Budget constraint for entry-buyer: Lens or body?

<p>Greetings,</p>

<p>Looking through the forum, I found no prior answer to my question. I hope you can help me with some inputs.</p>

<p>I am about to purchase my first SLR, and my decision logic/steps has been as follows:</p>

<p>1) Established budget $1000-1300<br />2) Perceived Nikon D5200 superior to Canon 650D<br />3) Browsed the Nikon "lens portfolio" and was attracted by the AF-S DX 18-105mm f3.5-5.6G. It was described as a good all-round lens and a significant stepup from the kit lens. Also this package was within my total budget, and would enable me to learn my needs in order to upgrade some time in the future.</p>

<p><strong>BUT:</strong><br />4) Met an expert that discouraged me about said lens on the grounds of in-door/low-light performance. This is important to me *). I knew the aperture was not "all that", but satisfaction on these parameters seems to be incredibly relative, and as a first-time buyer, I don't know how to assess this and proceed.<br>

<br />I have created some scenarios:<br />A) D5200 + said 18-105 lens + Nikkor 35 MM f1.8 + accesories ($1386)<br />B) D5200 + Tamron 17-50MM F/2.8 XR DI-II VC LD + accesories ($1466)</p>

<p>Solution "B" costs $80 more, but relieves me from switching lenses, is probably close to par with solution "A" indoors and clearly superior outdoors?</p>

<p>However, both are exceeding my budget, which has made me invent a different direction/question:<br>

Would you rather go with<br />A1) D5200 + said 18-105 + accesories ($1136)<br />B1) D3200 + said Tamron 17-50MM + accesories ($1108)<br>

<em>(Note: "B1" includes the D<strong>3</strong>200)</em></p>

<p>Does "B1" make sense? The camera body is cheaper than the lens - I know specs and compatibility are what matters, but still! Is this a too far-out way to enter and position myself for future upgrades? And more importantly: Though I am certainly better off all-round lenswise with "B1", how much would you say I sacrifice when it comes to the camera body specs?</p>

<p>I read somewhere that the D3200 can actually outperform the D5200 in low-light, can that really be true (how?)?<br>

<br />Thanks very much for inputs!</p>

<p>*) Just to make sure I haven't misstated or misunderstood my needs completely: When talking indoors/low-light, I simply try to stress the importance of being able to take good snapshots indoors of people and children all year round without an external flash, and without the built-in popup-flash coming into play.</p>

 

<p>The differences between the D5200 and D3200 in low-light performance are pretty much negligible. I wouldn't base my buying decision on that. But there are other differences. The D5200 has a better autofocus system and more controlability. Whether those things are important to you I can't tell, but they would be important to me.</p>

<p>As far as low-light interior shooting goes, I really feel an f/1.8 lens would be of great value to you. All else being equal, that lets you shoot in light that's less than half as strong as the f/2.8 lens allows. So if that is a primary determinant, you might consider something like getting either body with the 18-55 kit lens (which isn't a great lens but neither is it horrible) and the 35 f/1.8 for interior available-light use. But here in the US right now there is a $100 off on the D5200 with 18-105. That bundle plus the 35/1.8 will total about $1200, within your budget unless you need >$100 of accessories.</p>

 

<p>Whenever I hear someone say "without the internal or external flash" I just have to ask, why? Photography is all about understanding and controlling the light. Can you imagine if I posted this:</p>

<p>I am a professional photographer and I want to know what camera and lens I should buy so that I never use a flash.</p>

<p>The fact is that whatever pictures you get "indoors of people and children all year round without an external flash, and without the built-in popup-flash coming into play" will simply not be the best you can produce. They will be better if you learn to properly use flash. I would go further and say that any "expert" photographer would council you to buy external flash before you move beyond the kit lens for what you describe. There are some situations when one can't use flash but they would be very unusual situations assuming you know the people you are shooting..... If you are wanting to avoid flash because you want to shoot people (especially children) without them or their parents noticing that is a whole other thing altogether. </p>

<p>Most of the time when people speak of not using flash it is because they don't know how and have found their results unsatisfactory. It is not hard to learn how to use flash and it will take your photography to a whole new and much better level to do so. </p>

<p>If you insist on not using flash then you need the faster lenses. The Tamron F/2.8 is a good choice as is its Sigma counterpart.</p>

<p>But please understand this. VR/VC technology will help you reduce camera shake. So if you are hand-holding your camera and taking a picture of a sleeping baby you can shoot at very slow shutter speeds. People and especially children when awake are perpetual motion machines. They wiggle. This technology will not stop them from moving and will not freeze motion. To do that you need an appropriately fast shutter speed. Flash helps you get that. (It is more than that as flash duration matters but for the time being just go with the concept.) </p>

