| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/15/2006 06:07:52 PM · #1 |
I got a PM today which amongst other things I was asked what kind of camera equipment a person should get for a 1000$ wanting to get into the DSLR world and this person wanted a Canon so don´t start the whole Nikon Canon thing and this is what I replied with. Thought it ok to post it here as no name appears here and someone might find it useful but keep in mind, it´s only my personal opinion on what I would get if I myself were in those shoes.
As for camera equipment, I am a firm believer of first outgrowing what you have and then moving on, just buying new equipment when you are really ready to pull out your hair out of frustration of not having that lens or "that" feature on your camera. Having said that though, for 1000$ I would get a 350D or a 400D, doesn´t really matter, they are extremely similar and there is nothing you can´t do with the 350D that you can do with the 400D so try to find a used 350D for best bang of buck, the new features of the 400D don´t matter at all and neither do the extra two megapixles really matter, well, only unless you plan on taking a lot of photos that will be printed out HUGE and I mean like on the sides of buses or huge movie posters or billboards :) Anyway, the image quality between the 350D and 400D are almost identical and that is what really matters, at least in my opinion.
Then just stick with the kit lens 18-55 and preferrably get the 50mm 1.8 to give you the opportunity of taking pictures on big apertures, both for low light photos and to be able to throw backrounds out of focus. Those lenses should do you fine for now, unless you take a lot of bird photos or such and need a longer lens. Trust me, best thing is just sticking with the kit lens while you are learning to use the camera and then in 3-4 months upgrade it if you can afford it, by that time you will have gotten a better idea on what kind of photos you take and what lens will suit you, wether you need a wide lens, a telephoto lens or something in between and if you are always using big apertures or small or etc., you get my drift.
I then would strongly suggest you get some kind of lighting, any flash like the 430ex and 580ex or whatever... doesn´t really matter but flashes really help in most situations, as fill lighting in the sun or main light bounced indoors. This of course doesn´t apply in landscapes but I get the feeling you want to take people photos when I look at your shot´s. Also a reflector is cheap and very effective when you learn how to use it but most of the time requires an assistant, fortunately I have the best wife in the world that usually comes along and helps me out with that. If you go for the flash option, get a cord that allows you to hand hold the flash and not have it on the camera, that or a transmitter but that´s a little bit more expensive and the cord does the same trick.
In short, for 1000$, a Canon 350D/400D, 18-55 kit lens, 50mm 1.8 and a flash/reflector or any kind of lighting.
Pleae, anyone feel free to add to this post on what YOU would do :) |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 06:36:31 PM · #2 |
With a budget of $ 1000, I wouldn't spend a cent, I'd save. The software alone is going to nearly exhaust the available funds, never mind lenses, flash, tripod etc, etc.
Perhaps, I'd rent a DSLR and a decent lens for a few days, just to get a sense...
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 06:40:55 PM · #3 |
Theoretically speaking very quickly here, I am a firm believer in growing INTO your equipment . There is no right or wrong on this point, but the reason being is this:
1. It motivates more technical understanding
2. It motivates shooting in generall because of the money you just spent.
3. It can grow with you as you learn new functions and techniques
4. It can become a 2nd body, if you decide to move up in the world or become a pro. (What I am going thru now).
5. When you act the part, you become the part. Or as Augustine said, "Unless you believe, you will not understand". Meaning, in this photographic case, if you carry yourself and your equipment in a certain more advanced way, you begin to see and shoot with more maturity.
Again, this is my personal theory......And I don't know much about Canon.
edit: Never get those stupid italic function to work right.....
Message edited by author 2006-11-15 18:43:02.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 07:32:42 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Cutter:
Theoretically speaking very quickly here, I am a firm believer in growing INTO your equipment . There is no right or wrong on this point, but the reason being is this:
1. It motivates more technical understanding
2. It motivates shooting in generall because of the money you just spent.
3. It can grow with you as you learn new functions and techniques
4. It can become a 2nd body, if you decide to move up in the world or become a pro. (What I am going thru now).
5. When you act the part, you become the part. Or as Augustine said, "Unless you believe, you will not understand". Meaning, in this photographic case, if you carry yourself and your equipment in a certain more advanced way, you begin to see and shoot with more maturity.
Again, this is my personal theory......And I don't know much about Canon.
edit: Never get those stupid italic function to work right..... |
All good points and can´t say that I disagree with any of them, I think growing out of your equipment makes more sense though if you are on a budget though, but like I said, don´t disagree with any of your points.
