do I do if I'm going for economic and quality?
Given that you're coming from a PnS, I would actually recommend a Rebel + decent lenses (or Nikon equivalent). Why? The entry-level are DESIGNED for people moving up from point and shoots who are initially going to use automatic modes and expect the camera to make more decisions for them. The handling "problems" advanced shooters mention about the Rebels actually aren't a problem at all until you're shooting manual most of the time, and the "features" of a camera like the 7d are more likely to be "confusions" at first. Yes, you may grow out of your first dSLR in a year or so, but you can sell it and trade up to what you need once you figure out what you need to do the jobs you want to do
I'm a Canon shooter - Nikon has equivalents - and in your your stated situation, I could imagine something like a t3i (or, if the extra money's there, 60d) + 24-105f4 (lens ~$1000) as well as a 50mm 1.8 ($100) or 1.4 ($400) (and/or 85 1.8 $400) would be an excellent starter kit that would cover a lot of your intentions including outdoor horseshow action and senior portraits. (Those prices are for new, btw - if you're willing to go used/refurbished, you'll save about 20-30%). You will likely eventually want one of the 2.8 zooms, but the appealing focal length of the 24-105+IS will definitely help you along at first. It's also a very, very sharp lens.
Yes, you may well want to sell a t3i within a year, but it is likely to be a lot less frustrating/intimidating to use at first than a 7d!
BTW, there is NO REASON AT ALL to think that Canon is "better" than Nikon - both make terrific cameras. If the Nikon feels best in your hands, then that's the way to go. Of course, handle both to be sure, but go with what feels great and where the menus/controls-logic make most sense to you.
Part of my concern has definitely been the confusion issue with so much camera in the 7d as opposed to going with something a little closer to entry level. I definitely have a LOT to learn about dslr's. I have been reading all that I can on here and other places but honestly, I'm a learn by doing type and just reading about it does me no good. Honestly, I'm ok with not having top of the line. I just want something that's competent for what I want to do and as I learn more about the cameras and photography in general, I'd be happy to upgrade. Would it be relatively easy to resell the T3i if I decide to upgrade in a year or so?
I would be fine with buying used or refurb. as long as I know that it's in good shape and I wont get screwed. The body I would probably buy new, but with lenses I'm definitely open to saving when I can.
Also, I don't really care whether it's Nikon or Canon, I just know that I've used more Canons and people I know personally are always happy with theirs.
ETA: Would 3.7 FPS on the T3i be enough for horse jumping? It just seems like a lot less compared to the 7d and d7k.
I think what you said here is important in making your decision in terms of what brand to buy. One of the reasons I stuck with Canon is because almost all of my photog friends shoot with Canon. Borrowing/Trying out lenses/accessories were really easy
Haha, too true!! I hadn't thought of that! Brilliant!
just look at this link
and some samples of action shots here
maybe not as fast as 7D, but it can definitely do the job ,provided you know about the trinity aperture,iso,shutter speed, of course
It is less... but I'll be honest and say I personally have usually used single-shot for over-fences pix!! YMMV and some people may really want those fps; I've just always done it that way and, because most of what I do is portraits, I usually have my camera set to single-shot. But if single-shot can nail the fence.... 3fps certainly can
Given all you've said, you might do very well to consider a used 50d - it will strike an excellent "middle-ground" between the two Canon cameras you're considering, and will save you some pennies (you can probably get a decent used one for about $700, which leaves you a much more generous budget for lenses). Again, in time you may want all the other goodies that the 7d offers, but the 50d is a quality piece of gear and won't leave you lacking as you work on technical skills. It also has the "pro" handling (ie the thumbwheel on the back of the camera) of the higher end cameras.
For used with a warrantee, check out KEH (EXCELLENT online supplier) as well as the two "biggies", Adorama and B&H (currently closed for the Jewish holidays, I suspect - they usually shut down for two weeks around now, although I don't know the actual dates).
ETA: These were taken using a Rebel xsi, in 1-shot mode (as far as I recall - it's a while ago)
Great advice.
Action can be shot with single shot. The 8fps helps in sports like baseball where you can't anticipate the moment, or it happens too fast (like a player throwing a ball). If you can anticipate the horse jumps, you should be fine. There are plenty of sports photogs, with their 7D's and 1D's, who don't use burst mode.
Given the choice between a T3i + 70-200 2.8L or a 7D + kit lens, T3i for sure. That glass holds its value. You'll get way better photos. Keep in mind that the T3i and 7D have the same sensor. It's the exta features that make the 7D more expensive.
Will you be able to resell the T3i? Take a look at the used T1i prices now, that's probably where the T3i prices will be in a year or two.
Also, since you have NO lenses, you're going to need more than one tele-zoom. Even if that's where you put the bulk of your $, you're going to need something else in the standard zoom (eg 17-50ish) range.
Another option for a tele is the much less expensive 200L 2.8 ($600-800) - this is a glorious lens (I had a Mk1 for a while and only sold it for the 135L which is a better focal length for my needs). Both of those shots I posted earlier in the thread were taken with the 200. Yes, you have to zoom with your feet but it's not such a big deal.
Again, if I were you, with your needs, I'd be looking at something like:
Body: Used 50d ($700 or less)
Lens 1: 24-105is F4 ($900-1100) - this is not the "perfect" never-buy-another-one lens for what you do, but it is super-high quality, very versatile, and will cover your most-used focal lengths for the time being. You can add to it (and/or sell it and buy something else) once you see what you use/need most. This lens holds its value extremely well.
Lens 2a: 50mm 1.4 ($300-400) for portraits/low light situations
OR
Lens 2b: 200L 2.8 ($600-800) as a longer, faster telephoto for shooting cross-country until such time as you want to/can afford one of the 70-200 2.8 zooms.
You really ought to budget for a flash as well - if you're willing to learn to use a manual flash, you can pick up a Yongnuo for under $100; if you want Canon's eTTL (which works very well, IMO), then you're looking at $200 or more depending on the model.
There are 5 different 70-200s:
70-200 f4: $500
70-200 f4 IS: $900
70-200 f/2.8: $1000
70-200 f/2.8 IS: $1400
70-200 f/2.8 IS II: $2000
(The prices are my basic reference prices, based on buying used and being patient for a good deal. For new prices, add a few hundred $).
For outdoor stuff, IS can be a waste of money IMHO. There are many photogs who can't live without it, but I don't own any IS lenses and I'm fine. You shouldn't need IS for outdoor horse stuff, and definitely not for anything when you're using a tripod (IS doesn't correct for subject movement, just camera movement). Of the 70-200s, I'd go with the f/2.8 non-IS for $1000. If you really hunt for a deal, I've seen them a bit lower. The 70-200 f4 is a great value, but yes, there is a difference between f/2.8 and f/4. If you got the f4:
I like Diva's suggestion to get the 200 f/2.8. It's sharper than most of the zooms (it's REALLY sharp; look online for sample photos). The downside is you have to zoom with your feet. Maybe you're OK with that.
The 50D is an excellent choice for a body. The 24-105 would be an excellent choice. So would the 50 1.8 (I'd get the 1.8 over the 1.4). So would the 85mm 1.8. You just have to decide what focal length(s) you want. Maybe renting would help?
I've owned both. If I were saving $, then I'd get the 1.8; if I had the room in the budget, I'd get the 1.4. The 1.8 offers tremendous image quality for the money, but there's no denying it's finicky in low-light (ironic, given that's where you're most likely to use a 1.8 lens!) and the AF is, well... it's a special snowflake and you have to love it enough to put up with its quirks (it's slow and VERY noisy). Don't get me wrong - I think I actually preferred the look of my 1.8 and I got a lot of great shots with it, but the 1.4 is a much more reliable lens. In the f4 scenario I outlined above, being able to use the 50mm reliably at wider apertures would be important, hence my reasoning to go with the 1.4 if possible... If not, the 1.8 will make an entirely serviceable choice
There is also the Sigma 70-200 2.8.
I have shot with Sigma lenses for over 25 yrs until I came back to Nikon and I am very disappointed in my Nikon 70-200.......I cannot see any difference in image quality over the Sigmas I used in the Past......my other complaint is the distance to subject working distance....the Sigmas allow for real close focus and the Nikon is like 6 feet...
Hmm, tell me more about the Sigma please. What's the price range like? Quality? Compatible with a Canon? Comparable to the Canon telephotos? Sorry, I am truly brand new to the world of lenses. And SLR's for that matter.
I think they are about $800 new for the non image stabilized version. The one with image stabilization is $1400.
Ive only read about it, haven't used it. But I hear its a great lens. Im also trying to decide on a fast telephoto. The sigma is less than what a Nikon would cost me.
I'm sure someone else can tell you about their experiences with the lens.
Used 50d ($600-700)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 ($300-400) - excellent 3rd party lens
Canon 70-200 2.8 non is ($1000-1200)
2.8 throughout & right around your budget. Only drawback is that the Tamron isn't weather-sealed.
Sigmas can be good lenses, but have a reputation for erratic quality control, meaning they often need to be returned for focusing issues. Ziggy posted about his experiences with that lens in the other thread I linked, I believe (if not there, another recent thread - have a look.)
EDITED TO ADD: Here's the thread dicussing the Sigma 70-200 vs the Canon models
With a $2K budget, I would not even consider a 7D or anything else in that league. It won't leave you any money for glass.
One comment was:
I completely disagree. Go to the macro forum on this site, and see what the best people use. Some use expensive cameras. Some use Rebels--and old ones at that. In particular, check the shots and profile of Goldenorfe, the forum monitor. I personally found it helpful to move up from the Rebel line years ago because the ergnomics and controls of the more expensive cameras are much better, but you can get fabulous images from a Rebel. I agree with Divamum that if you want to move up to better controls, a used 50D would be a logical one to consider. I shoot with a 50D now, and while it does not have some of the features of the 7D--in particular, for your uses, it does not have the fabulous autofocus of the 7D--it is a very capable camera.
Given what you want to do, I think glass is going to be your biggest issue. Long, good, and cheap don't usually occur together. I think the key issue is how far away from the subject you want to be, and what focal length you need as a result. It has been years since I shot equestrian events, but I think I might go longer than Divamum suggested--probably 70-200. In that range, there are 5 L Canon options, most very expensive, as well as offerings from Tamron and Sigma. If you decide that is the range you want, post again, because that is a long discussion, and people will have different ideas.
Shot with a Rebel: