Camera Help

Bar_Down

Bar_Down

Active member
K guys, I know there are hundreds of threads out there asking the same questions, and I read quite a few of them and then decided it'd be easier/i'd get the best response if I just created my own thread.

Alright, so I'm looking for a camera. I would use it mainly to take pictures of landscapes and buildings and things like that (not many portraits or anything, and not really for filming). I My budget I'd say is somewhere in the 500-800 range. I have photoshop, but I've never really used it before. I have used editing software in the past but only for videos (power director and vegas pro) and I was fairly comfortable using those so I think I'd be able to figure it out pretty quickly by watching tutorial vids and all that.

I know 500-800 bucks in this market isn't a whole lot, but for now I'm not really looking for anything too too fancy; just something that takes good pictures and that I can build from in the future. I was looking at a few DSLR's but there are so many different models and everything that I'm having a hard time deciding which one to pick. I've only ever used low end point-and-shoots til now so I'm pretty new to all this. I wanted to see if you more experienced photographers out there had any advice for me?

Thanks guys
 
a used 1d mark 2 is only about $600, but it will be hard to find a good wind angle in your budget. If you could save a little more, a 1d mark 2 and a wide angle would be an awesome set up
 
I saw at future shop that I could get a Canon Rebel T2i with a 18-55mm IS lens kit for 630$. Would that be legit or no?
 
a t2i is a solid camera, the 18-55 lens isn't great, and if you buy a used photo camera (without a video mode), you can get a lot more for your money
 
get any body that fits your budget, but don't skip the glass, it really makes a difference, if youre looking for cheaper good glass, look at tokina, or sigma. not the quality of canon but not bad, also look for old primes, you cant beat that glass
 
getting a used t2i and then some old manual focus primes would probably be your best bet
 
i'd go with a Nikon D3100 or D5100. Everyone on NS will tell you Canon because there are a lot of filmers and fanboys (I say this with the utmost respect), but for photos I feel that Nikon is the way to go. Less visible noise at high ISO which is important, and I find the AF system to be more accurate. In my opinion, it's much much easier to change settings on the go with Nikon, and Nikon CLS is great. I feel that Nikon has always outdone Canon and Canon is always playing "catch up" in terms of everything except video.

And cue shitstorm.
 
If you mainly shoot landscapes and buildings (and not portraits), I would go for a Nikon D90 with a Nikkor 16-85mm lens.

The D90 goes for about the same price as a D5100 these days, and not counting video, it's a much better camera.

The 16-85mm is one of the sharpest Nikon lenses, it is really good for landscapes and the wider 16mm end could come in handy for shooting buildings.

I realize that this combo is a bit more expensive than the $800 you have in mind. You could go with a kit lens or the excellent 35mm prime lens for the time being, and upgrade to a more expensive lens at a later point in time.
 
Do you really even need a DSLR? You can get waaaaay more bang for you buck if you look into the high end point and shoots. Withe a budget like that you could pick up one of the new Fuji X10's. I hear great things about them and they're sexy as hell!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/817840-REG/Fujifilm_16190089_X10_Digital_Camera_Black.html

I feel as if people here need to get away from DSLR focus for people who want to learn photography. There's a lot of other high quality stuff out there!!

I definitely want to move away from DSLR on my next digital purchase, I'm eying up the X100... droool..
 
I'll follow up more. An SLR can be a really big, unnecessary commitment in a lot of ways. It's a lot to carry around with, and it takes longer to shoot, and it will cost at least 1200 bucks to get what is kind of the standard in quality. I have a Lumix DMC-LX5 and i love it! (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/817840-REG/Fujifilm_16190089_X10_Digital_Camera_Black.html) When I'm not committed to shooting with my SLR I always have it it with me and I get great results from it. I've ended up making quite a few large prints with it so there really isnt that much that i miss from my SLR in it. Don't limit yourself to SLR thinkign thats the best way to get "good" results. I'll bet that someone with minimal photography experience will get better results out of one of these than an SLR.
 
I would say a (D)SLR is a much better instrument to "learn photography" than these lousy point-and-shoots.

You also forget to mention that if you need $1200 to build a decent quality kit, a large part of that investment will hold its value over time, or even increase in value. A point-and-shoot loses most its value in 2 years.
 
I linked the wrong camera n my last post. This is my additional camera to my 60D: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/723288-REG/Panasonic_DMC_LX5K_Lumix_DMC_LX5_Digital_Camera.html

And yeah, very good points. I didn't get my addition point and shoot until I already had an established DSLR set-up. In my mind though, it's all about level of commitment. It's easy to get excited about something and think that you need the standard in equipment - I can speak from experience.

When I was 15 I got all excited about photography and saved and saved and everythign and picked up a Rebel Xti (cost like 900 bucks at the time) when they first came out and I really didnt need that much of a camera (i know, its a lousy camera, but I was 15.) I ended up loosing motivation for photography pretty quick and didnt pick it up again till I was 17 and i started shooting a lot again, and now I'm going towards a profession in imaging. In hindsight I wish I had gone with a lesser point and shoot at the time.

I totally get what you're saying about value of the equipment, but in my mind the value of knowledge and actual results are more important in the long run. For the sake of a positive learning curve, I don't like to recommend SLR's to people getting into it, but I'm just speaking from experience.

Also, there are many point and shoots out there that are nowhere near "lousy" camera's. Canon's G12? Fuji X100? Nikon P7100? These are all damn good camera's.. then there's the mirrorless camera's that are out now..

To relate it all back to the OP, I have no idea how much experience he has with photography so my advice is aimed towards someone who is virtually a beginner.

 
well ya i wouldnt really call myself a full out beginner. i had a point n shoot before and i always loved taking pictures while i was on trips and whatnot and i must say i was able to take some pretty good pictures. now, im looking for something a bit more advanced that i can play around with; i have a friend who has a DSLR and i experienced it a little bit and took a few pictures with it one night and i liked it, thats why i was thinking of getting one of my own
 
Good to know man, if that's the case and you feel like you've hit a limit on what you can do with a P&S and are genuinely interested in fully getting into photography, then maybe you are ready for the fun that is having a DSLR. it'll be hard to do on your budget, but definitely look into what everyone else has been posting in the thread - they're giving you some great advice. good luck and have fun with it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top