To zeuszen on the other hand, no disrespect intended but I don´t find your input really helpful to people trying to make the jump as you don´t come up with what you would do if you were in these shoes. Ok, you wouldn´t jump at 1000$, fair enough but I would be interested in what you would do then istead? Save up to 3000$ and go for another package then or something else alltogether?
Renting a DSLR maybe not a bad idea though but I don´t know how much that would help, took me month´s to get really familiar with mine and a big part of photography is getting to know your equipment and knowing the format you are shooting and stuff like that... |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 07:46:43 PM · #5 |
The problem with these questions is it depends so much on photographic interests and future budget. If I had to throw all of my gear out and was given $1000 to make do for the next year, I'd buy a used camera with kit lens, a memory card, Photoshop Elements, and the sturdiest tripod I could find for the remaining money. I was given a flash for Christmas two years ago that I rarely use, and even my 50mm prime is the least used of the 5 prime lenses I now own. It all depends on what you like to shoot.
Given no budget and known photographic interests, naturally buy the best you can afford. I can't understand why a top end camera is deemed too complex for a beginner. The hardest cameras I've ever used have been digital point-and-shoots!
Given no budget and undetermined interests, spend as little as possible and buy what you find yourself wanting.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 07:50:54 PM · #6 |
Well, I just did this exact thing. My budget was $1000 and here is what I bought:
- Canon 350D Rebel XT body only (400D wasn't worth the extra $200 to me)
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 II lens (Can't go wrong for $70)
- Sigma EF500 DG Super flash (I want to get into portraiture and this was the best bang for the buck)
- 2gb Transcend CF card
- 1gb Transcend CF card
- Wired and wireless remotes (I like to do long exposures so I really wanted/needed these)
- Lowepro Nova 4 bag (great little bag, not to big and not too small for the beginner like me)
- Extra sterlingtek battery for camera and a 4AA set of NiMH batteries for the flash. (just to start, I'll get more soon)
- Lexar CF card reader
That pretty much comes out to about $1000 all in all. I'm also getting the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens for a birthday present, so that works out nicely for me.
Edit to add: I already had a tripod (it's a Walmart one I got for $30 and I know it's not good but it's good enough for me right now) and PSCS2. I also sold my old Panasonic (great camera) and the money from that will go towards a small point and shoot whenever I get around to researching which one I want.
Message edited by author 2006-11-15 19:56:42.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 07:59:10 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Larus:
...no disrespect intended but I don´t find your input really helpful to people trying to make the jump as you don´t come up with what you would do if you were in these shoes. Ok, you wouldn´t jump at 1000$, fair enough but I would be interested in what you would do then istead? Save up to 3000$ and go for another package then or something else alltogether?
Renting a DSLR maybe not a bad idea though but I don´t know how much that would help, took me month´s to get really familiar with mine and a big part of photography is getting to know your equipment and knowing the format you are shooting and stuff like that... |
I agree, my comment wasn't overtly helpful, but after having spent more money on DSLR equipment than it costs to feed a village for a spell, I still feel it may be a useful aside for someone at the cross roads.
A thousand bucks will easily buy a DSLR, but how much more money will likely be spent to build the system this camera introduces?
On the other hand, I can easily agree with Cutter's and Talmy's posts as well.
Message edited by author 2006-11-15 20:05:50.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 08:22:12 PM · #8 |
| Just wanted to say thanks to everyone that has put their input into this. A lot of good information in all of these posts. That is currently my budget and I am looking to do more photography with people. I love portraits and more than anything looking into different peoples faces. Everyone has a story to tell and I would love to learn how to capture them. I have worked on landscapes and some portraits and think I have done ok as a rookie, but would love for my skills to increase. I am really wanting to upgrade because in my mind I am limited, I believe, due to the camera that I have, and the limited lenses that are available. Any information that anyone can add in, is truly a help. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 08:37:11 PM · #9 |
D80 body only
Sigma 28-70 f2.8
2GB SD card
Tripod
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 10:18:51 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by MAK:
D80 body only
Sigma 28-70 f2.8
2GB SD card
Tripod |
Doesn't work because the OP has only $1000 and wants a Canon. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 12:15:17 AM · #11 |
I too recently spent about $1000 on a new DSLR and accessories. It is my first DSLR and I did tons of reading before the plunge. Here is what I got
- Canon 350D w/kit lens
- Canon starter kit (bag, battery, 58mm UV filter)
- Both remotes
- Sigma 70-300mm APO DG lens
- Canon 50mm 1.8 II lens + 52mm to 58mm adapter ring
I already had a cheap Wal-Mart tripod and both PSP9 and PSE 5.0. I do not yet have a flash but will likely pick up the baby Canon sometime in the future. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 02:39:39 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Perhaps, I'd rent a DSLR and a decent lens for a few days, just to get a sense... |
That sounds like a good idea until you check rental rates.
