Prosumer Camera Advice

[hot_wire]

I used to love my film SLR, but I lost interest in quality photography when everyone else made the transition to digital. As a student, I just couldn't justify dropping $2000 on a decent digital SLR.

 

Now that SLR prices are lower and my funds are higher, I am ready to start building a serious camera collection. I want to start with a cheap camera and one or two nice lenses (thinking a stabilized "everything" lens and a high quality telephoto, maybe even f2.8)

 

I'm not a Canon fan after an awful experience with them in middleschool, so my natural instinct is to go Nikon. The D3100 looks solid, and the kit lenses aren't bad either!

 

But with an eye on the future. I am trying to build a collection that can be added/modified over the next 20 years or so. What is the future of digital photography? Will SLR's even be around with their steampunk mirrors and moving parts? Is photography headed toward a smaller form factor like the new EVIL cameras? EVIL cameras have the same image sensors as SLR's, but with a smaller housing and digital "benefits" such as live view. Do you guys think EVIL will catch on?

 

This article was from 2010

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/five-reasons-you-should-ditch-your-dslr/ and Wired Magazine was all for it.

 

What do you think of the Nikon foray into EVIL? Even if the current camera body sucks, do you think they will stay with the current lens mount?

 

Do you recommend I just get an SLR and shut up, or should I adopt the newest technology before building a camera arsenal?

[TTQ B4U]

I used to love my film SLR, but I lost interest in quality photography when everyone else made the transition to digital. As a student, I just couldn't justify dropping $2000 on a decent digital SLR.

 

I hope you don't have a hard time dropping $2k now as while bodies are less now, lenses have gone up a lot and kit lenses are exactly that. Not what I would I spend money on if you're already camera savvy and ready to make a new plunge.

 

Now that SLR prices are lower and my funds are higher, I am ready to start building a serious camera collection. I want to start with a cheap camera and one or two nice lenses (thinking a stabilized "everything" lens and a high quality telephoto, maybe even f2.8)

Again, think $1,200 to $4,000 for good lenses.

 

I'm not a Canon fan after an awful experience with them in middleschool, so my natural instinct is to go Nikon. The D3100 looks solid, and the kit lenses aren't bad either!

I've owned both and can't comment on your expereience other than it was in the past. If you avoid Canon you'll be pigeon holing yourself based on the past which is 110% different than today. IMO I can talk to you about either system but will say two things. Canon is a close second in terms of body offerings. They still retain a number one rank IMO in lens selection though. Lenses > bodies all day long. Your opinion and that of others may differ.

 

But with an eye on the future. I am trying to build a collection that can be added/modified over the next 20 years or so.

Bodies come and go lenses don't. Focus (pun intended) on glass for your particular needs. So what's your focus and intent for shooting?

 

What is the future of digital photography? Will SLR's even be around with their steampunk mirrors and moving parts? Is photography headed toward a smaller form factor like the new EVIL cameras? EVIL cameras have the same image sensors as SLR's, but with a smaller housing and digital "benefits" such as live view. Do you guys think EVIL will catch on?

Smaller format Bridge cameras have been around for years. One of my favorite non DSLR cams is a bridge body that's now 11 years old. In terms of today's EVIL system, I think they will remain around and become more common now that more households have DSLR's too. Again, focus on lenses.

 

This article was from 2010

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/five-reasons-you-should-ditch-your-dslr/ and Wired Magazine was all for it.

 

What do you think of the Nikon foray into EVIL? Even if the current camera body sucks, do you think they will stay with the current lens mount?

 

Do you recommend I just get an SLR and shut up, or should I adopt the newest technology before building a camera arsenal?

If you're interested in DOF then EVIL cams aren't the way to go. Most have a four thirds format that is not conducive to DOF so IMO, not for me. You make the call for what your needs are. I will own one some day as there's certainly a place for them, but if you're looking to build a system that will be around for years, I'd put money on a DSLR all day long.

