Newbie needs Camera/Lense recommendations

[THaNaToZ]

Hello All,

I'm a new member here that was referred over from a different tech forum.
I've been looking up DSLR cameras for a bit and reading up on them but probably have a long way to go.

Anyhow, I've opened this thread because I'm looking for some advice to make the leap to a DSLR.

I routinely travel, go to conventions, sporting events, etc.

From what I've gathered, I'd need a telescopic lense for those distance shots (would have to sacrifice speed). Outdoor and indoor shots.
Addtionally, I'll be checking out some Mayan ruins in March and I think I need a wide angle lense

I doubt I will be using a tripod for any shots and aware of the need to carry around multiple lenses depending on the need.

I've looked up some cameras on line for recommendations but wanted to see what you guys would recommend in terms of a camera and lense.

Obviously, I will still be learning as I go but I'm motivated and have to start somewhere.
I know price will be a huge factor so I'm not looking for the top of the line stuff.

These are the few that I've seen listed as recommended on some sites. I'm by no means entirely looking for a Nikon so any help would be great. Thanks
Nikon D5300
Nikon D3100.
Nikon D7000

[William W]

Anyhow, I've opened this thread because I'm looking for some advice to make the leap to a DSLR.

What camera / cameras do you use at the moment?

WW

[inkista]

Also, why specifically do you think you want a dSLR? And are you willing to purchase used/refurbished gear?

There are mirrorless cameras and fixed-lens large sensor compacts these days, so the choice isn't really P&S vs. dSLR these days, as it was about five years ago...

Sports to me says dSLR. But travel to me says mirrorless or large-sensor compact.

If you do get an interchangeable lens camera, many of them come with a "kit lens" in the box that will be good for travel snapshot shooting. They go from wide angle to medium (i.e, "normal") length, so you probably don't have to get a specialized wide-angle lens right off the bat. And you could also learn to panostitch.

I'd also recommend looking at this Wikipedia table of Nikon dSLR models (there are links there for similar tables for dSLRs from other brands). These tables lay out the models by generation and tier, so you can get a sense of where a specific model lies in terms of age and features.

[THaNaToZ]

Currently using a P&S camera that fits in my pocket. Some Canon 870.

I'd like the opportunity to take better pictures. I'm out and about pretty often and while the current camera takes good profile and upclose shots, its always lacking in scenary and distance among other things.

I doubt I'd want used/refurbished but ok with older models.

I'm not overly concerned with the speed shots. I would definitely like to be able to take shots from 100 ft away indoor and more outdoor. Or nice scenic shots of ruins, beaches, etc.

[FrankMi]

Your total budget needs to take into account the total package THaNaToZ. There is quite a difference in price between a D3100 and a D7000 even at used prices. I bought my D3100 several years ago and opted to add a 300mm telephoto and an 11mm wide angle. By the time I got a tripod, kit bag, memory chips, spare batteries, some processing software and, and, and, - the total kit was about $2,000 US. Granted, I wasn't buying used, but it might be worth while to see how far your budget will take you and if you need all of the gear at once or can you space the purchases out over time.

[rpcrowe]

I would strongly recommend that ANYONE considering a camera think seriously about buying refurbished...

This is not only to save money (but you will save money, sometimes quite a bit) but, IMO, a refurbished camera has a better chance of working perfectly right out of the box because it has been checked by a human technician and brought to within factory standards.

I have purchased numerous refurbished Canon cameras and two new cameras. The new cameras both needed to be returned to Canon for maintenance within the first 90-days of purchase. My four refurbished cameras worked perfectly from the start and have continued to work very well. I assume that Nikon refurbs are up to the same quality standards. Canon now provides a full one-year warranty on their factory refurbished items. But, like I just mentioned, I purchased the refurbished cameras when Canon only offered a 90-day warranty on refurbs. I have never needed service on any of my refurbished cameras and have used them hard for years (30D, 40D and two 7D cameras)

You can purchase a camera + lens as a kit but, the lenses supplied with the Canon (and I would expect Nikon) kits are decent lenses but certainly no more than that.

If I were looking for a camera for your purposes, I would look into a Canon 60D (or Nikon equivalent) refurbished body and equip it with a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens and a Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VC lens. That three lens kit should not cost too much more than a new body with kit lenses but, should provide better image quality...

BTW: I would not purchase the most entry level camera but, go one or two models up the food-chain. I personally like the Canon xxD and 7D cameras far better than the entry level Rebels because they have better control capabilities - much of this is because of the two dial controls that are not available in the Rebels. I am not a Nikon guy, so I cannot advise you regarding specific models if you have your heart set on than brand...

[THaNaToZ]

Thanks for the responses everyone, I found all this extremely helpful and definitely open to refurbished.

