Got a Canon 2000D as a gift. Opinions?

Hey, so I got a new Canon 2000D as a gift recently and I was wondering what is the overall opinion about this camera in this sub. So it has come with a default 18-55mm lens. I have been doing some online research and everything about this points to it being a decent entry level DSLR. Anyone with experience of holding onto this for a long time and using it for productive photography or would I have to change the lenses/camera soon because it is limited? Any suggestions on using it to get into the world of photography. Would low light and wildlife photography be limited with this camera or are there some handy quirks I can use?

While the kit is VERY versatile, if you are really into low light and wildlife photography, you would want to get lenses which can better achieve the sort of results most people would want. The two extremes you are talking about usually take much more expensive lenses than the kit lens, in the case of low light you want an aperture of around f/1.4 or so, and for wildlife (assuming at a distance, not in a zoo) a telephoto lens of 400mm or so focal length.

If you are just starting out in photography, this camera is fully capable of giving you excellent results if you follow some basic rules, which you can find in any beginner text on digital photography. I'm not sure what you mean by 'Productive Photography' but if you mean 'Great Photography' then this camera will not hinder you. Most of the great photographs since the birth of photography were taken on much slower to use, and infinitely less capable cameras than this.

 

I'd get used to it, shoot lots, and get to understand the fundamentals before you try to move on to anything more technical. Wildlife photography, isn't just about sticking a 500mm lens on the front, and off you go. A sound background knowledge will be required before you will routinely get the sort of images you want, and you will be rewarded with much better photos in the long run. Good luck, and have fun!

Although the kit lens is often looked down upon, it's really much better than it has any right to be for the price.

 

I suspect that the powers that be at the primary producers of entry-level cameras and lenses understand that if they make them "crappy," many people are going to be disappointed and not come back for more.

 

If you are old enough, remember IBM's "PCjr." (LINK) which I believe was purposely crippled to avoid competing with IBM's much more expensive Displaywriter hardware (and also the PC itself which also had a flaky keyboard at the beginning). Despite their eventual success with other products, I think no one who bought a PCjr was happy with the product or the company.

 

Other companies surely learned from this example.

Edited April 15, 2020 by JDMvW

Not so long after the PCjr came out, the place where I was used them to control the copying machine.

 

That is, they used it for accounting. You put in your account number, and then used the copier.

 

I suspect that they got a good deal on them, and it was plenty powerful enough for the use.

 

But yes, if you really wanted a computer, it wasn't a good choice.

 

For someone who hasn't done much photography before, the 18-55 should be fine.

 

Note also that many used lenses are available, in great condition, and for reasonable prices.

 

Those can make it easier to try some different things out, without a large investment.

So basically the camera is not one I personally would choose, for beginners or otherwise. Having said that, it doesn't matter. For now, it will serve you very well. I prefer beginners to learn with digital than with film, at least in the first stages, so you're on the right track. Others may disagree, which is fine.

 

You can slowly add lenses to your kit. Lots of good, cheap ones on eBay. You can get a 50/1.8 for, say, $50 or less. A brand new 85/1.8 can be bought for something like US$200.

 

Personally, I don't think that beginners should be using lenses with sliding apertures, as that tends to add another distraction to the learning process. However, they are cheap to make, which is why kit lenses are like that.

 

If you understand light well enough, you can make great images with almost any camera. So, regardless of what camera you're using, keep an eye out for light, experiment with how different lights affect the image. LED lighting is one of the great innovations of our time - I'd say that it's equally important as digital capture. The good news is that you don't need a Hollywood budget to have Hollywood lighting. ;-)

 

Another thing I usually say to beginners: skip formal education. You'd be better off improving your photography while holding some kind of job, part time or otherwise. I know of one photographer who started his own film developing business. It's small for now, but he's doing very well, and he's on his way to being financially independent. Spend money and time on equipment and travelling. Don't buy cameras and lenses that are beyond your skill level, as that's also a waste.

(snip)

Don't buy cameras and lenses that are beyond your skill level, as that's also a waste.

 

I think I agree, but it is complicated.

 

There are many features on modern DSLRs that many of us have no need to use,

and so no need to learn about. But with modern digital circuits, it is much easier to add

features than to figure out how to use them, or even to find a need to use them.

Also, many features you might grow into using, and don't want to buy a new camera

everytime you are ready for the next feature.

 

So, I mostly don't worry about the skill level of cameras.

(But also, don't pay a lot more for features you are unlikely to use anytime soon.)

 

Lenses are different. Many fancy lenses are much more expensive, with much of

that cost for specialized uses. Also, some of the fancier lenses are much heavier

to carry around, which means you might not have it when you actually find the use.