 

I don't know the future and what it holds any better than others. I do know that I won't spend my time thinking about it either as I can do far better focusing on today and the next 5yrs of my use. DSLR is where I"d go.

 

I'd also suggest if you do have experience, you go well above the 3xxx and 5xxx or Rebel line if you go Canon. The entry level bodies are too limiting IMO for someone with camera experience. If you plan on doing portraits, go full frame. Sports, FF works too but today's crop body cams do have advantages there. I shoot both. I have a Canon 40D, 1DMKII and a 5DMKII. I use my 40D crop body for sports and as my personal daily carry. My older 1D is bar far my best sports camera. The 5 series is for my walk around and corporate photo work both events and portraits.

 

Hope my points help. Looking forward to hearing more about what you're looking to shoot and what your budget looks like as it relates to what you want to shoot now/today vs what you might likely grow into.

[hot_wire]

Wow PDQGP, that is exactly the advice I was looking to hear. Thanks for such a constructive reply.

 

I don't know the future and what it holds any better than others. I do know that I won't spend my time thinking about it either as I can do far better focusing on today and the next 5yrs of my use. DSLR is where Id go.

I think this line is exactly what I needed.

 

As for my budget, I am looking around $2000 now. I plan to put over half of that into glass (probably one or two lenses), and pick up a cheap camera body. This is a setup that I plan to grow as time passes, so I anticipate upgrading the body and collecting lenses in 5ish years.

 

Bodies come and go lenses don't

I want to discuss this a bit more. My main concern was investing big (to me) money into SLR lenses and have them go obsolete within the next decade. Didn't film lenses "go" when DSLR's came around? I think Nikon may have even changed their lens mounting system (something about autofocus) in the last decade. Please advise. Are there adapters to compensate for the different mounting systems?

 

If you avoid Canon you'll be pigeon holing yourself based on the past

As for brands, I just can't go Canon. I honestly blame Canon for my loss of interest in photography. It's an immature vendetta, but I'm a Nikon guy.

 

If you're interested in DOF then EVIL cams aren't the way to go

Interesting about the depth of field issue with 4/3's. I honestly didn't understand why sensor size made a difference... This definitely aims me toward the SLR side.

 

Focus (pun intended) on glass for your particular needs. So what's your focus and intent for shooting?

For shooting, I plan to work with nature shots (both landscapes and telephoto for animals). I am already the family photographer, so people and events are important too. Sports, motion, sailing, and car racing are all possibilities as well. Who knows - if I have kids, maybe I'll be shooting portraits too? Regardless, I am looking for some serious versatility and was considering a lens like this to compliment the kit lens:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1335197249&sr=8-3

or maybe

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/92012-USA/Nikon_1940_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_180mm.html

 

Thoughts?

[mrs.cos]

I have input on this via the Nikon side. I won't be at a pc of till this evening, so this is my reminder post via subscriptions

[TTQ B4U]

As for my budget, I am looking around $2000 now. I plan to put over half of that into glass (probably one or two lenses), and pick up a cheap camera body. This is a setup that I plan to grow as time passes, so I anticipate upgrading the body in 5ish years.

 

Sounds like a good plan.

 

 

I want to discuss this a bit more. My main concern was investing big (to me) money into SLR lenses and have them go obsolete within the next decade. Didn't film lenses "go" when DSLR's came around? I think Nikon may have even changed their lens mounting system (something about autofocus) in the last decade. Please advise. Are there adapters to compensate for the different mounting systems?

I don't think you'll find lenses going obsolete. All manufacturers are going through revisions and improvements on the optics and stabilization, even Canon. However, such updates are usually decades apart. However, I'm not rushing out and paying even MORE money for them just gain a bit of improvement. You'd really have to get into a hair spliting argument on some of the improvements to see them. Put it this way, those improvements might never go seen by a buyer, so then what's the real value?

