- This topic is empty.
newbie – advice on dslr
-
I used to do a bit of photography with my olympus 0m10 a few years back but have only being doing a bit of ps stuff at weddings etc since with a cheap digital.
I now want to buy a decent DSLR and have my eye on 2 – D5 mk 2 and D700… :P
I do a bit of kayaking and one mistake I made was initially buying cheap gear which was useless after a few months and nobody wanted – I then had to invest in good gear anyways…. Maybe my logic doesn’t apply here…
Does more money and better gear mean better shots as a general rule? I want to do a mix of photography old ruined architecture / landscapes including seascapes / family – I have two wee ones at home / and some sports as I work as a teacher and often go to the matches in the school.
Are the above cameras easy to use or do you need to be a highly trained seasoned pro to get the quality shots! Does full frame mean much?
Any thoughts would be most welcome….
S
I have a D700 and it is a fantastic camera however rumor has it, it is about to be replaced early next year with a new model which has video higher iso etc. Both cameras are full frame cameras which means to get the best out of them you are going to have to buy full frame (possibly pro) lenses, This in itself is not bad at all if you can afford them but they are heavier larger and you might need more of them. For example on my D700 I use a 24-70mm lens and a 70 – 200 lens and also have a 2x converter which I rarely if ever use. I also have a d300s and have one lens an 18 -200 which is smaller that the 24-70 mm lens (and cheaper). This is my go everywhere camera / lens.
For what it is worth I have shot about 2 minutes of video on the D300s
Good Luck
Marc
Sorry, Hit submit before fully answering your question (BTW I am an enthusiastic amature).
Are they easy the use
I can only speak for the Nikon, first of all it only has one automatic mode, some of the more entry level DSLR’s have several for landscapes, portraits, sports etc. Having said that most people serious about there photos will only use there camera on apeture or shutter priorty and even just manual. There are some very good DVD’s which give a good insight on most DSLR’s.
I feel with a camera like this you are only going to get out of it what you put into it and I enjoy doing that. If you already are familiar with how shutter speed/apeture and iso work together you are well on your way, if you dont hmm you might find the camera a bit dawnting.
Will a more expensive camera give me better pictures
I would say in a word no there are pleanty of people producing fantasic photos with the most basic of gear. It comes down to the person behind the camera. But it is nice to have it and I love my gadgets.
Hope this helps but I am no expert.
imagination wrote:
one mistake I made was initially buying cheap gear which was useless after a few months and nobody wanted
A good observation, but digital has it’s own caveats too. Generally digital is quite expensive, and like buying a computer in the nineties, value drops quickly on bodies. That said, digital technology is quite good, and even down the road, the results you can produce will your dslr will still be good, even if the technology has moved on. Drawback is the cost and frequency of upgrades, should you go down that route
imagination wrote:
Does more money and better gear mean better shots as a general rule?
The majority of the best photographs were taken with cameras the lowliest amateur would deride.. so you can draw your own conclusions :) That said, there is a price of entry into certain fields of photography such as sports, etc, in terms of equipment needed, but this is the exception and not the rule
imagination wrote:
Does full frame mean much?
Yes, a lighter wallet, and a heavier camera! :) Generally no, not as much as people would have you believe. Figure out what you need from your photo kit, and use that to determine if full-frame is advantageous for what you will be shooting.
imagination wrote:
Any thoughts would be most welcome….
Hedge your bets – buy a decent used dslr, and give it a good workout. In 6/ 12 months you will have a much better understanding of what you need, and will be better placed to put your money to its best effect. Saving on the body will allow you to spend on a lens for sports, as in general these lenses tend not to be cheap. I don’t know your budget, but would think something along the lines of a decent, used body (€500), general zoom (€150), fast 50mm lens (lowlight & indoor sports) (€100). If you want to shoot sports, something like a 70-300 with decent autofocus for daylight sports (about €500)
I wouldn’t have any fear of the used market for any of the above, but do your homework beforehand,
Damien
Good solid advice – helps me put some perspective on the task of getting started. Ta :lol: :D :D
I have a D300 and it’s fantastic, well laid out and lovely to use. I looked at a D700 but decided I didn’t need it to be full frame, and so I spent the difference on lenses and flashes. It’s definitely worth getting the best quality you can afford – it’s like the old cliche, ‘but cheap, buy twice’. It’s worth reading up on the DX/FX implications with your lenses. Ken Rockwell offers some good practical advice and I find I refer to his site for an opinion regularly:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm
I have an Olympus E-400 which was my first DSLR. I don’t like this anywhere near as much as my D300 but after consideration I won’t sell it because it’s tiny and easy to sling in a rucksack on holiday in case I need it – if I only had a D-300 I wouldn’t take it to these places, so I wouldn’t get any photos! It does have loads of picture options although I I rarely use them. The lenses are smaller so I don’t spend as much on them or the filters for them either.