I checked Calumet in Chicago and their cheapest DSLR rental is a Nikon D70 for $150/day or $450/week. That's not including a lens.
I can't see the logic in blowing so much just to try it out. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 03:23:26 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Perhaps, I'd rent a DSLR and a decent lens for a few days, just to get a sense... |
That sounds like a good idea until you check rental rates.
I checked Calumet in Chicago and their cheapest DSLR rental is a Nikon D70 for $150/day or $450/week. That's not including a lens.
I can't see the logic in blowing so much just to try it out. |
Calumet would be the last place I looked for anything. Their prices on anything are pretty much higher than anybody elses. They want $399 for Canon 2x extender that you can get from BuyDig for $277.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 07:47:14 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Calumet would be the last place I looked for anything. Their prices on anything are pretty much higher than anybody elses. They want $399 for Canon 2x extender that you can get from BuyDig for $277. |
To be fair, this is a gross generalization. They are very high on a few items, but on most items, they are very competitive. Their service is also second to none, and I very much miss not working down the street from their Bensenville, IL store.
FWIW, I have rented from them before (I rented te 24-70 before buying it) and felt it added value for me, especially since I was able to apply 50% of the rental to purchase.
Renting a body is a different story. That will be overly expensive no matter where you go.
Edit for typo
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 07:47:42. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:05:53 AM · #15 |
This is pretty much what I would do. I would say that photoshop is one of the most important investments. I got mine at studica.com because I'm a teacher, but I would put that at the top of the list.
If $1000 is just a start, I wouldn't get Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and just save for the canon version.
I would forget the flash and get a reflector. I would also get two 1 gig cards instead of a 2 gig (unless you do a lot of traveling.)
Don't forget the uv filter.
Also, buy the body separately from the accessories. I got hosed when I bought the kit because I payed a premium for all of this crappy extras. The internet companies trick you by saying shipping will be longer if you only buy the body, but just say I want the body only.
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Well, I just did this exact thing. My budget was $1000 and here is what I bought:
- Canon 350D Rebel XT body only (400D wasn't worth the extra $200 to me)
- Canon 50mm f/1.8 II lens (Can't go wrong for $70)
- Sigma EF500 DG Super flash (I want to get into portraiture and this was the best bang for the buck)
- 2gb Transcend CF card
- 1gb Transcend CF card
- Wired and wireless remotes (I like to do long exposures so I really wanted/needed these)
- Lowepro Nova 4 bag (great little bag, not to big and not too small for the beginner like me)
- Extra sterlingtek battery for camera and a 4AA set of NiMH batteries for the flash. (just to start, I'll get more soon)
- Lexar CF card reader
That pretty much comes out to about $1000 all in all. I'm also getting the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 lens for a birthday present, so that works out nicely for me.
Edit to add: I already had a tripod (it's a Walmart one I got for $30 and I know it's not good but it's good enough for me right now) and PSCS2. I also sold my old Panasonic (great camera) and the money from that will go towards a small point and shoot whenever I get around to researching which one I want. |
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 09:06:45.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:14:00 AM · #16 |
Another option is buy a really nice point and shoot like the new lieca d-lux. It has 10 mega pixles and has practically no shutter lag compared to most other point and shoots. Then get photoshop, a tripod, cf cards, reflector, extra battery and you have tools that can do quite a bit. Then you can upgrade to a xti or 5D in a couple of years if you really get into it. If you do, you still have a great point and shoot (which I wish I had) and almost none of the other equipment would be redundant.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:30:31 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Perhaps, I'd rent a DSLR and a decent lens for a few days, just to get a sense... |
That sounds like a good idea until you check rental rates.
I checked Calumet in Chicago and their cheapest DSLR rental is a Nikon D70 for $150/day or $450/week. That's not including a lens.