 

Now, back to the question on what happened over the past few years. SLR's when from only full frame 35mm designs to various FF and now also crop body aka < 35mm formats. Both have pros and cons and now crop body units also have lenses begin designed specifically for them vs using their big brother counter part lenses. For the most part it's a good thing but 99.9% of these newer lenses are all consumer / lower grade designs. Decent but not awesome. Why? Because the manufacturers aren't going to go to market and try and sell a small handful more of very pricey lenses for a population that eventually goes full frame. My 800mm lens will never be made in a format specifically for a crop body, nor will another version be made as Canon would never recover the cost of doing so. Nor would anyone in a crop body likely pay for it.

 

So, can you get great lenses for a crop body? Yes, just continue to use FF format lenses. You now also have the opportunity to choose from any of the newer ones designed for them too.

 

Now in terms of Nikon, yes they have made changes to the bodies in terms of AF systems. One main one is they began removing the AF motors from the body to drive costs down. Smart move as it gets consumers into their "system" and away form Choosing Canon. Downside, the cost of lenses jumped because they had to put the motors in them. Again, smart move, razor blades aren't cheap either. This move however, prevents some of the older and still quality lenses from being used with AF Capability. Not as much of an issue today since new more specific lenses I mentioned above are available.

 

There are adapters available for various mounts to now work, but unless you have a an older quality lens from years ago in hand, let's stick to the new stuff as that's what you'll be buying.

 

As for brands, I just can't go Canon. I honestly blame Canon for my loss of interest in photography. It's an immature vendetta, but I'm a Nikon guy.

Fair enough.

 

Interesting about the depth of field issue with 4/3's. I honestly didn't understand why sensor size made a difference... This definitely aims me toward the SLR side.

Yep. Same holds true on Crop bodies. a 1.5x form factor Nikon D3xxx series will have 1.5x less DOF yet for those interested, it will also have 1.5 more reach than a Full Frame camera. Those are trade offs and depending on your use, will be a pro or a con. Portrait work benefits from Full Frame for example.

 

For shooting, I plan to work with nature shots (both landscapes and telephoto for animals). I am already the family photographer, so people and events are important too. Sports, motion, sailing, and car racing are all possibilities as well. I am looking for some serious versatility.

My opinion is for you then go crop body. For landscapes you'll want to look into a wide angle lens created for the crop body Nikons. Berto here on CR Has one and loves it. It does well for him too.

 

and was considering a lens like this to compliment the kit lens:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-5-6G-Digital-Cameras/dp/B000HJPK2C/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1335197249&sr=8-3

or maybe

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/92012-USA/Nikon_1940_Telephoto_AF_Nikkor_180mm.html

I've not used either but I can say on the 70-300 the downside to it if I had to point one out for sports is the aperture range. It going to rest in the f/4.5-5.6 world which is good fro a zoom in terms of light gathering, especially in that price point, however, you're DOF is going to be limited. You'll get good shots, but the WOW factor of isolation will not be there. It's a trade off you have to make when buying.

 

I spend big bucks on lenses to get that WOW Factor. However, also don't just shoot my family and friends so you have to balance your personal budget and that's cool. I actually do a lot of post processing for others too. Here's a good example of not having the bokeh and then having that same image pop. This result is simulated with software but is done to match an f/2.8 vs f/5.6 setting nearly spot on.

 

Both are animated gifs, so excuse the slight grain that is cause from 256 shade dithering limitation on gifs.

 

 

http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/135848129/original.jpg

 

Here's another similar example.

 

http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/137573862/original.jpg

 

 

So what do you do? Again, I'm no expert on Nikon lens availability, but I would suggest reviewing what options are out there that might offer f/2.8 or faster options and weigh the pros and cons to the money involved now or in the future. Start with the 70-300 now to get started and set a goal to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 VR laterSigma makes some good stuff too. Their 70-200mm f/2.8 is by far what I would go with if I were you with that budget. That vs the Nikon in your hands would not yield any regrets.

 

So in conclusion, find something Wide Angle for you nature shots. Look for at least one fast cheap primes. Perhaps even a great Macro lens that would also double as an excellent head/shoulder portrait lens. Add in the walk around Kit Lens you discussed. Canon has a decent 18-200mm for like $450 that I have shot with. Find a Nikon similar lens. Then for the tele end, I would do the above Sigma. It might be a tad short on distance for Soccer and some larger venue racing events, but that's okay. You can crop and believe me, the WOW factor is worth the money and something you'll enjoy more than a bit of reach that can be compensated for to a point through cropping in software.

 

I hope this helps and doesn't overwhelm. Just let me know and I'll reword it if so.

[hot_wire]

Hey that helps a ton and does not overwhelm. This is the exact conversation I was hoping to have.

 

Sometimes I want reach, sometimes I want the WOW factor. I had been under the impression that aperture created the WOW factor (hence looking for a 2.8 lens), but I now see how sensor size is related too. I am familiar with photoshop and could work my way through the postprocessing work like in your .gifs (by the way, you processed some horse hairs that were meant to be in focus ).

 

I think I am in agreement with you. This year, I'll buy a cropbody and a quality telephoto. Perhaps a cheap wideangle lens if available. Down the line I'll find a quality walkaround lens and maybe buy a second, fullframe camera. I could even start picking up FF lenses and get an adapter if I want to use them with my old cropbody.

 

I understand the aperture limitations of the telephoto I mentioned earlier. However, I was unaware that Sigma lenses were worth shooting! One thing that draws me to Nikkor is the VR system because I love holding the camera and hate carrying tripods.

 

This discussion helped me a ton in my decision. Thank you also for the background story of lens evolution!

 

Damreds, I look forward to your response too.

 

Now to decide whiiiich cropbody to choose. I'm thinking the top factors in my decision will be dynamic range and a good burst mode for action shots. I don't think megapixel count matters too much for my usage once you're past 10. Sound reasonable?

[M0nk3y]

Since most summary has been mentioned, I'll throw in my 2 cents.

 

I have a D3100 and I love it. It's a beginner, crop sensor but with decent lens it can really throw out some great shots.

 

I have a 35mm f/1.8, kit lens (18-55) and a 55-200 f/4-5.6

 

I'm in love with my prime lens, and plan on picking up a 50mm f/1.8. Both can be had around $200 each, they cheapest lens that produce amazing results.

 

The D5100 has a higher ISO range than the D3100, but if you're doing landscape I'll assume you'll use a tripod anyways so that really shouldn't matter.

 

Here are some shots with the 35mm. Even though it's one of the cheapest cameras out there, it puts out nice shots:

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7145/6608749271_f741c47d38_b.jpg

Crack one open by M0nk3yy31, on Flickr

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7002/6614084239_9b04a18446_b.jpg

Reflections v.2 by M0nk3yy31, on Flickr

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7063/6799315846_4579f410fd_b.jpg

Evo Engine by M0nk3yy31, on Flickr

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6970174475_fab8eba5c8_b.jpg

Thinking About Golf by M0nk3yy31, on Flickr

 

A kit lens shot:

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7008/6420399133_317614ddd4_b.jpg

Into the Unknown b/w by M0nk3yy31, on Flickr

 

And a 55-200 shot:

 

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7171/6608306863_ce047cf139_b.jpg

Maverick by M0nk3yy31, on Flickr

 

Best of luck

[TTQ B4U]

Hey that helps a ton and does not overwhelm. This is the exact conversation I was hoping to have.

 

Sometimes I want reach, sometimes I want the WOW factor. I had been under the impression that aperture created the WOW factor (hence looking for a 2.8 lens), but I now see how sensor size is related too.

 

Yes, sensor size impacts DOF as does the focal length and distance from the subject. Thus way you'll often see wedding photogs back up and zoom in with a nice f/2.8 lens. The 70-200 is a great lens. Sigma's earlier release wasn't great but the new one is light years better and yes it too has stabilization. Depending on what sport you're shooting it might not matter. Soccer, it doesn't as you're subjects move erratically. Racing I use it to stabilize the vertical axis.

 

I don't think megapixel count matters too much for my usage once you're past 10. Sound reasonable?

 

Yep. You're right for the most part on the megapixel front. There are other improvements on the new camera / sensor front as it's not all just MP increase. However, overall, if I brought out 3 different poster size prints to to a meeting I guarantee no one would guess what size the source image was MP wise. Not unless it was a pristine studio shot and line up side by side. For what we're talking, no.

[hot_wire]

Monkey - sexy photos, and I am leaning toward a D3100 myself. but I do notice a lack of detail in the highlights and dark spots. I've always been frustrated with the dynamic range of digital cameras. Are FF ones better off? Are certain models recommended over others? I feel like my old point and shoot digital limited me to taking photos on overcast days. Are SLR's better at handling highlights//shadows in general?

[mrs.cos]

short answer is yes.

 

This by the way is the first side by side comparison i have done with the two. All settings are the same.

Taken with my D90 (Crop)

3.5/400/75mm

Auto white balance, in shade

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7064/7107140827_21041d9cdd_b.jpg

DSC_0230.jpg by Lucky Lola Studios, on Flickr

 

Taken with my D700 (Full Frame)

3.5/400/75mm

Auto white balance, in shade

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8004/6961049130_2f6b56fdae_b.jpg

PLH_3265.jpg by Lucky Lola Studios, on Flickr

Edited April 23, 2012 by damreds

[hot_wire]

Can you analyze those two from a professional perspective? I feel like the purples are more vibrant from the D90, but it may also be a slightly darker exposure. Distortion around edges looks similar to my eye, and the depth of field seems equivalent. So basically, I don't see the difference.

 

What do you see?

[mrs.cos]

Tim has pretty much said anything and everthing i have thought.

 

I feel like the EVIL's are just that. They are a glorified point and shoot for pros who dont want to carry thier equipment everywhere, or for camera enthusiests who dont want bulky equipment.

 

They will never be the norm, IMHO, for proffessionals.

 

I see no reason for you to start at the very bottom of the entry level cameras. Theoretically you could keep your camera for as long as your lenses. My D90, is still a pretty nice camera, even though its almost 5 years old. Sure its been supersceded by the D5100, but between my D700 and my D90, im still pretty happy with teh quality of shots it takes, but i have always coupled it with Nikons higher end lenses.

 

Get a few cheap primes (35mm 1.8 is my fave, as well as the 50mm 1.8) i feel like these should be in ANY photographers kit, but thats just me.

 

As far as the lenses go.

 

I opted to buy a Tamron 28-75 (new 400, used 300) over the nikon 24-70(new 1800, used 1750). Reasons? They have INCREDIBLE quality vs Price to the Nikon.

 

Same thing goes with the Tamron 70-200 2.8.

 

Ultimately, yes, i would LOVE to have the nikon equivalents, and one day will, but cost/quality/ and needs, ill stick with the Tamrons for now.

[TTQ B4U]

Are SLR's better at handling highlights//shadows in general?

 

Yes. Some more than others. Depends on the sensor. That's one of the main reasons I like my 40D so much. Rivals my MKII in terms of dynamic range and in some ways beats it. Not all DSLR's are created equal, but by far better than the smaller P&S Cams.

 

Can you analyze those two from a professional perspective? I feel like the purples are more vibrant from the D90, but it may also be a slightly darker exposure. Distortion around edges looks similar to my eye, and the depth of field seems equivalent. So basically, I don't see the difference.

 

I won't get into the comparison of these two shots, I'll leave that for Trish. One thing you will see with a crop body vs a full frame is crop bodies are more forgiving on lesser quality optics in lenses. In other words, her FF cam will show the limitations of a less expensive lens more so than the crop body as it's using the entire lens. A crop body is essentially shooting through the center of the lens. Thus edge to edge sharpness, vignetting and distortion towards the edges are all relatively hidden to some extent when shooting a crop body. Makes sense?

[mrs.cos]

The biggest thing for me is when you see them zoomed in, and see where the detail actually is, which is more prevalent when you printing an image.