I have a few follow up questions

1. (the easy one) I figured I'd need a 300mm telephoto lense for distance shots. I see focal point but I don't see anything in terms of a generic range? Say I go to a convention under florescent or dim lighting and I'd like to take pictures of people on a stage/panel, how do I determine what will meet my needs? I find with a P&S, if I keep flash on, its extremely dark at that range, and with it off, its grainy. Obviously the optical zoom won't match the lense.

2. (a generic answer will do) I'm looking over both Canon and Nikon and unless I'm missing something, what exactly are the differences between the range of camera? I guess what I'm asking is, what benefits do I get for stepping up each tier?

[inkista]

1. (the easy one) I figured I'd need a 300mm telephoto lense for distance shots. I see focal point but I don't see anything in terms of a generic range? Say I go to a convention under florescent or dim lighting and I'd like to take pictures of people on a stage/panel, how do I determine what will meet my needs? I find with a P&S, if I keep flash on, its extremely dark at that range, and with it off, its grainy. Obviously the optical zoom won't match the lense.

Problem with a lower-cost 70-300 zoom lens, say, is that it'll typically be a slower lens. f/4-5.6. This means at the 70mm end of the zoom, it can only up to f/4, and at the 300mm end of the zoom, it can only open up to f/5.6. Throw in low light, and the 1/focal_length rule to mitigate motion blur from handholding, and you're generally up against it and needing decent iso 3200 or iso 6400 performance. You CAN do it, but it's tough.


Panasonic DMC-G3 (micro four-thirds camera, 2x crop sensor)+Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-200mm f/4-5.6 OIS lens. @200mm (400mm film equiv.), iso 3200, f/5.6, 1/320s.

The size of the venue, and how close you can get, however, is what will dictate the focal lengths you need. I've managed with an 85 and a 135 on a crop body dSLR.


Canon XT/350D. EF 85mm f/1.8 USM. Worldcon 2006. When you could still approach GRRM easily.


Canon XT/350D. EF 135mm f/2L USM. [Room 6]

But in Hall H, that 135L looks like this:


Canon XT/350D. EF 135mm f/2L USM.

So it all depends.

2. (a generic answer will do) I'm looking over both Canon and Nikon and unless I'm missing something, what exactly are the differences between the range of camera? I guess what I'm asking is, what benefits do I get for stepping up each tier?

Entry level is low-cost, but feature-poor.
Going up each tier will typically get you more shooting features, better ergonomics, deeper menus, and better physical controls (e.g., dual wheel controls: say, one for aperture, the other for shutter speed than a single wheel and a modal button; and a top LCD so you don't have to go menu diving to set things; higher burst rates, better AF systems; a flash master in the pop-up, etc.). But typically cameras across tiers will share a sensor/processor, so image quality is unlikely to be a huge differentiating factor.

In terms of Canon vs. Nikon that's an endless debate. The quality is the same, but the personalities are different, so for some folks one or the other will be a better choice.

Personally, if travel is a huge priority for you, and you like to travel light and fast-action photography isn't a huge deal to you, I'd say consider a mirrorless camera (Sony NEX, micro four-thirds, Fuji X) instead of a dSLR. I do Comic-Con every year that I can get a ticket (so far, knock wood, I haven't missed attending every year since 1981. Last year was the first year I couldn't get a full pass to all days of the convention, damnit). I tend to hate wasting time shlepping things back and forth from the car, so I carry all my photo gear with me at all times. With my Canon setup, this was tough and very heavy and limited (say, my 5DMkII, 24-105, 135L, and a fast wider prime, like the 40/2.8 STM or 50/1.8II). With my mft setup, I'm having a considerably better time because I can carry five lenses with me--but I curse the hell out of the mirrorless when someone starts dancing around the stage very quickly [the Psych panel was hell for me last year--the AF can't keep up in low light. I'm considering upgrading to a GX-7, but have no idea how much that will improve matters.

But that's Comic-Con. Most conventions don't use venues nearly that big or that crowded, and you may even have easy access to a hotel room/car/locker/table to stash your stuff. At Comic-Con it's often a 20-minute one-way hike to the car, and getting back to where you were can be like being a salmon at spawning time.

[xpatUSA]

Hello All,

Addtionally, I'll be checking out some Mayan ruins in March and I think I need a wide angle lens

Yes, having been to Palenque many years ago (the one with the rocket-man tomb) I would agree. As I recall there wasn't a huge area where you could step back to get it all in, and it was surrounded by jungle.

Other ruins are even bigger, I've read.

[RustBeltRaw]

1. (the easy one) I figured I'd need a 300mm telephoto lense for distance shots. I see focal point but I don't see anything in terms of a generic range? Say I go to a convention under florescent or dim lighting and I'd like to take pictures of people on a stage/panel, how do I determine what will meet my needs? I find with a P&S, if I keep flash on, its extremely dark at that range, and with it off, its grainy. Obviously the optical zoom won't match the lense.