I’d look at pictures in the style you are interested in somewhere like Flickr, trawl through the data to see what kit they were using and how, and plan out a package of lens(es) and body, plus ancilliary stuff like flashes, tripods and filters. The lenses you choose will dictate the end image just as much if not more than the body, excusing the FX/DX difference.
These are just my newbie observations, I haven’t got anywhere as much experience as the other guys so I’d listen to them! :oops:
Best of luck!
Some good advice there, but wouldn’t get too hung up on full-frame, or not full-frame. Full-frame cameras have some advantages, but rarely critical ones. In the past it was difficult to get wide angle lens for non-full frame cameras, but this is no longer an issue.
Practically, the things I would find appealing in a full-frame camera are mainly better high iso (I shoot a lot of low-light), and a nice large viewfinder, but your mileage may vary. The big trade-off’s for me are usually in cost and weight. I find my D200 feels like a brick around my neck after a few hours, and that’s usually with a small, light prime lens attached! Replacing/ upgrading camera bodies every 2/ 3 years is not too much fun either..
Willem is right that lenses have a big role to play in an image, but I wouldn’t worry too much. Once you have the focal lengths for what you intend shooting, and wide enough apertures, you’ll be fine. They don’t make too many bad lenses these days, and most of the reviews out there are trying to seperate lenses that are in the 85%+ range.
Lastly, don’t be afraid of film either. The above is all based on your original request for a DSLR, but film is a lot of fun, and am personally going from digital to film myself!
In any case, have fun, that’s what photography is all about :) Don’t get too hung up on gear – the image is what will make you a better photographer!
Damien
If you shoot a lot on the telephoto end, the DX sensor has a lot of advantages. The 1.5X magnification is really handy (your 200mm lens effectively becomes a 300mm lens etc.).
I would work backwards and decide what lenses you want and see what camera best matches it. What ever camera you buy will be lose half it value in a year or so. Where as lenses will hold much of their value.
Thanks folks for your very considered responses. A lot more to this photography business than I ever imagined! :?
I was taking a lead from above and thinking about buying something in the cheaper range in order to find out just what I want or need.. This line of thought has led me to ponder on the D90 Nikon! I would not be breaking the bank on this one and it would have plenty to keep me busy learning and experimenting and in future I could use it as a general bring on holidays type camera without being afraid of getting it stolen etc….
I was also looking at the D300s but it is about twice the price and close to the price of the D700 so I would be tempted to go all the way to a D700. There seems to be much written about a replacement for the D700.
Thanks for the info the lenses – I am struggling with the purchase of the camera it will be great fun trying to put noses on it when I finally make the leap… :roll: :roll: :roll:
Anyone any ideas on the D90?
Thanks again..
S
I dont think you will go far worng with a D90 many pros used it as a backup camera.
I’d spend your christmas break reading reviews so you understand the differences!
http://www.trustedreviews.com
http://www.kenrockwell.com
http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htmThese are the three I use the most for getting objective ideas about kit. The other thing is you know all the features available for when you get it, rather than stumbling on them by accident in two years!
I found an external flash far more useful than I ever realised when I eventually got hold of one… And you’ll need a tripod… And a load of chocolate…
Well OK the last one’s not essential for taking photos but it’s always handy :twisted:
A D700 is a super camera as well as the D300. Great high ISO quality especially on the D700.
The D90 is a great camera but would not be in the same league as the other two for high ISO.
All depends, do you need quality at high iso’s? if so the D300 or D700 should be at the top of your list other wise get a cheaper body and put the saved money into buying decent lenses. The lenses in the digital world do not lose their value near as much as the bodies….
M
I thought the D90 would have been quite similar to the D300 for high iso, but with the D700 being in a different league obviously due to the full-frame advantage..
Curious more than anything really..
Re: camera choice, D90 is not a bad choice, and if it was me I would even be on the lookout for a used D80/ D200 body. Noise performance is not as good obviously as the D90/ D300, but to be honest do you really need noiseless images up to ISO 3200 or 6400? Generally such high iso is useful for shooting in very poor light with inexpensive zoom lenses, or if you’re printing really big (and by big, I mean BIG..), but wouldn’t imagine it’s a dealbreaker for most people,
Anywho, just me two cents, your mileage may vary,
Damien
Went and bought a D90 – but returned it the next day as I wasn’t too happy with the feel of it in my hand… Was going to change it for a 50D but came out of the shop with a 7D!!! Good salesman who is a Canon fan and said all the right things…
So far I am very happy with the camera – fits like a glove and the I am very happy with the picts so far even though most are in Auto mode… :D :D :D Lots to learn – will do a course hopefully in the local college who offer night classes..
Ta for all the above advice,,
imagination wrote:
Went and bought a D90 – but returned it the next day as I wasn’t too happy with the feel of it in my hand…
Congrats on the new camera, and hope you run it into the ground with use! :)
The feel of a camera is very important – as someone once said, the less comfortable you feel with with the camera you have, the more likely it is to stay at home!
Damien
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