 

So, in the case of lenses, I do agree. When you find that you need a fancier

lens, and have learned that through difficulty with the lens you have,

then you know it is time.

Yes, that is a fine beginner's camera. Thanks to progress over the years, it's far better than my first digital SLR. And yes, the lens is fine for many uses--but not for all.

 

However, thinking about additional equipment at this stage is a waste of time, and buying it would probably be a waste of money. The only real reason to buy more gear is if the gear you have won't do something specific that you want to do. And the additional things you will want to do will depend on the kinds of photography that you find yourself doing. For my uses, I need macro lenses but don't for the most part need fast lenses. Other people need fast lenses but not macro lenses. Karim mentioned two lenses: a 50mm f/1.8 and an 85mm f/1.8. Both are useful lenses that can be had cheaply, but I wouldn't recommend that you buy either one, as you don't know yet whether you will be doing the photography that calls for one. I have been doing photography for half a century and went without a 50mm prime lens for about 30 years without really missing it very much. I have never owned an 85mm prime lens. Other people find these lenses extremely helpful, based on what they do. You'll know when you need something more.

 

So enjoy the camera, practice with it, and study. There are some very good online resources.

Y

(snip)

The only real reason to buy more gear is if the gear you have won't do something specific that you want to do.

(snip)

 

Sometimes the reason is that you just want something, and to know you have one.

 

This is more obvious for collectible items.

 

Someone might want a Leica I just because they want to know that they have one,

or maybe to show off to their friends, not because they want it to do anything.

 

As with you, I didn't have a 50mm lens for many years. I bought my Nikon FM new, along

with the AI 35/2.0, because I like the 35mm lens with the Canon rangefinder I was using.

 

The two things I most used the camera for were scenery and indoor action shots.

(At the time, it was mostly people in my college dorm.) I do happen to like what scenery

looks like with a 35mm lens. Not so much later, I got a 24mm lens. Though I don't use it

all that often, it is kind of nice when those situations arise. (Like visiting Sequoia National

Park and photographing the trees which it is named for.)

Its a great enough camera to unbox and shoot it (I guess).

Forget "replacing"; think "adding"! If you want to do wildlife: Get a good long lens + suitable camera and keep the 2000D with kit zoom on your other shoulder to shoot the landscape you are in. Image quality from both should be equal. And changing lenses means missing shots + more dust on your sensor.

I haven't bothered to replace my (worse than yours!) elderly Pentax & Samsung APS bodies, that go with kit or WA zooms, for the stuff they are doing. For studio work the camera might not matter much at all.

Get a used tripod, remote release, some third party flashes and learn to use that stuff. Think about better gear after hitting walls hard enough. If you have professional career plans: Keep your camera until you can afford a better backup. - Getting the job done despite equipment failures is the most important thing.

Low light: Try it out. In general more light seems more desirable than better cameras and lenses. To get a real advantage from a faster lens make sure to buy something with IS (or however Tamron and other thid parties call their counterpart). Competing with just faster (i.e. unstabilized) glass and a bigger sensor against IBIS didn't get me very far.

I'd prepare to get at least(!) a camera that offers AF micro adjustment options, if I had fast glass like EF 85/1.4 IS in mind. Shopping for eye detecting AF seems an even better idea. I'm struggling to nail focus on the front eye in a headshot taken at 200mm and anything wider than f4.5 (YMMV, but I warned you.)

+1 for "a decent entry level DSLR". There's so much more to the camera than the manufacturer's target market price bracket. When your use of the camera points to a need for different lenses, you can buy them. Many threads in this forum recommend putting money into quality lenses vs. camera. Build a kit of lenses accordingly. Upgrade the camera body when you need additional features.

The couple of reviews I've read are very positive about the Canon 2000D as a good 'value for money' entry-level DSLR+lens. At around $350 for the camera + lens (and sometimes other accessories thrown in), you get a lot for the price. Like most entry-level camera+lens deals, it's value IMHO is primarily as a general 'walk-about' combi. You'll get good results in most situations. It's a good and affordable combi to get into photography, learn more about it and find out what really interests you. And where the combi's constraints lie for the photos you really want to take. Then you can figure out whether you might want upgrade at a later stage, to what (camera? lenses? flash? tripod?) and why. And how much an upgrade might really be worth to you.

 

It's a cliché but (with exceptions in specialist genres) great photos are created by photographers with passion, a good 'photography eye, patience and social and photographic skills, not because of the equipment they use. The Canon 2000D is a great camera to learn and practice photography on. And yes, you can take productive photos with it. Some constraints you can compensate for in post-processing (digital zoom through cropping, increasing low-light exposure and reducing high-ISO noise, sharpening images, etc.). It's not a bad idea to learn to work within the constraints of whatever equipment you have available. In general, the more money you spend, the less constraints you'll have.

 

Some constraints with this kit will be in the genres you mention: low-light and wildlife (and maybe sport). Your f/3.5-5.6 lens and ISO range should allow you to take photos in some lower-light situations but not in others (with very low light). The kit lens is not specialized for low-light like (for example) Canon's cheapest 50mm 1.8 mm STM lens. Low-light situations usually require a high ISO setting too. Some higher-end DSLR's can produce useable photos at ISO 128,000 or even 256,000 even before any noise reduction is done. The 2000d has a 'usable' ISO up to about 32,000. Photos at ISO 64,000 and 128,000 will tend to be 'noisier' and even after some noise-reduction may not be as detailed as you'd like.

 

Specialized wildlife photographers usually want/need lenses with a very long zoom reach: 300mm - 800mm or even more. Your kit lens has a maximum 'reach' of 55mm so any wildlife that you can't physically get close to is likely to be out of range, even with digital zoom in post-processing.

 

Still, having one 28mm-55mm lens is a good way of learning about its constraints. By browsing through the long lists of alternative camera systems and lenses (for different brands), you'll gradually learn what kind of upgrades are available and useful to you and at what price. When the time comes to think about upgrading or extending your kit for specific reasons, it's worth considering different brands before you get locked into any one brand or system. I've always bought Canon and I'm very happy with it. I also know people who prefer - and are just as happy with - Nikon (or whatever brands). If you're thinking of upgrading, bear in mind that there's a healthy market in refurbished and second-hand cameras and lenses.

 

Hop this helps,

 

Mike

. . .

Personally, I don't think that beginners should be using lenses with sliding apertures, as that tends to add another distraction to the learning process. However, they are cheap to make, which is why kit lenses are like that.

. . .

What is a sliding aperture?

What is a sliding aperture?

I assume he's referring to the variable maximum aperture of most kit lenses--f/3.5 at the wide angle setting (28 mm) to f/5.6 at the telephoto setting (55 mm). This won't be that confusing to someone who has set the camera to P (for Program or "Professional", as my students refer to it), but it could be if the camera is set to aperture preferred and the maximum aperture changes with the focal length.

As AJG said. It's often referred to as a floating aperture as well.

I assume he's referring to the variable maximum aperture of most kit lenses--f/3.5 at the wide angle setting (28 mm) to f/5.6 at the telephoto setting (55 mm). This won't be that confusing to someone who has set the camera to P (for Program or "Professional", as my students refer to it), but it could be if the camera is set to aperture preferred and the maximum aperture changes with the focal length.

Thanks

variable maximum aperture

 

I'd refer to that, as exactly "variable/varying maximum aperture", too: I think that's what we'd find is the technical term used. I think AJG and I have much background in common.

 

Mind - as a by the way: we're all probably talking amongst ourselves anyway, as the OP hasn't logged back into Photo.net since the day of the Opening Post.

 

WW

wildlife photography

One snag I have found with using a Canon crop-sensor DSLR for wildlife photography is that the Canon long lenses (400mm upwards) are made for full frame cameras. They are EF lenses (which work on both full frame and crop sensor Canon DSLRs), rather than EF-S lenses (which only work on crop sensor Canon DSLRs). EF lenses focus the light onto a circle that will cover the full frame sensor, but when used with a crop sensor this circle of light is too big, so you end up with a cropped image. This can be considered a good thing in that the apparent magnification is greater (a smaller section of the circle covers the entire sensor), but the downside is that you are using a lens that has more glass than you need for a crop sensor, making it bigger, heavier, and more expensive. It will also have been designed to work at its best on a full frame camera. But I must stress, it will work.

One other problem is that if you have any interest in shooting video, you won't be able to see anything through the viewfinder whilst doing so, because of the way a DSLR works. This is a major problem. Trying to follow a moving target whilst using the rear display is way more difficult than using the viewfinder. This is one area where a mirrorless camera has the advantage.

Other than that, as it was a gift, I would be more than happy to use it.

One snag I have found with using a Canon crop-sensor DSLR for wildlife photography is that the Canon long lenses (400mm upwards) are made for full frame cameras. They are EF lenses (which work on both full frame and crop sensor Canon DSLRs), rather than EF-S lenses (which only work on crop sensor Canon DSLRs). EF lenses focus the light onto a circle that will cover the full frame sensor, but when used with a crop sensor this circle of light is too big, so you end up with a cropped image.

(snip)

 

Before crop sensors, we had telextenders, usually 1.4x and 2x, and even some 3x, which use only part of the image circle.

 

But also, it is usual that lenses aren't as good on the edge, so with crop sensor, you are using the better part of the image.

 

Also, you will be ready if you later by a full-frame camera. If you aren't backpacking, you probably want to minimize weight.