<p>Available light is exactly that. What happens to be there. You will have issues in post with color temperature. The shadows are where they are. Indoor home lighting tends to be flat and uninteresting. Commercial lighting not much better. <br>

You speed up your shutter if you shoot at F/1.8 as Jonathan said and that helps. Seriously consider flash as it will make your life much easier and your pictures vastly better in many if not most cases. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Why not at D5100 for around $496 new, then you will have a few extra $$ to get<br /> 35mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 and 18-105 or Sigma/Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 + flash ??<br /> just another thought :) you could get a Nikon 40mm f2.8 for a regular lens & close-up too!</p>

<p>My experience with natural light indoors situation reinforces what Jonathan mentioned above. I also like the smaller size of the fixed focal length lenses compared to the slower zoom lens. Don't overlook buying a refurbished Nikon 35 mm lens-they are under $200</p>

<p>When I began in photography the adage was simple...natural light outdoors, flash indoors. As a young budding photographer, I tried many of the available tricks to reduce the use of flash indoors. Finally, before my daughter was born, I hit the jackpot, in learning how to effectively use bounced flash when natural light was insufficient. All that process took place with (expensive slide) film....long learning curve. Fast forward a few decades (of mostly outdoor shooting), and as I transitioned into digital, I again had reservations about flash (built in or added), but it was MUCH easier to experiment around with digital with the instant feedback. I found that in very short order, I LOVED flash and got exactly the results I wanted - and clearly knew when to use the pop up flash on my camera and when to bring in the big guns. My point is simply...what you want to achieve is the end result, and there are ways of doing it which can significantly increase your "keeper" photos. With lots of indoor shooting and kids, flash is your friend, unless you live in a glass house with immense amounts of bright natural light throughout the day (or whenever you plan to take pictures). Fast lenses can be great to achieve shallow depth of field, but don't dismiss flash out of hand...it is an integral part of the photographic toolbox.</p>

<p>First, if you are on a budget you should look at buying refurbished or used equipment.</p>

<p>For a zoom an f2.8 lens is crucial if you shoot in low light. The Tamron you mentioned above are being used professionally for instance by wedding shooters. Sigma also has a similar lens that is even better but also more expensive. The Nikon 18-105 is not suitable for low light shooting.</p>

<p>When it comes to camera bodies a used D7000 would be a better camera in real life than a new D5200. The D3200 is only really suitable for beginners (or those wanting the smallest Nikon dSLR).</p>

<p>Looking at prices a refurbished D7000 ($730) and a refurbished Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC ($430) would leave room for a new Nikon 35mm f1.8 as well ($200). That's a total of $1360. Or $1169 without the 35mm lens.</p>

<p>Or drop the Nikon 35mm f1.8 for now and add a flash, a used SB-600 or used/refurb SB-700 for $200-$300 instead.<br /> Flash can look great but it requires knowledge to get good results. Just aiming it straight forward or slightly upward with an omnibouce will almost never look good. Wedding shooters are experts in using small flash because they have to produce good looking images in a very short amount of time.</p>

<p>If you wanted you could also look at the other Tamron 17-50 f2.8 without VC. It's cheaper and just as good optically. But it doesn't have stabilization. Stabilization helps holding the lens steady when shooting in low light. That means less amount of blurry images from camera shake. </p>

<p>While the lens you considered is f/3.5-5.6 and definitely in slow speed department but if you get say an f/2.8 lens you gain 2/3 stop to 2 stops and that's not sufficient for low light photography any way. If you are into indoor available light you should look for a body that can perform well at ISO6400 or so rather than getting fast lens. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>While the lens you considered is f/3.5-5.6 and definitely in slow speed department but if you get say an f/2.8 lens you gain 2/3 stop to 2 stops and that's not sufficient for low light photography any way. If you are into indoor available light you should look for a body that can perform well at ISO6400 or so rather than getting fast lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have a point there but to be honest you would need both a body that can perform well at ISO6400 (that means a full frame camera) and a fast lens as well (f2.8 or faster). Totally different budget for that.</p>

<p>It would be almost ridiculous trying to use a slow consumer zoom like the 18-105 for indoor available light only (no flash). </p>

<p>If I were in your position:</p>

<p>D7000 - a much better camera that you may never need to replace;<br>

35mm f/1.8G - good in low light, cheap, excellent image quality;<br>

SB700 - learn how to bounce flash around and balance it with the ambient light</p>

<p>Then practice, practice, practice.</p>

<p>By the time you are getting consistently good results, you'll know what to buy next.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>D7000 - a much better camera that you may never need to replace;<br /> 35mm f/1.8G - good in low light, cheap, excellent image quality;<br /> SB700 - learn how to bounce flash around and balance it with the ambient light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chris, it could be hard for a beginner today to start with one prime lens only. But if OP has the guts for it, then why not? It's probably the best way to learn.</p>

<p>Come to think of it, if he has a background using a compact camera it might be hard to be confined to a zoom but if he comes from shooting with smartphones he's probably already accustomed to using one focal length only.</p>

<p>If I was starting out get a kit new or a used one but you may not be comfortable with the latter if you are just beginning out. I would get a cheap body with the kit lens that is it. I won't even consider a 35 even thou it is 1.8 b/c I think most people it's too limited esp if you are just starting off now, for general people it's not wide enough, to capture a dinner table of people or at the restaurant or to capture scenic vistas. Get that later on if you need it. I would get a flash head. D7000 is nice but you may not need it, for the moment you're probably not going to be firing off multiple flashes, use old era manual focus lenses, needing dual memory cards, mirror lock up - not sure if this is provided in the cheaper bodies but does a beginner need it.</p>

<p>Price difference between a new D5200 and a refurbished D7000 is about $30 - and if the OP will consider the purchase of a flash, then the D7000 is the better option as the D7000 will allow much easier control of a flash off-camera.<br /> <br />A single prime is not a bad idea - but the 35mm focal length can indeed be quite limiting when used in confined spaces. Also, the next purchase will likely be a zoom anyway as the DX lens landscape isn't exactly overflowing with prime lenses. Given the budget constraints, it seems more logical to start with a 17-50/2.8 lens - either Tamron or Sigma. Or the OP could wait until the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is available - even though it's $800 price tag would necessitate a stretch in the OP's budget. The fast f/1.8 aperture would allow available light shooting indoors - but the range could be quite limiting for outdoor shooting (but then likely 17-50 isn't going to be enough either).</p>

<p>Go cheap on the camera, put money in the lens. I suggest a refurb D3200 or D5100 paired with a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 VC. Make sure you get the one that has the motor in the lens. Either should do what you want and hit your budget. I have the D5100 as a back up camera and find it acceptable. A D3200 will have about the same image quality and is smaller.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Haven't heard that much about what the OP sees as the reason to upgrade to the 5200, so thoughts:<br>

1) The 3200 with the basic kit lens is a good starter set-up, and the 18-55 cheap as chips.<br>

2) Apart from the extra zoom range and build, is the 18-105 really that much of an upgrade? I like mine for all-around use (despite the mediocre reviews), but I won't claim it's the best lens ever.<br>

3) The 35m lens plus the sb400 flash is great for indoors, with the bounce very effective. Best, this is a very small kit and would be much more likely to be used frequently. The 18-55 is usable indoors with flash and remains small.<br>

4) I like and use the 17-50 f2.8 (mine from Sigma), but it is much bigger and heavier. The camera gets picked up more when it has a light lens on it.<br>

5) If reach is needed for outdoors, etc., the 55-200 is available in a complete kit with the 3200 and the 18-55 for really reasonable prices. Or conversely, pick this lens up later second-hand when needed, there always seem to be some for sale.<br>

6) Additional lenses can always be bought later, and since the needs aren't clearly defined yet, I'd keep some dry powder.<br>

So my suggestion is the d3200 with the 35, the sb400, and the kit lens to start. With or without the 55-200. Get more lenses when the need is clear.</p>

<p>Just to make a point about using a flash, and to differ on the opinion that a diffuser is no good, I shot this with a D300s and Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC with a Nikon SB-600 flash in the hot shoe and small Lumiquest diffuser pointed 45 degrees up. Came out pretty good if I do say.</p><div></div>

<p>D5200 + 18-105 + accessories ($1136)</p>

<p>. . . and you will never regret it.</p>

<p>You can even get a 50 1.8 before you know it if you need low light--but that 18-105mm is a superb little lens. I have gotten a lot of good shots with it.</p>

<p>This is the rational choice.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Wow,</p>

<p>This is the single most helpful forum I ever encountered. Thanks for all replies! I never imagined to gather so many insights from one single issue posted.</p>

<p>I could write many individual answers and clarify a million things, but out of respect for the forum I will try to be brief.<br /> <br />Looking at the whole topic from above, I think what happens is this: When an amateur throws in "convenience"-related objections like "I want great pictures, but</p>

