Thanks for the responses! I'm thinking the longest distance is going to be when I'm on a cross country course and honestly, in some cases, I can get pretty close. I would imagine that the most distance I'll try to shoot would be 200 feet. I'm trying to imagine the greatest distance I would try and I think it would top out at 200ft away. I would probably be closer to 100ft in most other cases. Now, I don't know exactly what that means as far as lenses. I feel the need to keep reiterating that I'm totally new and I need lamens terms. I do appreciate all the help! Yall are helping understand what I'm going to need and why. And the why is always very important to me.
ETA: The 70-200 is definitely top on my priority list and I will make sure there is room in the budget for a nice one.
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.
Yep. The T3i and T2i share the same sensor with the 7D (and the 60D, for that matter). You set up a tripod, take a T2i and a 7D, same lens, same everything, take a shot... they're gonna be pretty much identical. Obviously, the 7D has more features, which make it more expensive.
I still recommend the 50D, but Diva's right - you might find the controls of a Rebel easier, coming from a point & shoot. I'd go into a camera store and hold a 7D and a Rebel. If you like the 7D, you'll probably like the 50D/60D. If you like the Rebel controls better, the T2i and T3i are both good models.
I'm definitely going to hold all of them that I can prior to purchasing. Unfortunately, last time I was in the store they didn't have the 7d for me to be able to handle it any. I've had the opportunity to handle and shoot with the T3i in settings similar to what I'll be shooting in. What is the difference in the 60d and 50d?
I want to be able to do a little bit of everything. I do a lot of portraits and outdoor/motion photography and the camera I have now is just not cutting it. I do a lot of kids portraits as well as horse photography. I'm getting ready to do maternity photos for the first time too and also head shots for a few students at the local college. FPS is important to me for the in motion horse photos. I was looking at the 7D and D7000 but was wondering if there was anything maybe a step or two down from those that would work well for me. However, I don't want to make any big sacrifices and I certainly don't want to have to get another camera fter just a few months because it's not as good as I was hoping.
Buy as good as you can. A lot of the entry level cameras are entry level because the manufacturer's are price pointing them there. Entry level is not synonymous with starter camera. If you want to shoot motion...horses...you will not want to use an older focus system...sure they'll work...but it's easier to capture very nice photos with a good body, pretty good prosumer lens...better camera body equals faster focus, better subject tracking, higher ISO ability for shooting near dusk than it is with an older technology and better lens...not because L glass won't produce better results...but not better results if your camera won't focus fast enough when you want the quick shot...or you suddenly find yourself out of your camera's usable ISO range, or your camera's focus system uses old technology to sometimes track your subject and sometimes not so much.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the 7d and D7000 are a couple of the best new DSLR learner/starter level cameras out right now. Reasons below.
1. Shooting envelope is much larger...meaning you can capture great pictures in a lot more shooting conditions than any of it's predecessors. So, put it in P...program mode...same as Auto on cheaper cameras and take wonderful images. Conversely, with older technology...you have to worry a lot more about light...focus...ISO...tracking, etc. So, I actually think the D7000 or 7D are better starter cameras.
2. For the reasons above...they are a couple of the best and easiest to use point and shoot cameras that you can buy...in their price range...and maybe above. So, it's easy for you to pickup your new camera...take great shots in P mode (same as Auto on cheaper cameras)...and then work on the Aperture Priority (Av Canon), Shutter Speed (TV Canon) and Manual modes later as you have time and feel comfortable. These are very easy to learn...manual mode...on the other hand, takes some getting used to...especially if you are shooting action events.
3. When you buy older technology...older camera bodies, you are buying limitations. Limitations are your nemisis...your enemy in the photography world. The more limitations that you have, the better photographer you have to be to get the same good quality photo, Image Quality wise, as you do with a better, newer camera. Here's an example...noise has always been a problem at higher ISO's on older model cameras. At around ISO 1600 the idea was to shoot to the right...meaning that you actually want to slightly over expose the image...safe shoot, so that you have a better chance of less noise. Well, with the D7000 and 7D...not necessary...because they handle noise much better at higher ISO's for a variety of reasons...we'll bundle under new technology.
If you buy a 7d on your budget, you won't have much left over for any type of lens.