I can't see the logic in blowing so much just to try it out. |
Calumet would be the last place I looked for anything. Their prices on anything are pretty much higher than anybody elses. They want $399 for Canon 2x extender that you can get from BuyDig for $277. |
I picked Calumet simply because I know they rent and will ship rental equipment. Personally, I like Calumet, because their customer service is consistently the best, their prices are really only high on a few items and if I order something this morning, I can have it in my hands tomorrow afternoon even with standard shipping.
I also checked Samy's in LA. Their rates are $100/day for a D70 or a 20D, but that won't apply to purchase.
Neither will rentals from Adorama, which charges only $75/day for a D70, but if you are renting by mail you have to pay rental fees while it's in transit and there's a 4 day minimum.
My point was not to select the most expensive rental place as an example, only that renting a DSLR is not as inexpensive as one might think.
Renting lenses is another story.
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 09:34:54. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:33:33 AM · #18 |
I already have Paint Pro 10, and my friend bought me Adobe Photoshop 5... I don't really know how to use them yet in editing, but I am in the experimenting stage... Are these good progams to use in everybodys opinion for digital photography. I don't really see any reason to upgrade my editing tools, if these work ok... What does everyone think...
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 10:55:44. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 09:58:34 AM · #19 |
I think Larus pretty much nailed it. The only thing he missed was software (Adobe Photoshop LE 5.0 is $100.00), but perhaps it's not needed.
What has helped me in the past:
Surf the web, looking at pictures you like (www.pbase.com, //www.photo.net, //www.photoblogs.org etc) and when you find stuff in your strike zone - make a mental note of the equipment that they're using, more often than not, the info is given.
For example, a little research will show you that STUNNING portraits are being done with that $70.00 50mm 1.8 lens (especially over at //www.photo.net)
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 13:55:38. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 10:20:23 AM · #20 |
It sort of depends on if they want to start out by spending $1000, then probably two or three times that later on, or if they want to spend $1000 and that's it.
If they want to just spend $1000 and be done, I wouldn't get an interchangeable lens camera. The kit lenses are terrible. You'd be better off getting a great fixed lens camera, with a good zoom range, that'll give much better pictures than a potentially awesome DSLR, crippled with cheap optics.
I wouldn't even bother getting the kit lens. Get a decent cheap prime like the 50mm 1.8. Shoot with that for a while. Work out if you are too far away or too close to most of your subjects. Buy lenses that then fix those problems. Don't waste the money on a range of focal lengths that you'll just need to replace once you realise how bad the quality of the pictures is, compared to what it could be. An extra couple of hundred dollars would get you an awesome midpriced zoom that would blow away the kit lens.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2006 10:47:45 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wouldn't even bother getting the kit lens. |
It's $100 as a kit with the camera. It'll allow a new dlsr user to try wide landscapes, indoor portraits (with flash), and just general shooting to decide if a 17-xx zoom is prefered or a 28-xx zoom is enough.
If you jump the gun and buy a better "normal" zoom without using a zoom at all, you may have just wasted money on a lens that's too wide or not wide enough.
and you can sell the kit lens for some money back. and they more than likely will be selling it :)
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 10:49:27. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 10:56:33 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wouldn't even bother getting the kit lens. |
It's $100 as a kit with the camera. It'll allow a new dlsr user to try wide landscapes, indoor portraits (with flash), and just general shooting to decide if a 17-xx zoom is prefered or a 28-xx zoom is enough.
If you jump the gun and buy a better "normal" zoom without using a zoom at all, you may have just wasted money on a lens that's too wide or not wide enough.
and you can sell the kit lens for some money back. and they more than likely will be selling it :) |
I think getting the kit lens would be a waste of $100.
You can buy one on ebay for ~$50 and I've seen them go for as little as $35. And, they are terrible lenses. A better lens will likely sell for nearly the new price, should someone want to sell it. I sold my 28-135 IS lens on ebay for only $20 less than what I paid for it two years earlier.
It'd be a better investment to either buy a prime, like the 50mm f1.8 or suck it up and buy a decent $300 zoom. Either one will make the kit lens look like it's made from the bottom of a dirty mayonnaise jar
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 10:58:57. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 11:14:11 AM · #23 |
I don't think you read my post. I didn't say buy it cuz it's great. I said buy it cuz it's a cheap way to figure out what you're going to need to buy in the future. Then selling it on ebay after the fact will get you $50 back on the $100 you spent on it.