<ul>

<li>would like to avoid having to mount an external flash"</li>

<li>can't be bothered to shoot in raw and after-edit every single picture"</li>

<li>want to not fiddle with MANY of my camera's functions for EVERY shot I take"</li>

</ul>

<p>- helpful enthusiasts' seem to change attitude very abruptly :o) - "Fine, have it your way. I won't try THAT hard to help out someone who compromises that much".<br /> <br />And I can understand that, if one's passion are those very things. But at the same time, I become frustrated, because if I KNOW about my behaviour, I would rather adjust my purchase choice to my behaviour beforehand, rather than aim for something, hoping my behaviour will change.</p>

<p>In the case of "no flash indoors", I guess the take-away is that you guys can't stress enough how tedious it is to try all other roads to satisfactory photos, when time- and money-wise the flash solution is the right one. It is duly noted! :o)<br /> <br />Right, so let's assume</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>D5200</strong>: Not too secure about refurb (D7000) yet, and need the AF quality compared to D3200</li>

<li><strong>SB-400</strong>: Think I can live with the limitations on bounce flash in vertical shots - considering how much lighter the flash is than the SB-600</li>

<li><strong>Accessories</strong> corresponding to my original post (SD card, bag, remote control)</li>

</ul>

<p><br />That leaves the lens(es) and not too much budget - some $200.<br /> See also Greg Alton's post.<br /> I am still in doubts whether combining the 35 mm f1.8 with the SB-400 is overmuch, given the budget constraint. Haven't I "done enough" for my indoors demands with the flash, to be happy with a zoom lens, either the 18-105 or 18-55 (kit)? After all, the 35 mm f1.8 is of limited use for other purposes than the indoors issue - or is there something I am not seeing?</p>

<p>The 18-105 will end me up in $1333<br />The 18-55 will end me up in $1162<br /> <br />Thanks once again!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Looking at the whole topic from above, I think what happens is this: When an amateur throws in "convenience"-related objections like "I want great pictures, but</p>

<ul>

<li>would like to avoid having to mount an external flash"</li>

<li>can't be bothered to shoot in raw and after-edit every single picture"</li>

<li>want to not fiddle with MANY of my camera's functions for EVERY shot I take"</li>

</ul>

<p>- helpful enthusiasts' seem to change attitude very abruptly :o) - "Fine, have it your way. I won't try THAT hard to help out someone who compromises that much".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I hope we did not give that impression. At least for me the issue is that I believe that what appears to be a hassle, once someone really understands just a few concepts, becomes easier than the alternative.</p>

<p>Yours would have been a different question if you were speaking about, say, theater photography or indoor sports where a flash may not be allowed or even desired. You described a situation where flash was just the ticket.</p>

<p> Also consider the solutions you have chosen. Our advice was not based upon some elitist "nothing but the best" solution. If you had said that convenience trumped money we might have gone a different direction. We would have had you in a D600 ($2K) and some fast lenses (another $2K+). Now that you can rely on a reasonably good source of light you are able to choose MUCH less expensive lenses. The 18-105 is about $200.00 in a refurbished (smart choice) and the flash is about $120.00. This allows you to not only shoot far better pictures but also to get into a better body for about 25% of the cost of an only marginally more effective low-light rig and still quite a bit less than trying to purchase very expensive glass. So please don't confuse our considered advice to you as colored by some desire to lead you into the ranks of the criminally-equipped as some of us sadly are. We really did consider what you said.</p>

<p>For the record, I think I can speak for the others when I say, that you should use your camera in a way that gives you joy. If you want to shoot Jpeg go ahead. In fact I think you ought to until you see a need to get into the complicated world of post production. As a photojournalist I frequently shoot Jpeg for work. I use is often when I am taking snap shots for my own enjoyment. If I am shooting my Christmas party I do not anticipate spending days in post production. I just want a picture of my friends and the turkey. Likewise with the automated modes. I know people who think that professional photographers "only shoot manual". They are wrong. Most of the professionals I know are happy to use convenient camera functions. Manual mode <strong>is</strong> a convenience for certain shots. For others, not so much.</p>

<p>As for your preferred behavior. I notice that you came here to get answers. It would have been easy for you to hit Costco and buy the kit-du= jour. My suspicion is that you are exactly the person who will enjoy getting the most out of your new camera in time. Wait until you see what you can do with your excellent choice. I'll bet it will knock your socks off. </p>

