Post by: halflife65 on October 29, 2009, 10:07:11 PM
I'll be honest and say that I don't know all that much about photography. I've read a bunch of photography magazines and looked at some websites in the last week or so to get reviews on cameras as well as just to try to understand some of the lingo associated with photography. That’s a little like reading Eastman’s and Petersen’s magazines and then telling someone you know how to hunt…
I have a few ideas but, before biasing anything, I was hoping to get the opinion of a few of the (really good) photographers on this site.
Parameters/Wish List:
1. Somewhere around $1300 to spend (not putting anything on a credit card, so it's all cash)
2. My wife is a barrel racer and will insist that I take some pictures of that (so it needs to be capable of taking a picture of a running horse)
3. I’m interested in taking pictures outside (knowing that whatever lens the camera has will need to be “good enough” until I can afford to purchase another.)
4. If a D-SLR, I don’t have any glass already, so I will need to get something that has a lens to get me through until I save money and can upgrade. Also, I want to keep in mind the brand that I’m buying so that I can keep them if I ever replace the camera body.
5. Video is a “nice to have” but something that I’m definitely willing to forego if other features on the camera make it worth it (especially since I’m working on a limited budget.)
6. It would be great to have auto-focus.
7. It will be used outside, so some weather resistance would be nice.
8. I understand that the SLR will be larger and bulkier, especially if I ever upgrade lenses, and am willing to deal with it (while also understanding that I’ll put it in a backpack and carry it long distances.)
9. It would be nice if it came with decent software (at least until I can buy some third-party software, such as PhotoShop or something I learn about in the future.)
So, knowing that I’m a rank beginner that’s managed to screw up pictures with a point and shoot (as easy as it gets), where would you recommend that I start? Is D-SLR the right choice? Am I biting off more than I can chew given my lack of experience? My dad actually was in to photography back in “film” days and remembers quite a bit. He won’t be able to help much with the digital camera, but he can help with a lot of the principals of taking photos. I’m also willing to enroll myself in some seminars (don’t think that I have time to take classes at the local community college – although I would like to.) Probably not the Art Wolfe two day seminar that costs a grand, though. That might be a bit much…
The other choice is an “advanced compact” point-and-shoot that should be initially easier to use, have a lens that zooms, auto-focus, and be less bulky. It just doesn’t have all of the options that the D-SLR has…
Timeframe for purchase will be around Christmas, barring any “emergencies” that require me to spend money on something I’m not anticipating.
Anyway, at the risk of opening up myself to get whacked because I don’t know much, what do you think?
Thanks in advance.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 29, 2009, 10:27:55 PM
There are Nikon equivalents for that gear but I would stick with either Canon or Nikon.
Buy a wildlife photography book. I learned everything I know from a book by Joe McDonald and John Shaw. Then I got out and taught myself the rest.
The worst thing you could do is buy a Rebel with the kit lens for 1.1k and settle for a cheap 70-300 for a few hundred bucks. Spend 3/4ths of your money on the lens. If you plan on shooting wildlife and want good quality make your L lens the long 300mm. If you will not shoot wildlife much then spend you money on a L lens in the wide angle range like a 17-40 f4 L.
I have a thread around here on this stuff. Not sure where it is anymore...
Post by: halflife65 on October 29, 2009, 10:57:11 PM
Nikon D90 with Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED Lens ($814 + $580 = $1394 + tax)
I'm curious about the lens, though - is this a lesser lens than the Canon that you mentioned?
Not sure that this is the deal that I would choose - the camera is body only and I would still need to purchase something like the 18 - 55mm lens. I'm only asking for comparitive purposes and haven't made any decisions yet. (In fact, I looked this up about 30 seconds ago.)
I'll probably eventually need more than one lens (of course.) I DEFINITELY want to get out and take some wildlife photographs, but my wife will kill me if I don't get something that can take pictures of her horses running around in an arena. Would the 18 - 55mm be able to do that adequately (at least, until I can afford something better) or is that not enough lens?
Post by: ribka on October 29, 2009, 11:14:03 PM
.
I first started with the kit camera ( Nikon) years ago. I also know some guys who bought the kit Canons too. Camera and lense together. Pics were ok but do yourself a favor if you want good wild life photos and spend the money on a good quality lens after you purchase the body. Check craigslsit and ebay. can sometimes deals on good quality lenses.
Off season wildlife photography will make you a much better hunter
Post by: halflife65 on October 29, 2009, 11:19:00 PM
Another question (I have about 1,000,000 but I'll try to limit them and figure out what I can on my own - no one likes it when someone wants everything handed to them, anyway). What would you recommend for a lense for taking landscape photos?