Some Nikon lensparing suggestions for the D7000: Note that all of the below lenses received good consumer reviews. I'm trying not to forget that you are a college student and that this is on a limited budget.
1. Image stablized 24-120mm F4...cost a little high...1169.00...total $2298.00 On the D7000 it will work like a 37-180mm lens...nice for shooting horses, and portraits...and reasonably wide for a carry around. I shot my D300 with a 24-70 on it for years...and while it wasn't quite wide enough, it was very usable. And it is image stabilized...can't say enough about that...even at faster shutter speeds when you out around 200mm...it's very easy at dusk for the camera to want to drop the shutter speed below 1/200 of a second at lower ISO's. For that reason...image stabilization on the 70-200mm is coveted. Camera shake from lower shutter speeds will look like you missed the focus producing soft images.
2. Image stablized 16-85mm F3.5-5.6...cost...649.00.00...total $1778.00 Very doable...and near your original budget. On the D700 it will act like a 24-127mm lens. Pretty good wide range and pretty good reach.
3. Image stabilized Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens...cost a little over $900.00...just slightly over your $2K budget. This lens produces some really nice images...I have personally seen the results. If you are thinking about shooting in the range of 100 ft and beyond...this might be the lens you are looking for. Image stabilized will really help at that range.
The D7000 and any of the above lenses will do what you want...giving consideration to the distance that you will be from the horses.
If you are looking for L Glass or pro lenses from Nikon, you are looking at spending most if not all of your budget. Certainly, a 70-200 with image stabilzation would be nice...top of the line...but more than your oiriginal budget and more than your upgraded budget.
I am not saying that the D7000 is better than the 7d...just that they are very close in preformance...and the the D7000 with one of the listed lenses works best with her budget. I personally wouldn't want to buy into the Canon line at less than the 7d...or the Nikon line at less than the D7000 as they both offer a superb set of features and capabilities.
Remember, no one may want you to take pictures, but they all want to see them. Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Lot's of great info! Thank you!! So let me make sure I understand here. If I get the d7000, I can get the 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 for about $650 and that would work for pretty much everything I want to do? And I would only need to buy one lens for the time being? If you were to suggest a second lens in addition to this one, what would you recommend?
16-85mm will definitely not cover everything you want to do - nothing like long enough for shooting cross-country (or even in the ring). You'd still need a 70-200 (the Nikon version is also pricey, and the same info applies to the 3rd-party lenses), or a longer telephoto prime (eg 200). Also, 5.6 at the long end of the 16-85 is slow (not ideal for sports) and already stopped down too much to blur the background well (not ideal for portraits).
Really, the d7000 will require the Nikon equivalents of the lenses several of us have suggested for Canon.
16-85mm will definitely not cover everything you want to do - nothing like long enough for shooting cross-country (or even in the ring). You'd still need a 70-200 (the Nikon version is also pricey, and the same info applies to the 3rd-party lenses), or a longer telephoto prime (eg 200). Also, 5.6 at the long end of the 16-85 is slow (not ideal for sports) and already stopped down too much to blur the background well (not ideal for portraits).
Really, the d7000 will require the Nikon equivalents of the lenses several of us have suggested for Canon.
Ok gotcha, thanks! I'm kind of leaning toward the Canon 60D. And getting the 70-200 lens and a basic lens for portraits. I think with that, I'd at least be near my budget. I like the idea of a middle ground between the T3i and 7D. If I don't go that route I think I'm going to go with the Nikon d7k with the lens equivalent to the 70-200. Decision, decisions....
What lens would be good for indoor and outdoor portraits? I want something with some zoom room but certainly not anywhere near what the 70-200 will be.
As mentioned earlier, a Tamron 17-50 ($300-400) will make an affordable, quality choice of "standard" focal length zoom with exceptional optical quality for the $. The AF isn't as fast as the Canon equivalent, the 17-55is, but the Canon is nearly double the price and is also known to have issues with "inhaling dust" (dust gets sucked inside the lens via the zoom mechanism). Given the environments you plan to shoot, that would be something to consider.
If you're not planning to use the shorter zoom all that much, you could also get by with the current 18-55 kit lens (~$100 and, for the money, not a terrible lens although not in the same league as the two mentioned above), and supplement it with a 50mm 1.4 prime for low light situations and portraits.