<p>So don't be so hard on us.....we really aren't that elitist a group. You should see us chasing our grandkids with a camera.</p>

<p>Martin, I'd counsel you against buying an SB-400. This pathetic little thing is barely any more powerful than the camera's popup flash. Look at other makes compatible with Nikon before choosing this little toy. Because if there's one thing guaranteed to put you off experimenting with using flash, it's an underpowered little gun that won't even fill an average living room with light.</p>

<p>Both Nissin's Di622 and Sigma's EF610 can be bought for around the same price as the SB-400, and have a much more useful amount of power with a tilt and swivel head.</p>

<p>Rick, others: Just to keep the thread on the right track - no offense was taken <strong>at all</strong>! I am afraid something was lost in translation. I really appreciate the advice given, and did not consider the overwhelming opinion in favour of external flash (and learn using it!) to be harsh or elitist at all. The paragraph where I write something about flash solution being "the right one", I really mean it, I was convinced! :o)</p>

<p>(And yes, I <strong>have</strong> met enthusiasts that suggest to me that I can't object to the output from my Canon S95 when using it on "auto", or that I wouldn't be in a position to complain about SLR output if I shoot jpeg)</p>

<p>- I see the subsequent development of the thread - after pushing me over the edge of including an external flash - is HOW powerful it should be. Ah, well :oD</p>

 

<p>You can consider the non-Nikon flashes if you want. I think for the time being you will be happy with the SB-400. IT is very light and small. It recycles about three times faster than your on camera flash and will bounce. As for power, it is actually quite a bit more powerful than the on-camera flash.</p>

<p>To put the power of the flash in perspective here is a handy comparison.</p>

<p>The on-camera flash is guide number is 39</p>

<p>The SB-400 flash guide number is 69</p>

<p>The SB-600 guide number is 98.</p>

<p>(ISO 100)</p>

<p>By shooting at ISO 200-400 which is mostly noiseless the SB400 is more than powerful enough. Rather than pole vault over mouse droppings I hope you just snag the SB-400 and get to taking pics. It is so light you won't even know it is there and should be just what the doctor ordered. If you catch fire with flash and really want to get into it you can upgrade later. There is no doubt that the swivel is nice and that some secondary brand equipment is very good but I am taking you at your word about light and fast. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>(And yes, I <strong>have</strong> met enthusiasts that suggest to me that I can't object to the output from my Canon S95 when using it on "auto", or that I wouldn't be in a position to complain about SLR output if I shoot jpeg)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know. Sadly I run into them all of the time too. I guess there is joy in gearheadedness too. The other day a guy busted my chops over using a D7100 (with which I am having a torrid affair just now) to shoot a sporting event. I so wanted to get the D4 and 300 F/2.8 out of the car just to teach him a lesson but I was working and didn't have time for his nonsense. Besides. It would have been me who was compensating. ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Martin, the issue with having an under-powered flash is that it tends to limit you into using it "head on". And although that SB-400 can angle its beam upwards toward a ceiling, there'll be so little of it's precious light reflected back that it'll be almost useless. This forces you into blasting the flash straight into the face of your subject most of the time, which results in some of the ugliest and flatest lighting possible. Not to mention a good chance of red-eye.</p>

<p>A more powerful flash will flinch less at being "bounced" and will enable you to get a much softer, more even and 3 dimensional looking effect. In other words it'll look much more like the ambient light that you wanted to use in the first place.</p>

<p>Basically I'm just trying to persuade you to get "the best bang for your buck", or in this case, the biggest flash of light for your buck.</p>

<p>My advice would be to buy the cheapest camera and kit lens you would be at least partially happy with and that is it. Learn how to use the camera and lens. Find out what you like and dislike about the set up and then spend more money to upgrade or buy accessories. The kit lens is great and I used it for a couple of years before I felt the need to upgrade. I know lots of people couldn't live with out a external flash but I still haven't purchased one and rarely if ever wish I had one. I purchased the 35 1.8 and rarely used it but I love my 85 1.8. Everyone is different and spending your full budget before you have even taken a picture yet is (I think) crazy. See what you want after a little while whether it is fast glass, a great tripod, a all in one zoom, flash, macro lens etc and then buy more!</p>

<p>Have fun, Brian</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe I respectfully disagree. The SB-400 is more than powerful enough for bounce outside of Town Hall. He can hit 50 feet distance (roughly) at ISO 800 and f5.6 18mm. That will light (bounce included) pretty much everything he will reasonably want. Martin is very concerned about weight. We just barely got him to try a flash. Let's not scare him off. </p>