The advice is for someone who is unsure of what they want, but wants to get into dslr's.
(tell these people the lens is terrible)
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wouldn't even bother getting the kit lens. |
It's $100 as a kit with the camera. It'll allow a new dlsr user to try wide landscapes, indoor portraits (with flash), and just general shooting to decide if a 17-xx zoom is prefered or a 28-xx zoom is enough.
If you jump the gun and buy a better "normal" zoom without using a zoom at all, you may have just wasted money on a lens that's too wide or not wide enough.
and you can sell the kit lens for some money back. and they more than likely will be selling it :) |
I think getting the kit lens would be a waste of $100.
You can buy one on ebay for ~$50 and I've seen them go for as little as $35. And, they are terrible lenses. A better lens will likely sell for nearly the new price, should someone want to sell it. I sold my 28-135 IS lens on ebay for only $20 less than what I paid for it two years earlier.
It'd be a better investment to either buy a prime, like the 50mm f1.8 or suck it up and buy a decent $300 zoom. Either one will make the kit lens look like it's made from the bottom of a dirty mayonnaise jar |
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 11:17:34. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 11:17:14 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I wouldn't even bother getting the kit lens. |
It's $100 as a kit with the camera. It'll allow a new dlsr user to try wide landscapes, indoor portraits (with flash), and just general shooting to decide if a 17-xx zoom is prefered or a 28-xx zoom is enough.
If you jump the gun and buy a better "normal" zoom without using a zoom at all, you may have just wasted money on a lens that's too wide or not wide enough.
and you can sell the kit lens for some money back. and they more than likely will be selling it :) |
I think getting the kit lens would be a waste of $100.
You can buy one on ebay for ~$50 and I've seen them go for as little as $35. And, they are terrible lenses. A better lens will likely sell for nearly the new price, should someone want to sell it. I sold my 28-135 IS lens on ebay for only $20 less than what I paid for it two years earlier.
It'd be a better investment to either buy a prime, like the 50mm f1.8 or suck it up and buy a decent $300 zoom. Either one will make the kit lens look like it's made from the bottom of a dirty mayonnaise jar |
I do not agree. Most people who are just moving to a DSLR and have only $1000 to spend are going to love the kit lens and for the extra $100 it is a no-brainer. This lens will blow any prior owned point-n-shoot lens out of the water, so in that respect it is a fine starter lens. Do remember that someone with a $1000 to spend is not going to buy a 10D now or anytime soon and may never own an L lens.
My suggestion to anyone looking to buy a 350D or 400D would be to dig around online for a good deal on the camera (I bought my 350D Kit at Amazon for $712 shipped) and with the savings you get from buying it online, the lens will be effectively free. You can use it for a while and if you decide that you don't want it, sell it on eBay for $40-$80 (i just looked and they seen to go anywhere in that range) and move on. |
|
|
|
11/16/2006 11:32:01 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by TJinGuy:
I do not agree. Most people who are just moving to a DSLR and have only $1000 to spend are going to love the kit lens and for the extra $100 it is a no-brainer. This lens will blow any prior owned point-n-shoot lens out of the water, so in that respect it is a fine starter lens. Do remember that someone with a $1000 to spend is not going to buy a 10D now or anytime soon and may never own an L lens. |
I disagree that the kit lens would blow away any point-n-shoot lens.
That's the point.
Particularly if you are on a very restricted budget (which for an SLR, $1000 is very restricted) I wouldn't waste $100 on a crap lens. We aren't suggesting buying into the Luxury range of lenses, just to avoid the coke bottles.
The 50 1.8 will blow away most any lens you want to compare it to, for $70. Then add a decent normal zoom, if you want to get a zoom. But I'd suggest shooting for a bit first. If you want a zoom get something like the 28-135 or similar. Look at what was previously shot on a PnS and determine which end of the WA to TP range they prefer shooting and bias that purchase accordingly. If it is all WA landscapes, get a decent WA zoom, if it is all sports and portraits, get a decent TP zoom. It isn't too hard to decide based on what they shoot.
I don't quite get why everyone says to get the kit lens, if you all expect it to be sold in a few weeks anyway. Particularly on a budget, why suggest they waste $50-$100 right at the start, so they can buy the same focal lengths again later ?
Message edited by author 2006-11-16 11:35:27.
|
|