A good-quality telephoto is a rare bird at entry-level prices. 75/70-300mm lenses are common, but they're usually f5.6 at the long end, which is only sufficient for fairly bright indoor environments, and quite acceptable outdoors. You will notice that the used market is chock full of lenses like this, generally because people are unhappy with their image quality. The good news is that you can easily find a suitable one used, and re-sell it with minimal loss if you don't like it.

For Canon, a used 135mm f2.0L and a 1.4X version II teleconverter will set you back about $1,000-$1,200, and give you an effective 189mm f2.8 on full frame (302mm f2.8 on 1.6x crop). That's probably about as cheap as high image quality telephotos get, even though it's sort of cheating. On the other hand, if you're okay with a shorter lens, the 100mm f2.0L USM is excellent (but not teleconverter-compatible).

That's a weird recommendation. Many will, with good reasons, disagree, and may offer the 200mm f2.8L (iffy image quality), or older 70-200mm f2.8L lenses. These have cost advantages, but compared to the current version, they have less image quality and sometimes no IS.

2. (a generic answer will do) I'm looking over both Canon and Nikon and unless I'm missing something, what exactly are the differences between the range of camera? I guess what I'm asking is, what benefits do I get for stepping up each tier?

I'm about to start a firestorm, but here it goes. There will be lots of italics, qualifications, debatable points, and thinly-supported opinions in the following sentences.

In general, assuming similar price points, Nikon cameras tend to focus better in low light, and seem to handle higher levels of red without over-saturating the sensor. They usually have an ISO200 native speed and different control layouts. Nikon bodies are generally cheaper (for the same features), and have higher pixel counts per dollar, but their lenses are generally more expensive. Lens compatibility isn't as clear, since some Nikon-mount lenses require a focus motor in the camera (IE, lens has no internal focus motor).

Canon tends to have very slightly better build quality, a simpler range of lenses (all internal focus motors), and sensors which handle blue a little better. At similar price points, there is no significant difference in Canon vs. Nikon high-ISO performance. Comparing lenses, Canons often have tiny performance advantages.

CliffNotes version is that Nikon bodies are a little better, but their lens range is more confusing and sometimes falls behind Canon a bit. You will be hard-pressed to see a difference if you switch, but if you decide to, better to do so before getting too heavily invested in Canon.

For what it's worth, I shoot Canon. Because my mother shot Canon film cameras, and that's what I learned on, not because I'm a saavy shopper. Knowing what I know now, I would probably start with a Nikon setup. But in light of the cost, the differences are way too small to consider switching.

[shreds]

Hi

A flash on a point and shoot at that distance is of no practical use whatsoever. The range of the effective flash is probably a dozen feet or so. So don't even think about it. (Take a look at the CiC tutorials regarding light fall off with distance).

If I was shooting a conference I would obtain permission of the Conference organisers and speakers to place pocket wizards with flash guns/strobes attached, at the front of the stage or even in the ceiling if the place has such facilities. Be careful, the speakers will not want strobes shooting off at them every couple of seconds or directly into their eyes. Hopefully if the stage lighting is good enough, then with a reasonably high ISO and a decent lens, you may be able to shoot without the need for them, but from what you say, it sounds like the stages are pretty dark.

Also consider that the lens is way more important than the camera. Spend your money on that.

Second hand kit…ebay no….established quality camera shop…..definitely.

One of my cameras is a very low shutter acctuations s/h camera and it was around half the new price. Brilliant. No hesitation in recommending that, but you do need to know and trust your dealer. A lot of the price of a new camera is lost the moment you walk out of the dealer's door, a bit like a car.

Nikon or Canon….no difference….both quality manufacturers with well established reputations. Only if you have existing lenses or kit should that sway you. But once you settle on a system (which I did twenty years ago) stick with it. The 'other side' will bring out an equivalent offering soon. Swapping between them is foolish and costly.

[THaNaToZ]

Thanks again for all the helpful advice. After going back and forth between the Nikon 7100 and Canon 70D, I'm going to go for the Canon 70D. I've checked both in the stores and I think the LCD, lenses, etc lead me more to the Canon. I read Nikon has better in low light but it'll make do.
I found a bundle that is either the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM or EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM
and a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II

that sounds close to what was suggested above for my needs.
Would you guys prefer either the 55 or 135? Should I pick up any other lenses in the short term?
Is there a desired preference for memory card to use in DSLRs? I haven't found anything on this if it makes a difference.

[Glenn NK]

My suggestion; get the camera with the kit lens (whatever the camera and kit lens is).

