Post by: benbo30 on January 14, 2013, 06:58:36 PM
My wife is starting to slowly get into professional photography as well but mainly of my kids and as she gets the hang of it and better at it she will be offering her services , she keeps looking at a $3000 canon mark 3 for doing profesional pics of my kids , as all the times and money she has gone to professional photographers is really adding up in my wallet , seems like every month i have to spend money to get pics of these kids :chuckle: :bash:
She seems like she has it all figured out on what she wants to get so my question would be which is better a nikon or canon and which models for me to do some outdoor photography when i am out in the hills and woods???
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 14, 2013, 07:05:29 PM
Post by: benbo30 on January 14, 2013, 07:08:41 PM
Tagging for updates because I am interested in what the guys say.
yea im not to experienced at photography looks like a few guys on here know what they are doing so id love some input , id just love to share some shots from out in the field with everyone .
Post by: Todd_ID on January 14, 2013, 07:38:39 PM
so my question would be which is better a nikon or canon and which models for me to do some outdoor photography when i am out in the hills and woods???
Ford or Chevy? 1500, 2500, or 3500 better in the woods?
It's the same debate with about the same price tag when you get to the upper end stuff; brand plays little into it. I'm not an expert, but I do think that your $3k number you mentioned is best spent buying a good, used $500 body and the rest on glass. The shots that we all like on here are pretty much all shot with bodies that are several-to-many years old with $3-20K of glass and a high-end tripod. They are not the snapshots you and I get while wandering around in the woods; they are bowhunting with a camera: it just takes longer to set up for a photo shot than a bow shot, and you need better light.
Post by: benbo30 on January 14, 2013, 07:46:41 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 14, 2013, 07:54:31 PM
so my question would be which is better a nikon or canon and which models for me to do some outdoor photography when i am out in the hills and woods???
Ford or Chevy? 1500, 2500, or 3500 better in the woods?
It's the same debate with about the same price tag when you get to the upper end stuff; brand plays little into it. I'm not an expert, but I do think that your $3k number you mentioned is best spent buying a good, used $500 body and the rest on glass. The shots that we all like on here are pretty much all shot with bodies that are several-to-many years old with $3-20K of glass and a high-end tripod. They are not the snapshots you and I get while wandering around in the woods; they are bowhunting with a camera: it just takes longer to set up for a photo shot than a bow shot, and you need better light.
I have always heard it's more about the glass... So if I take my Nikon D60 10.2MP from 2008 and put good glass on it then it will be capable of taking excellent shots?
Post by: jackelope on January 14, 2013, 08:15:08 PM
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on January 14, 2013, 08:17:54 PM
so im caving on just spending the money on getting a nice camera for outdoor photograhy , every time im out i see alot that i want to take pics of but i dont have a nice enough camera to do it with , so tell me what is good to get im looking at nikons ??
My wife is starting to slowly get into professional photography as well but mainly of my kids and as she gets the hang of it and better at it she will be offering her services , she keeps looking at a $3000 canon mark 3 for doing profesional pics of my kids , as all the times and money she has gone to professional photographers is really adding up in my wallet , seems like every month i have to spend money to get pics of these kids :chuckle: :bash:
She seems like she has it all figured out on what she wants to get so my question would be which is better a nikon or canon and which models for me to do some outdoor photography when i am out in the hills and woods???
One great thing about the pro Canon bodies like the MK 3 is that they are water proof. They are also heavy. But any good glass is heavy too. You can do well with the older used Canon bodies and can price good ones at B&H Photo Video and Adorama. Both are very reputable dealers. You are wise to spend money on Glass. It is never wasted.
Post by: benbo30 on January 14, 2013, 08:19:01 PM
as for me i was just gonna get a decent body for around 500-800 and get good lenses
Post by: Bean Counter on January 14, 2013, 08:20:21 PM
I have always heard it's more about the glass... So if I take my Nikon D60 10.2MP from 2008 and put good glass on it then it will be capable of taking excellent shots?
Not yes, but heck yes! Its all about the lenses. Nikon, Canon, et all have made a lot of money in the last decade on the so-called 'prosumer' market. Lots of people trading up to get more megapixels thinking that is the key to a good photo. Wrong. Six megapixels is enough. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm.) To repeat, if you're on a limited budget: get onto Craigslist and find a gently used camera for $400 bucks and spend the rest on lenses.
For Canon, one of the better lenses out there is the 70-200mm L IS USM. You can either get it with F/4 or F/2.8. The newest edition of the F/2.8 will cost you about $2K new. If you're just getting started and want a decent cheap lens for indoor shots without a flash, I love the F/1.8 50mm, aka the "classic plastic" aka "the nifty fifty." Not the sharpest photos, but I've had some good results.