Just getting a camera with good AF isn't going to ensure that you have fast AF. You NEED a lens with fast AF. Usually, this means USM for Canon, HSM for Sigma, or... I forget what it is for Nikon. Three letters .
Seriously, I have a 1D Mark II - one of Canon's best AF systems ever. Some say THE best ever. I've used consumer lenses on it, and the AF is NOT FAST. On the other hand, I've used my 70-200 L, a lens with very fast AF, on old cameras like the 10D. The AF is faster with that combo than a slow lens with a fast body. And the AF system in the 10D is old and lousy, BTW - I'd bet the T3i AF is a bit better. If fast AF was my only consideration, I'd take a T3i with a 70-200 L over a 1D Mark IV with a 50 1.8 any day.
My point: you can't just get a good camera that has a good AF system. To have fast AF, you need fast-focusing lenses.
BTW, you asked the differences between the 50D and 60D. 60D advantages: smaller body, video, flip screen, better sensor. 50D advantages: metal body, better ergonomics (IMHO of course), 1.3 more fps (6.3 vs 5).
Since you're getting all of these recommendations from us, some of them contradicting others, I'd advise you to go buy a camera. Save as much as you can for lenses, but get a competent body. The 50D, 60D, D7000, T2i, and T3i are all competent bodies. If I were you, I'd get a 50D or a D7000. You've got plenty of camera body advice to go on. Then once you've got a camera, come back and tell us your budget for lenses. We'll be able to offer better help that way
That was an excellent post! I'm going to give it some thought and then I'll definitely be back with questions about lenses. I feel like every time I read a post, I change my mind on the camera body so I'm going to give it some thought, decide what I like and what seems like it will work best for me.....And then I'll be back with a flood of lens questions!!
Lot's of great info! Thank you!! So let me make sure I understand here. If I get the d7000, I can get the 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 for about $650 and that would work for pretty much everything I want to do? And I would only need to buy one lens for the time being? If you were to suggest a second lens in addition to this one, what would you recommend?
Throw a couple of suggestions in here...Sigma 17-70f2.8-4 (stabilized lens) and 70-200 f2.8 stabilized for hand holding...great resolution and also lighter weight than any Canon or Nikon Lens...i..Lots of really Good glass on ebay and also on various forums For Sale threads (called Flea Market here)......I use a Sigma 50-500 for wildlife, it is not stabilized so I use a tripod a lot....but that has been my M.O. for over 30 yrs....never had stabilization for any of my film cameras or lenses.... lol...lol...lol
If I were you, I'd buy the most entry level camera with kit lenses available and start from there. (Nikon D3100/Canon Rebel, whichever is comfortable in your hand.)
Read the manual two or three times through.
Put the camera in manual mode and never look back.
Shoot. EVERY. DAY.
(this worked for me and others I'm sure lol)
There used to be kits with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses for around a grand.
Start there and by actually using the gear, you'll learn your real limitations. If you take crappy pics off the bat, figure out what part of exposure you're struggling with and I promise you, you'll figure out what you need and what you don't need.
Picture too dark? Work on exposure.
Not sharp enough? Work on breathing, camera positioning, and timing.
Missed the shot? Work on timing.
Low light issues? Nifty fifty.
AF Not fast enough? ANY f/2.8 with stabilization will do.
Will you eventually find yourself gravitating towards the old standards? 24-70/70-200... maybe, maybe not. If you're not shooting indoors in medium/low lighting, you'll never need 'em. If you're shooting weddings, you'll swear you'll die without them. Or maybe you compensate for your lesser lenses with added light. A flash will make just about any lens sharper for cheaper.
There are just too many variables to give you one path and say you'll do well. Gear is 3% of the equation. The rest is... you.
Comments
Hence why I suggested the 200 2.8 alongside the 24-105 and... see post directly above yours
ETA: The 70-200 is definitely top on my priority list and I will make sure there is room in the budget for a nice one.
Yep. The T3i and T2i share the same sensor with the 7D (and the 60D, for that matter). You set up a tripod, take a T2i and a 7D, same lens, same everything, take a shot... they're gonna be pretty much identical. Obviously, the 7D has more features, which make it more expensive.
