DIGITAL SLR CAMAREA ADVISE help snookn out!

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
jcardona1;4431467; said:
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 :nilly:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidchinphoto/
2235162126_e96734c9ff_z.jpg


A huge opening is required to get the aperture. I'm looking at picking up the 200mm f/4 for macro. :naughty: My 105 on fx is almost useless in the field.
 
Chaitika;4431377;4431377 said:
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. ;)
http://www.aquatic-photography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16821
 
Damn thats some nice glass you got there... wanna send me one of those lens :naughty:
 
zypher;4430843; said:
john, for best everything in the nikon line, get a D3S. If i was a nikon shooter i would get that. But my canon stuff serves me well for now. back to the topic.

You can't go wrong with the d3s. yah its expensive but you get your moneys worth...
Ill email you later about a whole nice setup for the least amount of money your going to spend..

Rey


Your telling a guy who wants to take primarily pictures of fish to buy a full frame, high FPS, ultra high ISO, cam and he has no photography experince? really?
why do you think any of those things are neccecery to get a great picture of a fish? he's not shooting sports so no need for FPS, a flash setup does better work for fish than ISO, he's never even shot a crop frame dx cam so he has no experince working with 35mm film format so he wouldn't want to go retro and get digital FX and definetly doesn't need 95-100% viewfinder coverage because he wouldn't know what that is.

a great fish setup would be a mid-high range DX body a 60mm 2.8 micro (AF-S nikkors one of my favortie lenses of all time), sharper and better contrast than any zeiss or supertele i've owned, if you don't believe check out it's MTF charts, and than a couple speedlight flashes. a setup like that at most would run around $2000, and you could go plenty lower than that for a great setup. The reccomendations i read here are scary, he'd be out 10,000 bucks and wouldn't know what the hell to do with all this crap people told him to buy....
 
John, I bought a used Nikon D50 a year or two ago and this thing has done exactly what I needed. I have taken it on vacations, taken family pictures and tons of fish pics with it and it has done me well. Depending on your budget, I would look for a D50, D70, or a D90 and go with one of those. I picked mine up for right around $500 and I'm not even close to good enough for a D90. I figure it was worth it to spend the extra and learn on a more basic camera.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com