DSLR advice

A

aviation_man

New Member
Hey peeps,

I am looking to buy my first DSLR camera (I do have a little experience with a DSLR-Like and a point and shoot). I was getting tired of not being able to take better pictures so I've decided I'm going to buy a DSLR - Just to have fun, and be a noob with it.

My budget is pretty low (300 - 500$) But I'm not looking for the latest and greatest.

So D-40 or D-60?
 
I'm going to say D60 kit with 18-55mm to start you off. http://www.adorama.com/SearchSite/Default.aspx?searchinfo=nikon d60

But as someone that thought I needed to start out and learn with a lower cost less complicated body, I know now after 3 cameras that I should have started out wit the top tier model because the lower end cameras leave a lot to be desired.

If you get in to this hobby and shoot a lot, you'll see what I mean.

That said, I really want to tell you to skip the small cheap bodies if you can muster the extra few hundred, and get the Nikon D90 or at the least, a D5000 with a kit lens.

For editing, you’ll also want a copy of Adobe Lightroom 2.4 or Nikon Capture NX2

Look around here as well: www.nikoncafe.com

I shot this with a D300 and Sigma 10-20mm zoom. The D90/D5000 shares an almost identicle image sensor.

BenS_1280.jpg


Nashville_BW_large_LR2_1280p.jpg
 
aviation_man said:
Nice shots by the way..
So you think I should aim for a d90 instead of a 60?
Click to expand...

Yes.

You won't be ready to upgrade bodies as fast since the D90 is an awesome camera with great iso performance and overall image quality.

Next, we can talk lenses. So many great lenses out there. We just need to know what type of shooting you'll be doing.

Portrait
Sports
Landscape
Lowlight indoor
Macro

etc etc etc

:):):)
 
D90's are pretty expensives - body alone. But from what I've seen/heard about the 90's, they're very good.

Eek. Glass is $$$$$ - I was considering looking for like a 200 - 300mm to hold me over so that maybe later I would consider a sigma or macro.
I like shootings things like Landscape/portrait/urban/night shots. Just really whatever I see and what comes to mind. Any thoughts?
 
aviation_man said:
D90's are pretty expensives - body alone. But from what I've seen/heard about the 90's, they're very good.

Eek. Glass is $$$$$ - I was considering looking for like a 200 - 300mm to hold me over so that maybe later I would consider a sigma or macro.

I like shootings things like Landscape/portrait/urban/night shots. Just really whatever I see and what comes to mind. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Wide angle: Sigma 10-20mm EX DC HSM or Nikon 10-24mm AF-S

Portriat: the Nikon 50mm F/1.8 AF-D is cheap and good at like $124, or you can go for the better Sigma 50mm F/1.4 EX DG HSM or Nikon 50mm F/1.4 AF-S.

Nightshots: the wide angles I listed will cover that as well as the Sigma 50mm or Nikon 50mm AF-S.

I actually heard the Sigma 50mm EX DG HSM F/1.4 is as close to the old 58mm Nikon Noct lens as you can get (they stopped making the Noct years ago. It was specifically made for night stuff and was manual focus F/1.2 lens).

But even a Nikon 85mm F/1.8 or 85mm F/1.4 would rock for portraits, candids, and night stuff in the city.

Macro, that's a spendy toy for that range. Hmmm

I have no exp in macro, but here are some choices:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-N...F-S-VR-Micro-NIKKOR-105mm-f%2F2.8G-IF-ED.html

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-N.../1989/AF-Micro-NIKKOR-200mm-f%2F4D-IF-ED.html

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3283&navigator=5

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3284&navigator=5

Register here and have a look at the lens picture sample threads. that might help you narrow the search a bit more. :D
 
About that body price for the D90.

It's cheaper than buying a $599 body and then selling it off for a loss to get the D90 because you end up seeing you really need the D90 to reach your goals. ;)

Poor man and those who don't know any better buy twice (that was me at first).
 
aviation_man said:
Ok. So should I aim for a body only then get a lens or should I get a kit with it? (a simple lens like 18-55mm)
Click to expand...

If you want to shoot right away and learn while saving for good glass, get the D90 with 18-105mm VR kit lens. Despite its price, that lens is really good. :good:

Or Get body only and grab one of the lenses listed above for whichever range and type of shooting you think you'll do most.
 
So much for the guys sub $500 budget.
For starters, don't throw a ton of money into equipment until you know it's a hobby that you want to keep. Just get the kit lens for the time being, unless your able to get a very nice deal on a different lens. Though long story short the kit lens should be more then enough. Also, that way you can see what your most used focal lengths are and then use that info to purchase your next lens.

I for one would not recommend the D90 right off the bat, it basically doubles your maximum set price. Take a look at last generations models D80 & D200. Both should be way more camera then you need at this point in time and if you ever wanted to upgrade, you'll now have a solid backup body.

Also bare in mind that Nikon is not the only brand out there and far from the best bang for your buck brand. You still have Pentax, Olympus, Canon, Samgsung, Fujifilm, Sony, etc

FWIW- The Fujifilm S5 Pro was a nice camera back in the day, it's was built off of the D200 if I'm not mistaken and therefore uses the same F mount, so all lenses can be transferred over. However I don't know what it's selling for and wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot due to there current circumstances.

