DIGITAL SLR CAMAREA ADVISE help snookn out!

[zypher]

Thanks!..

Back on track. I still think the capabilities of the beginners DSLR are kinda meh...
Atleast go with a prosumer for a long term use. Spend once, spend wise.

 

[jcardona1]

yeah...i always tell people to think about this carefully. I know I should have thought about it more before I bought my D40. I quickly saw how limiting it was as I became more hooked on the hobby. But at the same time, some folks just want the cheapest model out there, and for others, it's all they could afford.

I have a D90 and I really like the camera as it has a lot of great features. I just wish it had a faster FPS rate, better high ISO performance, and the benefits of a full frame sensor. I just don't have the money to drop on a D700 at this point.

 

[Chaitika]

I wish I could find the article I read recently that was written by a pro who was giving a newbie advice on what to purchase. He said the exact same thing as Zypher. Buy top of the line now and save thousands of dollars instead of buying amateur then pro-amateur and finally pro grade equipment. It made a lot of sense. The only issue I have with the advice is that if a newbie takes up the hobby and then decides it's not for him/her, then they will lose some money re-selling it or will have $$$$$ sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

There is more to consider in this case. Buying this sort of gear is a write off for a business. And who am I to tell someone not to spend 5K on camera if they can afford it and want to? If a friend was looking to buy a Ferrari, I sure as heck would not tell them to buy a minvan to start. The man did say he wants to buy a camera that will take the best pictures.

But anywho, I think the best compromise is a D90. Prime lenses like the 60mm and/or the 105mm would be my recommendations. I also like the Nikon AF-S 17-55mm DX Zoom-Nikkor F/2.8G IF-ED because you're not compromising image quality when you zoom out to 55mm. The only disadvantage to this lens is the price, imo. It's pricey.

I'm afraid to count how much money I've spent on camera gear and I'm still an amateur, Jose.

 

[jcardona1]

might spend $$ for those 24-70, 70-200, 200-400, 300 2.8, 400 2.8..just thinking future purposes...

that's some serious glass right there. but it will also run you about $24,000 for those lenses. ah if only i had the money

 

[devder1]

totally agree, d90 is your best option, you will soon find a d3000 a little too basic

 

[Chaitika]

The lens to get, Jose, is the 200mm f/2. THAT'S the cat's meow right there.

A pro recently told me all he uses outdoors is the 200mm f/2 and the 300mm f/2.8.

 

[jcardona1]

I wish I could find the article I read recently that was written by a pro who was giving a newbie advice on what to purchase. He said the exact same thing as Zypher. Buy top of the line now and save thousands of dollars instead of buying amateur then pro-amateur and finally pro grade equipment. It made a lot of sense. The only issue I have with the advice is that if a newbie takes up the hobby and then decides it's not for him/her, then they will lose some money re-selling it or will have $$$$$ sitting on a shelf collecting dust.

There is more to consider in this case. Buying this sort of gear is a write off for a business. And who am I to tell someone not to spend 5K on camera if they can afford it and want to? If a friend was looking to buy a Ferrari, I sure as heck would not tell them to buy a minvan to start. The man did say he wants to buy a camera that will take the best pictures.

But anywho, I think the best compromise is a D90. Prime lenses like the 60mm and/or the 105mm would be my recommendations. I also like the Nikon AF-S 17-55mm DX Zoom-Nikkor F/2.8G IF-ED because you're not compromising image quality when you zoom out to 55mm. The only disadvantage to this lens is the price, imo. It's pricey.

I'm afraid to count how much money I've spent on camera gear and I'm still an amateur, Jose.

haha Gerry you have better equipment than most pros I've seen, so you're a pro in my book

And yeah I agree, it's always smarter to buy quality, buy once. There's only one way to know if photography will be a serious hobby, and that is to just shoot. Like you said, if it's not for you, you will lose money, especially on the camera body. I don't know what John's budget is, but you make a very good point about it being a business expense. But then again, I don't know how justifiable a $7k camera setup is to a fish selling business. If I were an auditor (oh wait, I am!! ) that would raise a red flag. But that's a whole seperate topic...

I think a D90 or D300 would be a great long term investment. They are extremely capable cameras and will keep up with ones skills for a long time to come.

I also have the 17-55 f/2.8 on my D90. I dont feel like I'm missing out on all that much compared to a more expensive setup. My skills aren't there yet where I think I would see an improvement by going to a better camera body. There is a lot of master in photography andl lighting. And just because you have a fancy pants expensive DSLR setup doesn't mean your pictures will be works of art. Photography skill plays a huge part in it, followed then by the actual equipment you're using.

Just look at Greenterra and Modest Man. They use basic bodies and basic equipment, and they both take amazing pictures IMO...

 

[zypher]

i always think about long term use when it comes to camera gear. I've spent $$$$ on my stuff and still is.

John, think about long term use in your fish world.
lets take the pro cameras out of the list. let's
talk about prosumer camera bodies.

 

[jcardona1]

The lens to get, Jose, is the 200mm f/2. THAT'S the cat's meow right there.

A pro recently told me all he uses outdoors is the 200mm f/2 and the 300mm f/2.8.

That lens sounds sexy. There's been one for sale on my local craiglist for a few weeks now, asking $3,650 for the 200 f/2. That extra speed must be sweet compared to my 70-200 f/2.8.

I think I'd be happy with the 300mm f/2.8, but not the price!

 

[jcardona1]

The lens to get, Jose, is the 200mm f/2. THAT'S the cat's meow right there.

A pro recently told me all he uses outdoors is the 200mm f/2 and the 300mm f/2.8.

I just can't get over how big that damn lens is!!! All that size for just being 200mm. That f/2 must require a ton of glass


http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidchinphoto/