Camera Help

[Rockefella]

I have to admit, being on this forum for so long and witnessing the progression of photography skill and epic motorsport captures has led me into buying a camera. I wouldn't necessarily call myself an idiot in the field as I have taken photography classes in the past and have learned a bit from reading discussion in the various competition and camera related threads. Pertaining to my budget, which is probably my/everyone's biggest playing card when it comes to photography.. I'm willing to spend somewhere in the ballpark of the median range of advanced photography. I don't plan on buying the most expensive camera, nor a cheapo kit so hopefully I'll get lucky with a solid deal.

I was thinking of buying this 35mm kit, I'm just worried about it's fit and finish. I'll probably want to head over to a nearby electronics superstore to see if they have one in stock; have to make sure it fits well in my hand and such. Now, not entirely sure if that kit allows for a lot of lens interchangeability (that's a long f*cking word), so if anyone's got any recommendations for a telephoto I would much appreciate the act of kindness. This one interested me but there have been mixed reviews on various message boards and internet rating sites. A lot of the members/editors recommended the redesigned tele, because although much bulkier, resulted in far superior photos. I think it had something to do with the bi-dual infrared magnification conductors that were designed by Canon just recently. But like most technology, I should probably wait so I don't know.. whatever.

This is where I get a bit lost. Obviously, the kit and the lens is the most important, but what about stuff like flash and memory cards and filters? By the way, what kinds of filters are there? I don't plan on shooting in low light or at nighttime but is a flash necessary? While my budget is adequate, I'm not sure if I can spend a pretty penny on flash guns and stuff like this shit.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Godspeed.

[Wouter Melissen]

A Canon 40D is the best bang for buck. It can do almost everything that the pro bodies can, but for a very reasonable price.

[Sauc3]

Can't give you any advice, your last link is broken...

[Rockefella]

Can't give you any advice, your last link is broken...

Should be fixed. Sorry about that.

[Sauc3]

Should be fixed. Sorry about that.

Much better. Blue is better light quality, but red is faster. That one's up to you...


If you're semi serious about getting into photography properly, invest in glass. A high quality lens will last you 10 years, a high quality body about 3. One of my teachers is still using the same lens he bought second hand 10 years ago (14 years old or something now) as his main lens, and it's still perfect. He's gone through at least 4 bodies in that same period.

It would help to know your overall budget and preferred shooting styles to recommend specifics, but W's got the body covered fairly well, it's what I have and it's definitely a quality camera.

[Wouter Melissen]

You also need to buy a ladder.

[Rockefella]

You also need to buy a ladder.

Taken care of.

[drakkie]

My Pentax k100d Super is also rather good bang for the buck. I am rather satisfied with it. It's a bit cheaper than the Nikon but everything is comparable. Also Pentax glass rules.

[Ferrari330P4]

I think you should state your budget, since that is the most important thing.
Like you said, you want a mid-range kit, and that is exactly what I got as my first SLR about a month ago.
D80 rather than the lower level D40, and higher level D200/D300.
18-70 3.5-4.5 rather than the lower 18-55, and hiher 17-55 or 24-70
70-300 VR rather than the lower 55-200, or higher 70-200 2.8
50mm 1.8
SB-600 flash rather than the lower SB-400, or higher SB-800.
This kit will run you about $1900 from B+H Photo, where I got it.
I use SanDisk Extreme cards, and Hoya UV filters, just for protection.
If you end up wanting a tripod, remember this, cheap tripods are not sturdy tripods. Heavy tripods are bad tripods, you will never want to carry them around. I suggest getting a mid-range Manfrotto, I got the 190CX3 and the 488RC2 ball head, but have not received it yet.
I went with Nikon over Canon mainly for ergonomics. The Rebel series felt very poorly made. The 40D was a bit too big for my used-to-point-and-shoot hands. I am sure after sometime I will have no problem with a camera the size of a 40D.
Should you go Canon, I would suggest the 40D, but go to the store and try them out, before you even think about lenses and etc. That is a very important thing to do.
State your budget and it will be much easier to figure it out.
Thanks

[ScionDriver]

Always spend more money on the lenses. They have far more impact on your pictures than your body will. A decent SLR will do you fine. Most pros would say its personal preference between Nikon and Canon, but that doesn't mean there aren't any others.

[pat_ernzen]

People always say "spend more on the glass" and while I don't necessarily disagree, I recently used a new Rebel and was amazed by how much better my 20D, a two generation old camera, feels. When I was buying my camera, I was considering a Rebel as it's nearly the same in terms of image quality, but while the 20D felt like an expensive camera, the Rebel felt like a cheap toy in comparison. I'm not saying a Rebel is necessarily a bad choice, but for me, spending the extra on the higher quality body was without a doubt a decision I don't regret.

Also, I think sometimes people put to much emphasis on equipment. While it is obviously an important part of the equation, you can have all the highest quality equipment in the world, but if you don't know how to use it, it's worthless.

[johnnynumfiv]

I'd focus on learning the basics of photography(uses of shutter speeds, aperture, composition, panning, etc) before buying a lot of stuff.

[NSXType-R]

I'm one one of the more noobish photographers here. I don't know how to manipulate photoshop to create HDR photography, and I don't have that big of a wallet, since I don't make my own money. Heck, I don't even enter the photo competitions.

Yet. Still practicing.

I went with the Nikon D40. It's plenty cheap, takes awesome pictures and is easy to use. I chose it over the D80 because of the ergonomics. Of course the D80's a better camera, but the D40 saves me about $300. But I did get it with the 18-135 lens, which is a good zoom lens, but you may need a tripod at long distance zooming because it's missing Vibration Resistance.

Unless you have older lenses, you really don't have to worry about backward compatibility, and even then you only lose autofocus.

B+H has good deals on D40s.

[DBR9]

A Canon 40D is the best bang for buck. It can do almost everything that the pro bodies can, but for a very reasonable price.

I'm with Wouter on this one. I've had my 40D for around 7-8 months now and it is extremely good quality. It can compete with some of the higher end models on the market for functionality and practicality easily. It can hold its own in most fields of photography and especially sports which you are looking at.

If your after sports a Canon body is the way forward, if you watch F1 or euro 2008 all the pro's have cameras with the big white lenses on the end and there is only one make that those lenses work with. Canon.

Like the others have said though Good glass is important as well, it can often outlast your bodies and the quality of glass can have more impact on your photo quality than your body. if you want to sacrifice the newer body to spend more on lenses do so.

Also you mention filters. Buy a uv filter with any lense you get. They have very little effect on your photos but they provdie peace of mind. if your camera slips out your hands 9/10 of the time its going down lense first, if you have a filter that will shatter and save your lense. a £20-£30 filter is cheaper than £200-£2000 lense. if you want a filter that will contribute to your images after the first few weeks look around for a polarizer. they cut out most of the unwanted reflections and really enhance the colours in your photos.

So my final advice is this:
- your shooting sports, go for a canon body.

- its up to you which one you can go for the 40D and a less expensive lense or get a 400D or 30D second hand and get the better lense, the choice is yours.
- whatever you do buy a filter. My filter has already saved my lense on one or 2 occasions dont skimp or you'll regret it.

[Ferrari330P4]

So my final advice is this:
- your shooting sports, go for a canon body.

What is wrong with the 6 or 8 fps D300? How about the D3 rather than the 1D3, so what 1 fps difference. 400 2.8 or 400 2.8. I don't see how Canon has an advantage, nor Nikon having an advantage.