Hope that helps
Bob

PS- I agree with getting a nicer body from the start. It's just that throwing down over a grand on that setup isn't worth it right now, when you can get a D80 or D200 that will take you basically the same distance. Once you know that it's a hobby you'll stay in, then go for some higher end models, just remember glass is more important.
 
Last edited:
vroom_skies said:
So much for the guys sub $500 budget.
For starters, don't throw a ton of money into equipment until you know it's a hobby that you want to keep. Just get the kit lens for the time being, unless your able to get a very nice deal on a different lens. Though long story short the kit lens should be more then enough. Also, that way you can see what your most used focal lengths are and then use that info to purchase your next lens.

I for one would not recommend the D90 right off the bat, it basically doubles your maximum set price. Take a look at last generations models D80 & D200. Both should be way more camera then you need at this point in time and if you ever wanted to upgrade, you'll now have a solid backup body.

Also bare in mind that Nikon is not the only brand out there and far from the best bang for your buck brand. You still have Pentax, Olympus, Canon, Samgsung, Fujifilm, Sony, etc

FWIW- The Fujifilm S5 Pro was a nice camera back in the day, it's was built off of the D200 if I'm not mistaken and therefore uses the same F mount, so all lenses can be transferred over. However I don't know what it's selling for and wouldn't be surprised if it's a lot due to there current circumstances.

Hope that helps
Bob

PS- I agree with getting a nicer body from the start. It's just that throwing down over a grand on that setup isn't worth it right now, when you can get a D80 or D200 that will take you basically the same distance. Once you know that it's a hobby you'll stay in, then go for some higher end models, just remember glass is more important.
Click to expand...

From his earlier post, he does want to get in to this hobby shooting all sorts of things (night, portrait, etc., etc.,), so he's going to be severely disappointed with an old D80 or D200, or any other lower cost body using the old 10mp CCD sensor; they suck really bad past ISO-640 and I never wanted to shoot mine past ISO 400 really because the noise grain.

I love how folks say a D90 is way more camera than you need. lol

You listed a D80 and D200. The D200 is a semi-pro body. The D200/D300 aren't more complicated to use than a D80 and a D80 is basically the same body as the D90 with a better image sensor, better resolution, and better ISO noise performance.

How is basically the same camera, but with better image sensor and performance going to be too much for anyone?:confused:

Price wise, he knows his limits. I'm just stating facts on +/- on these bodies. :)

The D90 blows the D200, D80, D60, D40x out of the water in image quality and ISO performance. Where you can't shoot clean images past ISO 640 on those old CCD bodies, the D90 and D300 shoot clean up to ISO 1250, and if exposed right, ISO 1600.

Bottom line, the D90 is not too much camera for anyone. It performs better than a D80/D200 and is easier to use than a D40x/D60/D5000 type bodies. And the D80 is the same as the D90 as far as ease of use because they share menu systems, body ergonomics, switch locations, etc., just the D90 has a better performing higher resolution image sensor.

I mean, this isn’t a motorcycle and I’m not telling you to start out on a 200hp Suzuki Hayabusa when you just took the training wheels off your bicycle.

This is a camera, newer bodies just have higher resolution, better color, better ISO performance, and better features - they’re not too much for anyone including rookies.
 
JohnC said:
From his earlier post, he does want to get in to this hobby shooting all sorts of things (night, portrait, etc., etc.,), so he's going to be severely disappointed with an old D80 or D200, or any other lower cost body using the old 10mp CCD sensor; they suck really bad past ISO-640 and I never wanted to shoot mine past ISO 400 really because the noise grain.

I love how folks say a D90 is way more camera than you need. lol

You listed a D80 and D200. The D200 is a semi-pro body. The D200/D300 aren't more complicated to use than a D80 and a D80 is basically the same body as the D90 with a better image sensor, better resolution, and better ISO noise performance.

How is basically the same camera, but with better image sensor and performance going to be too much for anyone?:confused:

Price wise, he knows his limits. I'm just stating facts on +/- on these bodies. :)

The D90 blows the D200, D80, D60, D40x out of the water in image quality and ISO performance. Where you can't shoot clean images past ISO 640 on those old CCD bodies, the D90 and D300 shoot clean up to ISO 1250, and if exposed right, ISO 1600.

Bottom line, the D90 is not too much camera for anyone. It performs better than a D80/D200 and is easier to use than a D40x/D60/D5000 type bodies. And the D80 is the same as the D90 as far as ease of use because they share menu systems, body ergonomics, switch locations, etc., just the D90 has a better performing higher resolution image sensor.

I mean, this isn’t a motorcycle and I’m not telling you to start out on a 200hp Suzuki Hayabusa when you just took the training wheels off your bicycle.

This is a camera, newer bodies just have higher resolution, better color, better ISO performance, and better features - they’re not too much for anyone including rookies.
Click to expand...