 

Ill be honest, i dont do techincal jargon the way Tim Does. The easiest way for me explain is to show you.

 

This is the D700's Histogram, as well as a side by side of the two images (the d700 is on the right)

 

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8003/6961174204_d4c9730b32_b.jpg

d700histogram by Lucky Lola Studios, on Flickr

 

 

This is the D90's Histogram (D90 image is on left)

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8155/7107241253_aeaa81be45_b.jpg

D90historgram by Lucky Lola Studios, on Flickr

 

 

Lightroom Histogram explanation if you arent familiar.

http://i.imgur.com/HnyuF.jpg

[TTQ B4U]

Ill be honest, i dont do techincal jargon the way Tim Does.

 

Notice my on my own ability to communicate. :gabe:

 

Let me try this again in terms of crop body vs Full Frame:

 

Less expensive lenses, have less contrast and more distortions closer to the edge of the glass. Shooting with them on a full frame sensor places the image in the boundary of those glass problems. Using a crop sensor camera tends to place the image in the premium part of the lens (center)

[Berto]

If I could do it all over I would go with the D5100. I believe I have grown out of my D3100 in less than a year. But its still a great camera that I will probably use as my primary for the next 2-3 yrs.

 

Here is a link to my 10-20 mm sigma lens

http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96813&highlight=%27sigma%27

[944s2]

If I could do it all over I would go with the D5100. I believe I have grown out of my D3100 in less than a year. But its still a great camera that I will probably use as my primary for the next 2-3 yrs.

 

Here is a link to my 10-20 mm sigma lens

http://www.columbusracing.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96813&highlight=%27sigma%27

 

A couple points then some pictures. I think if you have grown out of the 3100 you need to go higher than a 5100, the D90 would at least give you more control over your shots on the fly than the 5100 if you already know what your doing.

 

As for the original question about the lens purchase. I have rented the super bad ass 80-200 f 2.8 VRII telephoto from Nikon, in short for taking action shots, quick, quiet autofocus and amazing build quality and glass and you are serious about shooting, save up the dough for it.($2k+) The VRI is still very nice and used can be had cheaper. ($1200ish) or you could buy the Tamron which has a little slower and louder AF but is again cheaper.

 

Although for reference the shots below were taken with the 55-300 f/4.5-5.6 lens.

Also these shots have only been corrected in Lightroom, No Bokeh was added in Post.

 

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd58/reitzmj/DSC_0075-1.jpg

 

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd58/reitzmj/DSC_0493-1.jpg

 

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd58/reitzmj/DSC_0584.jpg

Edited April 25, 2012 by 944s2

[TTQ B4U]

Although for reference the shots below were taken with the 70-300 lens that you posted for $500 early on in the thread.

Shots below were with the 70-300 or 55.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6 ?

 

Also these shots have only been corrected in Lightroom, No Bokeh was added in Post.

and for Ed aka Hot Wire, ^^ the above is a good example of how distance to the subject combined with a telephoto zoom can add blur to a portrait even when the f/stop is 5+ on a crop body camera, thus why I made the comment about the 70-200 being such popular wedding portrait lens.

 

just be aware that the results will be completely different on sports shots like kids in baseball or soccer or even shooting Autocross where you will be farther than 15-20ft from the subject.

 

Nice shots Mike.

[944s2]

Shots below were with the 70-300 or 55.0-300.0 mm f/4.5-5.6 ?

 

 

 

just be aware that the results will be completely different on sports shots like kids in baseball or soccer or even shooting Autocross where you will be farther than 15-20ft from the subject.

 

Nice shots Mike.

 

Whoops your correct... 55-300mm lens let me edit the first post to reflect that, idk why I was thinking 70-300?

 

And I shoot with a D5000 for reference.

[Tractor]

I think the SLR body size is kinda necessary to allow for proper ergonomics and button placement. A pro camera is a tool and you wouldn't want that tool losing control via moving things into menus like the smaller cameras do. You need to be able to hit buttons and dials on the fly as conditions change.