I still recommend the 50D, but Diva's right - you might find the controls of a Rebel easier, coming from a point & shoot. I'd go into a camera store and hold a 7D and a Rebel. If you like the 7D, you'll probably like the 50D/60D. If you like the Rebel controls better, the T2i and T3i are both good models.
Buy as good as you can. A lot of the entry level cameras are entry level because the manufacturer's are price pointing them there. Entry level is not synonymous with starter camera. If you want to shoot motion...horses...you will not want to use an older focus system...sure they'll work...but it's easier to capture very nice photos with a good body, pretty good prosumer lens...better camera body equals faster focus, better subject tracking, higher ISO ability for shooting near dusk than it is with an older technology and better lens...not because L glass won't produce better results...but not better results if your camera won't focus fast enough when you want the quick shot...or you suddenly find yourself out of your camera's usable ISO range, or your camera's focus system uses old technology to sometimes track your subject and sometimes not so much.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the 7d and D7000 are a couple of the best new DSLR learner/starter level cameras out right now. Reasons below.
1. Shooting envelope is much larger...meaning you can capture great pictures in a lot more shooting conditions than any of it's predecessors. So, put it in P...program mode...same as Auto on cheaper cameras and take wonderful images. Conversely, with older technology...you have to worry a lot more about light...focus...ISO...tracking, etc. So, I actually think the D7000 or 7D are better starter cameras.
2. For the reasons above...they are a couple of the best and easiest to use point and shoot cameras that you can buy...in their price range...and maybe above. So, it's easy for you to pickup your new camera...take great shots in P mode (same as Auto on cheaper cameras)...and then work on the Aperture Priority (Av Canon), Shutter Speed (TV Canon) and Manual modes later as you have time and feel comfortable. These are very easy to learn...manual mode...on the other hand, takes some getting used to...especially if you are shooting action events.
3. When you buy older technology...older camera bodies, you are buying limitations. Limitations are your nemisis...your enemy in the photography world. The more limitations that you have, the better photographer you have to be to get the same good quality photo, Image Quality wise, as you do with a better, newer camera. Here's an example...noise has always been a problem at higher ISO's on older model cameras. At around ISO 1600 the idea was to shoot to the right...meaning that you actually want to slightly over expose the image...safe shoot, so that you have a better chance of less noise. Well, with the D7000 and 7D...not necessary...because they handle noise much better at higher ISO's for a variety of reasons...we'll bundle under new technology.
After looking at camera body prices a few minutes ago...I recommend the Nikon D7000 body, at B&H it's $1129.00...which leaves you $871 for a good lens. The Canon 7d body was $1569 body...no lens...ouch. D7000 preview here. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond7000/ YouTube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox3SZPdeqYY
If you buy a 7d on your budget, you won't have much left over for any type of lens.
Some Nikon lensparing suggestions for the D7000: Note that all of the below lenses received good consumer reviews. I'm trying not to forget that you are a college student and that this is on a limited budget.
1. Image stablized 24-120mm F4...cost a little high...1169.00...total $2298.00 On the D7000 it will work like a 37-180mm lens...nice for shooting horses, and portraits...and reasonably wide for a carry around. I shot my D300 with a 24-70 on it for years...and while it wasn't quite wide enough, it was very usable. And it is image stabilized...can't say enough about that...even at faster shutter speeds when you out around 200mm...it's very easy at dusk for the camera to want to drop the shutter speed below 1/200 of a second at lower ISO's. For that reason...image stabilization on the 70-200mm is coveted. Camera shake from lower shutter speeds will look like you missed the focus producing soft images.
2. Image stablized 16-85mm F3.5-5.6...cost...649.00.00...total $1778.00 Very doable...and near your original budget. On the D700 it will act like a 24-127mm lens. Pretty good wide range and pretty good reach.
3. Image stabilized Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Zoom Lens...cost a little over $900.00...just slightly over your $2K budget. This lens produces some really nice images...I have personally seen the results. If you are thinking about shooting in the range of 100 ft and beyond...this might be the lens you are looking for. Image stabilized will really help at that range.
The D7000 and any of the above lenses will do what you want...giving consideration to the distance that you will be from the horses.
If you are looking for L Glass or pro lenses from Nikon, you are looking at spending most if not all of your budget. Certainly, a 70-200 with image stabilzation would be nice...top of the line...but more than your oiriginal budget and more than your upgraded budget.