Alright, lets see here:

1- If only I had a dollar for how many times someone said they were excited to get into the hobby, buy all of this gear and then a few months down the road don't even touch it. Just because some one says they want to get into the hobby doesn't mean that they will stay in it for long. All I'm saying is don't waste your money up front, buy some good equipment that won't break the bank now. Then, later down the road if your still in the hobby go ahead and buy some more. Like I said before, this will not only leave you with a good backup body (which is a great move), but will also give you time to find out what you do and don't like. Especially when it comes to lenses (focal lengths in particular).

2- Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems that the D80 & D200 are still used by thousands of people who are constantly yielding great results :rolleyes:
Just because a camera is older doesn't mean it's worthless and not worth a go. For petes sake, I shoot with a Pentax K10D that uses that "old and crappy" 10MP CCD sensor, yet for some reason it's been doing me fine and still is. Who'd a thunk :confused:. So dare I say, if I'm not disappointed with that sensor then I don't think he will be either.
I even took a shot at ISO800 that was underexposed by a few good stops. None the less I edited it, printed it at 16x20 and it remains one of my most popular photos. Granted newer cameras have less noise, which they should. Yet saying, "he's going to be severely disappointed with an old D80 or D200" is a tad bit dense.

3- For most people a D90 is way more camera then they need, it's true. That's not to say they can't grow into it. I'll still hold my ground though and say he's better off with a used D80 or D200 before "wasting" his money. Also, you'll note I never said the D90 is more complicated to use. In short he'll be able to shoot 90% of the same subject matter with the D80/ D200 that he'd shoot with the D90.

4- The one thing you seem to be ignoring is his price. The guy said $500 on the high side. So in lue of that, it's our "job" to recommend him gear that he can afford. Maybe go over by 10% or so, not double his price on just the body alone. It seems if he goes your route, he'll be in over 2K right at the bat. The 85 1.4 is like a 1.3K lens. Sure he most likely wont buy it, but if his budget is $500....

So, bottom line:
In your words, "This is a camera, newer bodies just have higher resolution, better color, better ISO performance, and better features"....and a higher price tag (sorry you left that part out).
If aviation man really feels like he's going to stay in the hobby for a good while and if he feels the D90 is the right camera for him, even giving the price. Then by all means go for it.
Just don't put it in his mind that the D80/ D200 or any older camera for that matter are not capable of yielding awesome results. I'm sure there are people out there that are way more successful using a Holga then others using a D3X.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Well thanks guys! You all helped a lot
But... Hate to say it but the D80 & D200 Are pretty expensive - from what I've seen just poking around...
 
I have canon and just got inot photography a year ago. After about a year of research and then another year of use this is what the main difference your going to find betweem camera models. Under good lighting they will all take an awesome picture. The more expensive the camera the better it handles low light ( such as indoor light). I have the 50D and it has good low light handling but I was amazed at how high the iso needed to be pushed up and how slow the shutter speed needed to be in order to take a correctly exposed picture indoor at night with all the lights on. A less expensive camera would have had alot of noise in that pic, the 50D has some, and a pro grade body would have even less. Of course you can remove alot of noise in post processing as well, or use a good flash.

The other main difference is sensor size. Mine is a 1.6x sensor, which means its a smaller sensor than a 1.3x or a full frame which is the largest. The biggger the semsor the better it handles noise, but it also doesnt shoot as many frames per second as a smaller sensor. Unless your paying thousands of dollars you wont be able to buy a full frame camera. Thats ok though, they are stilll very good cameras.

If your willing to buy used then that should be a great option. Also for these type of entry level cameras a lower megapixal count would probably be better. In other worde dont place a huge value on high pixal counts. 8-10 should be the best for a 1.6x camera. My camera has 15megapixals and has received alot of flack because its too much for this type of sensor and the pics prob would be better at a lower pixal count.

so heres the summary, given good lighting, your $500 dollar camera and lense can take the same quality picture as a $5000 camera and lense. But as soon as you move away from good lighting and your iso begins to change from iso100 to iso200 and so on you will start seeing differences in how good the pic looks.
 
aviation_man said:
D90's are pretty expensives - body alone. But from what I've seen/heard about the 90's, they're very good.

Eek. Glass is $$$$$ - I was considering looking for like a 200 - 300mm to hold me over so that maybe later I would consider a sigma or macro.
I like shootings things like Landscape/portrait/urban/night shots. Just really whatever I see and what comes to mind. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

for evry day type shooting you want 24-70 range or thereabouts...18-55 is also good. or you could just pick up a very cheap yet very good 50mm 1.8.
a 200-300mm lense as your first and only lense would be terrible.
 
I have to agree with Vroom_sky here, it's useless to buy a high price DSLR as your first DSLR... I bought my D40 with two lenses (18-55mm, 70-300mm Tamron) for 550$, and I'm still enjoying it! I've had it for a year and I'm still learning. Photography is my hobby so don't tell me it's because I don't shoot enough ;)

As a first DSLR, I'll go for a D40 or a D60.

Keep in mind that if you buy a Nikon, a Canon or Pentax or any DSLR brand, you'll have to find lenses that fit them, which usually means staying in that brand :)
 
Ok.. That's what I was aiming for... They're in my price range and everything. I was thinking D60 for the 10MP? That's basically the only difference between the D40 and D60 right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top