I have had a Canon 400D with the crop sensor and I may 'upgrade' to a full frame sensor camera, but that will be a used, old 5D. The point is not to get a 'newer' camera with useless crap like video capability or more megapixels, but to upgrade to a full frame sensor. The full frame advantage. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm)
If you live near a Costco, go to the magazine rack and look for the Mag Book entitled "Getting Started in Digital Photography (http://www.magbooks.com/mag-books/digital-photography/getting-started-in-digital-photography-2nd-edition)." It costs about $12--yes that's right for a magazine. :yike: Best magazine I've ever purchased. It will teach you the basics of aperture priority vs. shutter priority, how to compose a good shot, ISO settings, etc. It is a GREAT read and worth its cost many times over.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 14, 2013, 08:27:09 PM
Post by: smdave on January 14, 2013, 08:29:16 PM
http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/pho/3545512286.html (http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/pho/3545512286.html)
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/ele/3524880825.html (http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/ele/3524880825.html)
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pho/3507364713.html (http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pho/3507364713.html)
Post by: Bean Counter on January 14, 2013, 08:31:11 PM
Thanks for the good info BC. :tup:
NP--that magazine changed my life! 8)
Ken Rockwell's site is great, too. Just browse around. I love this one: Should I Upgrade? (http://kenrockwell.com/tech/upgrades.htm)
Post by: uplandhunter870 on January 14, 2013, 08:36:10 PM
me id go with a used body with a shutter count under 100k, spend $4-500 on the body (canon xxd series or nikons version of that line) and put the rest towards quality glass. me i shoot a canon T2i body and decent glass (all i can afford right now) and can get tack sharp photos when i do my part and get the settings correct.
a great source of info on understanding photography is a book called "understanding exposure" by Bryan Peterson, a wealth of knowledge in easy to read and understand format helped me by leaps and bounds
Post by: Wazukie on January 14, 2013, 08:46:58 PM
I have always heard it's more about the glass... So if I take my Nikon D60 10.2MP from 2008 and put good glass on it then it will be capable of taking excellent shots?
I am a Nikon shooter, the D60 is very capable camera. One thing to keep in mind when buying a lens for it though is that only AF-s lenses will auto-focus because the D60 does not have a built in focus motor. I mention this because with Nikon body's, any AF lens will fit, but only the AF-s will auto focus.
Many Nikon Body's have a built in motor.
One advantage to Nikon over Canon, at least in my opinion, is that all the older Nikon lens's can be used on the Nikon body. Some only manual focus though. Canon can not do this(At least to my understanding).
The advantage of Canon over Nikon, well I cant think of any :chuckle:
In all actuality, Canon glass seems to be less expensive than Nikon glass. Either or would be a great choice.
Just my humble observations.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on January 14, 2013, 09:00:41 PM
I have always heard it's more about the glass... So if I take my Nikon D60 10.2MP from 2008 and put good glass on it then it will be capable of taking excellent shots?
I am a Nikon shooter, the D60 is very capable camera. One thing to keep in mind when buying a lens for it though is that only AF-s lenses will auto-focus because the D60 does not have a built in focus motor. I mention this because with Nikon body's, any AF lens will fit, but only the AF-s will auto focus.
Many Nikon Body's have a built in motor.
One advantage to Nikon over Canon, at least in my opinion, is that all the older Nikon lens's can be used on the Nikon body. Some only manual focus though. Canon can not do this(At least to my understanding).
The advantage of Canon over Nikon, well I cant think of any :chuckle:
In all actuality, Canon glass seems to be less expensive than Nikon glass. Either or would be a great choice.
Just my humble observations.
Thanks for the advice Wazukie.... maybe I will upgrade the body to one that accepts an AF-s lenses
Post by: benbo30 on January 14, 2013, 09:08:05 PM
Post by: ShaneTyTrey on January 14, 2013, 09:18:05 PM
Post by: Wazukie on January 14, 2013, 09:34:27 PM
thanks for the advice , keep it coming any advice on which lenses for outdoor and wildlife photography ??
For wildlife, I'd say a nice 300 F/4 or faster would do quite nice. For other outdoor, like landscape and such, a 17-55mm f/2.8 would do nicely.
Post by: huntnnw on January 14, 2013, 10:05:28 PM
Post by: grandpawrichard on January 14, 2013, 11:36:32 PM
Both of my cameras are Canon 7D's. They cost new around $1700 or less. All of my lenses are Canon L series lenses now and I love each and everyone of them! : They are all Tack Sharp lenses that produce High Quality photos IF I do my part!
I have been teaching my wife photography for about a year now and her skills have improved drastically, especially after I put a 7D with a 300 mm. IS L series lens in her hands. :) Neither of us are Professionals, but we both are capable of taking pretty darned good photos when we practice Good Photography Skills.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi20.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb218%2Fgrandpawrichard%2FIMG_1244.jpg&hash=e0d845de402923575ad7bdb21f19a1e78eea20c3)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi20.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb218%2Fgrandpawrichard%2FIMG_1012.jpg&hash=590b1c4c516090aef6e98c3a0e5ac1e6845a98c5)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi20.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb218%2Fgrandpawrichard%2FRoseintheRain.jpg&hash=a9c28ef2a51de7d5780a4b57a992e3fe590e7aee)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi20.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb218%2Fgrandpawrichard%2FRough-leggedHawk1of1.jpg&hash=03aec970e3355f8f18f69d01a526c98ef1be1b06)
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi20.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb218%2Fgrandpawrichard%2F_MG_4250.jpg&hash=01d5cfe055b67962c60a25822fa4786875c5fce9)
Dick
Post by: boneaddict on January 15, 2013, 10:38:37 AM
Post by: benbo30 on January 15, 2013, 10:42:54 AM
Post by: JackOfAllTrades on January 15, 2013, 10:58:55 AM
THere is no best lens. It depends on the situation. Weight/size/distance/weather/light. Too many variables. Can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. I wish I had more lens. As for bodies, there are give and takes for whichever line you pick. Put your money in glass as stated.
Spoken from someone that does this nearly every day! ;)
I've been out of the game since ya'll transitioned from film to digital so bear with me, but I would still think that a studio camera is much different than a field camera. Long lens that gather light with short f-stop that assists with depth of field and image stabilization features for handheld situations vs short lens, in solid platform and artificial lighting situations without the need for burst mode shutter speeds or video options.
Reference to the OP, I don't know that there is a 'best for outdoor photography' as the top brands that offer competitive features have followers in each catagory. I've been reading some reviews and it would appear that Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Fuji seem to have the best reviews for bodies and lens. Most of what I've read in relative price points put Nikon and Canon glass on top if you're looking at affordable Asian produced brands.
-Steve
Post by: Tom Reichner on January 15, 2013, 04:19:15 PM
Go to Huntfishnw.com look at the photography thread...great write up there by popeshawnpaul...Lens is the key..u can get a Canon or Nikon body for $300-400 now
This is excellent advice . . . a lot of really good outdoor & wildlife photographers on that site.
There is no best lens. It depends on the situation. Weight/size/distance/weather/light. Too many variables. Can't go wrong with Nikon or Canon. I wish I had more lens. As for bodies, there are give and takes for whichever line you pick. Put your money in glass as stated.Also great advice. As many others have said, getting a body for a few hundred dollars, and using the ramaining $2500 on lenses, would be a great choice.
If I were in you shoes, considering the wife's desire to take great, professional level portraits of the kids, I would consider the following (all used):
Canon 5D "classic" (the original 5D, full frame camera for budget price, approx $500
or, a 40D or 50D, for $350 to $450, which would probably be better for wildlife, but would not be quite as good for those all-important family portraits and events
Canon 85mm f1.8 - great portrait lens for around $300+-
Canon 100-400mm zoom - good for all-around wildlife work, around $1200 used, or $1500 - 1600 new.
or, Canon's 300mm f4 with Image Stabilization, for around $1,000 used
or, Canon's 400 f5.6 fixed lens, which has no IS, for around $1100 used
if one of these fixed focal length lenses is bought, it'd be useful to get a 1.4x teleconverter
Canon 24-105mm zoom, the workhorse, all-around zoom lens, for around $700 used; maybe even a bit less
this lens is most often sold in "kits" with the 5D mark3 body, so many people get the kit, then sell this lens
Wow - I just added up ALL of the things I recommended above, and you could get it all (only picking one of the telephoto lenses) for the same $3000 your wife is thinking about spending for the camera alone! This would include both a 5D for her family photos and a 40D/50D for your wildlife interests.
I only mention Canon gear because that is what I am familiar with. I am sure Nikon stuff would do just as good of a job - I just don;t know anything about it, so I can't make any recommendations.
In addition to the camera(s) and lenses, it would be wise to get a sturdy tripod with a good quality ball head, and get used to using it whenever you are shooting with the telephotos . . . in fact, it wouldn't hurt to use it for 85mm family portraits, either. Your images will be sharper than those that are taken hand held.
Post by: huntnphool on January 15, 2013, 04:25:22 PM
Post by: benbo30 on January 15, 2013, 05:17:02 PM
Post by: smdave on January 15, 2013, 06:36:01 PM
Post by: quadrafire on January 15, 2013, 07:14:10 PM
I haven't done it, but I have read that it is pretty good for portraits as well.
Post by: boneaddict on January 15, 2013, 07:25:16 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 15, 2013, 07:27:20 PM
If you are going to do any kid sports (outdoor) the 70-200 IS f4 is awsome and is about the bear minimum that you would want for a wildlife lense. Add a 1.4 converter for the outdoor stuff.I use mine often for soccer with the kids, it works well for wildlife as well.
I haven't done it, but I have read that it is pretty good for portraits as well.
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on January 15, 2013, 07:31:39 PM
Great pics. :tup:
Post by: grundy53 on January 15, 2013, 08:45:56 PM
Tracking....very interesting:yeah:
Post by: grandpawrichard on January 15, 2013, 11:30:38 PM
Here's a portrait I took with my Canon 7D and a 400 mm. f/5.6 L series telephoto:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi20.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb218%2Fgrandpawrichard%2FprettyGirlsmallerwithsignature-4047.jpg&hash=9a3761b8fe393722d70d5f75a7c042ed94980e66)
taken in a dark concert hall with just stage lighting illuminating the subject. :) Photo was also taken Handheld. :)
Dick
Post by: benbo30 on January 15, 2013, 11:33:41 PM
Post by: Alpinegus on January 17, 2013, 01:07:36 PM
I need a better lense, and some lessons. :o
Post by: tlbradford on January 17, 2013, 06:32:06 PM