Again, I'll research on my own as well, but am also very interested in your opinions.
Post by: cameraguy on October 29, 2009, 11:44:42 PM
Here are a few links I have found useful by the pope
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,17540.0.html
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,17541.0.html
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,18275.0.html
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 30, 2009, 12:00:53 AM
What would you recommend for a lense for taking landscape photos?
The best quality lens for landscape photography is the 17-40 f4 L. It goes for about $550 used. For barrel racing you will want a 70-200. They have a 70-200 f4 L (non IS) for about $450 used. Those two lenses with a 30D would put you at about $1300 and would take pro quality photos. You'll be a little short for wildlife with a 70-200 but it gets the job done.
Again, whether Nikon or Canon, don't get the 70-300 f5.6 lenses. They are all crap. There are better lenses for the same price like the 70-200 f4 L I quoted above. Also, the kit deal you pointed out is exactly what I don't think you should do. You don't need to spend $800 on the latest camera when a couple year old one will take just as good of photos for substantially less and you can save your limited money on lenses which actually help you make a better photo.
Thanks for those links Cameraguy.
Go buy a book. Photography is actually quite technical.
Post by: halflife65 on October 30, 2009, 08:01:10 AM
I did a quick Amazon search last night on the authors that you mentioned below. In particular, John Shaw has quite a few books concerning wildlife photography. I think I'll pick up something like that plus a general photography book as well as continue my research on websites, asking people that are into photography, etc. I'll review the links provided below from cameraguy (thanks!), as well.
Thanks again for giving me some initial advice to get started. If nothing else, it gives me suggested points/equipment that I can go research and, I'm betting, I'll be able to figure out WHY you say that those are better. I'm suffering a little with information overload regarding all of the camera and lens options out there. It would be very fair to say that photography is technical (which is also part of the reason that I find it interesting.)
Post by: Elkman on October 30, 2009, 10:33:33 AM
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm)
Good luck. Looking forward to what you will capture.
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2009, 12:40:46 PM
Post by: halflife65 on October 30, 2009, 01:24:08 PM
One other very important piece to the puzzle that hasn't been mentioned is a good post processing software. Lightroom and the CS versions of Photoshop are great to work with, I would save a little $ to put toward one of these. :twocents:
Just did a quick search. Looks like Lightroom is significantly cheaper (fortunately) - coming in at about $299 for Lightroom 2 - which is great; I can make that happen even if it is "extra" to the initial price of the camera/lense(s).
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2009, 01:35:09 PM
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 30, 2009, 03:38:19 PM
I am continualy astounded at how good Lightroom is. It is so easy and much more powerful of a program than you think. I rarely use regular photoshop anymore.
Post by: wapiti hunter2 on October 30, 2009, 04:55:09 PM
Post by: halflife65 on October 30, 2009, 05:12:33 PM
Anyway, thanks for the links and advice on the software. I came across B&H Photo last night and saw some stuff - thinking about a Haselblad for about $30k...holy smokes.
I'll check out photo.net - I haven't been to that site yet. Also, thanks for the cambridgeincolor link, Elkman, pretty interesting stuff.
Will definitely wait on the upcoming release of Lightroom 3. I want to try to have it by Xmas, so I have a little time to finish researching. Of course, I'm a little impatient to get started so we'll see if I end up with a camera before that time.
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 30, 2009, 06:09:25 PM
The best source I've found for good honest used equipment is fredmiranda.com in the buy/sell forum. Sellers have ratings and they are good pros there that are very knowledgeable. Listen to Wapiti hunter...a cheap dslr with L series lenses will make National Geographic type images. A nice camera with crap lenses won't.
I have also found good gear on craigslist. Part of that is knowing what you are buying and testing it out before you buy which you can do in person. Before buying a camera, make sure you know how to figure out how many actuations it's had. Something less than 20k would be desireable.
Post by: Hornseeker on October 30, 2009, 07:21:06 PM
E
Post by: popeshawnpaul on October 30, 2009, 10:08:01 PM
Is there a big difference between the 30 and 40 D's???
E
No, each step is fairly incremental. A few new features are added as well as a few megapixels each series. I think the perfect compromise of price versus performance is the 40D.
Post by: halflife65 on October 31, 2009, 11:29:36 PM
I've been screwing with some photos (.jpg) from my point and shoot. I can definitely make them look better than they did - although I might be putting lipstick on a pig.
I'll need some practice to make them look right - "better" doesn't mean "good."
Post by: popeshawnpaul on November 01, 2009, 12:07:16 AM
Post by: halflife65 on November 01, 2009, 05:48:06 PM
I'd actually made a backup of the pictures that I messed with in case it was irreversable - but it is cool that you can go back to the original.