I have a tendency to believe that if someone doesn't know what they want, they shouldn't ask for advice as to what to get because:

1) People tend to recommend what they like rather than what's useful for the person asking - that's human nature. I've seem some real doozies of replies in this vein. Personal bias can be very strong and misleading to someone else who doesn't recognize the bias.

2) Some recommendations are based on the advisor not even knowing or being familiar with the gear that's being recommended (translation = "read it on the 'net").

3) Only from experience will you learn what you need. For example, you try to shoot flower closeups and the lens doesn't focus closely enough.

The kit lens will let you learn, explore, and find out what your objectives and desires are (particularly if it doesn't meet them - bitter experience is a good teacher).

I cringe whenever I read a post with a beginner asking for advice because they will often get advice that is inappropriate or inaccurate (or both). This never happens on this forum.

Glenn

[FrankMi]

Ah but Glenn!, the advice is worth every penny you paid for it!

In the end, it is still up to the requestor to decide what is best for them and the feedback can both focus one's thought process and can help overcome the "I don't know what it is that I don't know' issue.

[William W]

I'm going to go for the Canon 70D.

Good.

*

I read Nikon has better in low light but it'll make do.

It would be interesting if many of us would notice the difference in real life shooting.
Good and experienced post production skills, combined with nailing the exposure accurately, will benefit you much more than any difference between the two cameras, I suspect.

*

I found a bundle that is either the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM or EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM and a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II

Please clarify?

"a bundle that is either: the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - OR - the EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM - AND - a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II"

-OR-

"a bundle that is either: the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - AND - a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II; - OR - EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM - AND - a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II"

*

Should I pick up any other lenses in the short term?

No.
Not until you understand WHY you want to buy them

*

Is there a desired preference for memory card to use in DSLRs? I haven't found anything on this if it makes a difference.

I use Sandisc - mainly "Extreme Pro". (Series 10 cards)
It can makes a difference if you buy 'knock off copies' of quality brand names.
The speed/series can make a significant difference if you want to shoot video.

Some people want to shoot 10 million frames per second for stills shots - what card you choose will make a difference if tnat is your desire to shoot machine gun style.

Basically good quality and fast cards a quite cheap - so I suggest that you buy one card (maybe 8Gb or 16Gb) that is good quality and fast and don't think to much more about it.


WW

[RustBeltRaw]

Basically good quality and fast cards a quite cheap - so I suggest that you buy one card (maybe 8Gb or 16Gb) that is good quality and fast and don't think to much more about it.

Seconded. Lexar and SanDisk are probably the manufacturers with the best reputations. When comparing cards, look for weatherproofing (SanDisk Ultra series), and look directly at the quoted read/write speeds in the specifications. Cards are sorted into speed classes, but frequently by their read speeds, not their write speeds. In-camera, the latter is the relevant factor, so keep an eye on it, and only worry about card speed if you're an action shooter. Reliability is most important, regardless of the speed.

[THaNaToZ]

Good.

"a bundle that is either: the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - OR - the EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM - AND - a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II"

-OR-

"a bundle that is either: the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM - AND - a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II; - OR - EF-S 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS STM - AND - a EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II"

WW

The second one.. The 55-250 is a part of package no matter what. Choice of 55 or 135, with obviously a minimal (to me) price difference.
So as stated above, looking for landscape, distance shots for conventions/sports, "normal" close up shots, other close ups, etc.

[bnnrcn]

Hi,I'm very new in photography so please check my advice with the experts.If you have 55-250 in hand already I would go for 18-55 instead of 18-135 because there are less elements in 18-55 and this improves the quality of your shots.Although you say you won't need a tripod you will actually see if you need one when you start shooting.You will also need a bag,batteries etc.as Frank says.So I advice you to think about the total cost of your needs before you decide.Please check 'the number of elements' matter with someone who has more technical knowledge than me.Good luck :-)

The second one.. The 55-250 is a part of package no matter what. Choice of 55 or 135, with obviously a minimal (to me) price difference.
So as stated above, looking for landscape, distance shots for conventions/sports, "normal" close up shots, other close ups, etc.

[William W]

The second one.. The 55-250 is a part of package no matter what. Choice of 55 or 135, with obviously a minimal (to me) price difference.
So as stated above, looking for landscape, distance shots for conventions/sports, "normal" close up shots, other close ups, etc

Thanks for answering.

If it were me and I had to choose between those two packages, I would choose the 18 to 55 and the 55 to 250 package: because IMO the 18 to 55STM is technically way ahead of the 18 to 135 STM.

HOWEVER - as a first purchase for a novice: IF you can just buy the camera with ONLY the 18 to 55 STM AND that option is reasonably less expensive than either options that you list: I advise you to do that.


WW