I am not saying that the D7000 is better than the 7d...just that they are very close in preformance...and the the D7000 with one of the listed lenses works best with her budget. I personally wouldn't want to buy into the Canon line at less than the 7d...or the Nikon line at less than the D7000 as they both offer a superb set of features and capabilities.
Educate yourself like you'll live forever and live like you'll die tomorrow.
Ed
Really, the d7000 will require the Nikon equivalents of the lenses several of us have suggested for Canon.
Ok gotcha, thanks! I'm kind of leaning toward the Canon 60D. And getting the 70-200 lens and a basic lens for portraits. I think with that, I'd at least be near my budget. I like the idea of a middle ground between the T3i and 7D. If I don't go that route I think I'm going to go with the Nikon d7k with the lens equivalent to the 70-200. Decision, decisions....
What lens would be good for indoor and outdoor portraits? I want something with some zoom room but certainly not anywhere near what the 70-200 will be.
If you're not planning to use the shorter zoom all that much, you could also get by with the current 18-55 kit lens (~$100 and, for the money, not a terrible lens although not in the same league as the two mentioned above), and supplement it with a 50mm 1.4 prime for low light situations and portraits.
Seriously, I have a 1D Mark II - one of Canon's best AF systems ever. Some say THE best ever. I've used consumer lenses on it, and the AF is NOT FAST. On the other hand, I've used my 70-200 L, a lens with very fast AF, on old cameras like the 10D. The AF is faster with that combo than a slow lens with a fast body. And the AF system in the 10D is old and lousy, BTW - I'd bet the T3i AF is a bit better. If fast AF was my only consideration, I'd take a T3i with a 70-200 L over a 1D Mark IV with a 50 1.8 any day.
My point: you can't just get a good camera that has a good AF system. To have fast AF, you need fast-focusing lenses.
BTW, you asked the differences between the 50D and 60D. 60D advantages: smaller body, video, flip screen, better sensor. 50D advantages: metal body, better ergonomics (IMHO of course), 1.3 more fps (6.3 vs 5).
Since you're getting all of these recommendations from us, some of them contradicting others, I'd advise you to go buy a camera. Save as much as you can for lenses, but get a competent body. The 50D, 60D, D7000, T2i, and T3i are all competent bodies. If I were you, I'd get a 50D or a D7000. You've got plenty of camera body advice to go on. Then once you've got a camera, come back and tell us your budget for lenses. We'll be able to offer better help that way
Thanks everyone for the responses and advice!
Throw a couple of suggestions in here...Sigma 17-70f2.8-4 (stabilized lens) and 70-200 f2.8 stabilized for hand holding...great resolution and also lighter weight than any Canon or Nikon Lens...i..Lots of really Good glass on ebay and also on various forums For Sale threads (called Flea Market here)......I use a Sigma 50-500 for wildlife, it is not stabilized so I use a tripod a lot....but that has been my M.O. for over 30 yrs....never had stabilization for any of my film cameras or lenses.... lol...lol...lol
Good Luck.
If I were you, I'd buy the most entry level camera with kit lenses available and start from there. (Nikon D3100/Canon Rebel, whichever is comfortable in your hand.)
Read the manual two or three times through.
Put the camera in manual mode and never look back.
Shoot. EVERY. DAY.
(this worked for me and others I'm sure lol)
There used to be kits with the 18-55 and 55-200 lenses for around a grand.
Start there and by actually using the gear, you'll learn your real limitations. If you take crappy pics off the bat, figure out what part of exposure you're struggling with and I promise you, you'll figure out what you need and what you don't need.
Picture too dark? Work on exposure.
Not sharp enough? Work on breathing, camera positioning, and timing.
Missed the shot? Work on timing.
Low light issues? Nifty fifty.
AF Not fast enough? ANY f/2.8 with stabilization will do.
Will you eventually find yourself gravitating towards the old standards? 24-70/70-200... maybe, maybe not. If you're not shooting indoors in medium/low lighting, you'll never need 'em. If you're shooting weddings, you'll swear you'll die without them. Or maybe you compensate for your lesser lenses with added light. A flash will make just about any lens sharper for cheaper.
There are just too many variables to give you one path and say you'll do well. Gear is 3% of the equation. The rest is... you.
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr