Beginner camera purchasing advice

[linz_rose]

<p>Hello -- I am planning to take a beginning photography class and want to purchase a new camera. The use of my photography is simply vacation and family photos.<br />I am trying to decide if I should go with the Nikon D300 or if the D90 is sufficient to still take fantastic photos.<br />Also, I have been advised that I should by the 70mm-200mm f\2.8vr lens, which I think at this point I am fine with.<br />However, I have also been advised to purchase a "normal" lens for day to day family shooting, and have been advised to buy the 24mm-120mm vr lens for this purpose. Is this too high end? Can I get buy with something lower end than this if I will already have the 70-200mm lens? <br />Consider I am used to shooting with a very basic digital camera - if I go with a lower end lens, will it really make that much of a difference? Or is it better to just go ahead and spend the extra money to have a lens that performs much better and will last me I hope for a very long time!<br />Thanks in advance for any advice!!<br />Linz</p>

[remco-jan.woldhuis]

<p>if you're a beginner, a D90 with standard consumer lenses is more than sufficient to take good pictures. If you can't take good picture with this stuff you can't do it with a D300 and 70-200/2.8 as well. <br>

I wouldn't buy the 24-120mm if this is your only lens in this range. It lacks wide angle when used on a DX Nikon. I think the best starter camera set up is a D60 or D90 with 18-xxxx kitlens (where xxxx can be 70, 85 or 105)....<br>

As a telelens you can consider the 70-300VR.</p>

<p> </p>

[linz_rose]

<p>Thank you! Also, what about a flash? I was advised to consider a sb-900 flash. Is this necessary? Or maybe this is something I hold off on until I see if I really like this, and then buy it later?<br>

Thanks!!</p>

[photo5]

<p>I'd think the D90 would be more than enough camera. I'd hold off on a flash at first. You can shoot up to ISO 3200 with the D90 and get decent results. It also has the pop up flash which isn't bad for close up use (up to 10 feet max). And the SB-600 would probably be more than enough flash if you needed more, and a good match for the D90.</p>

[ian_rose]

<p>Lindsay<br>

Comeing from Nikon film SLR to DSLR Ihad to make the same sort of decisions last year after checking on this forum and also in some of the gallery's at some of the users images .I phurchased a D40 because the ergonomics of the body felt right for me and my wife this camera with its 6mb sensor produces great images in print up to about 12x10 (never tried anything larger) I phurchased the stdandard 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses with the camera. These lenses are great most of the time (limations in low light) and the total kit weight about 1Kg or 2.2 lbs total weight is less than the 70-200 f2.8 lens so my advice is go in to a camera store and try holding whatever combinations of body and lens you are thinking about.</p>

<p>Ian R</p>

[robertbody]

<p>Yes D90, D300 would feel too heavy for a beginner, and later you will be able to justify the weight with what it can do.<br>

70-200mm will also be heavy, it's just half the focal range you want, the other being about 18-70mm range.<br>

Probably 24-120mm would introduce you to all the focal lengths for the beginning, and when you feel you are ready for 70-200mm try using it [before buying it] and see if it is too heavy... after you had experience with other lenses and your shooting style.<br>

In the beginning your focus should be on framing [deciding what to include and what not to include in a photo], when to take pictures and of what subjects, and that takes a lot of energy, and who knows if you'll like it, but when you do, and you feel you outgrew your equipment, that you can do better than your equipment lets you, then get something expensive.<br>

Yes 50mm f/1.8 for starters too, great lens to experiment with, light...<br>

D90 + 24-120mm + 50mm for starters, keep it for 6 months, do what you can, then read and try more expensive toys and know what you're buying before you do.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>maybe 18-70mm instead of 24-120mm, try both in the story.<br>

One gives you more wide-angle [18-36mm range], the other more telephoto [80mm-120mm range].I think 18-70mm would be better to get actually for dramatic wideangle for landscapes, cities, being close to buildings [not people]<br>

17-55 f/2.8 if you have $1200+ to spend on a lens, but that's even smaller range, so what else?<br>

50mm f/1.8 of course<br>

105mm f/2.8 perhaps, it's a macro too and telephoto in 1<br>

and D90........<br>

i think that would be a better combo, but you'd have to switch lenses, a small price to pay as you get better and your gear will still be enough<br>

so<br>

D90 + 17-55mm f/2.8 [or 18-70mm for budget reasons] + 50mm f/1.8 + 105mm f/2.8 macro VR</p>

 

[rainer_t]

<p>The original advise that you have been given sounds pretty much like the advise of a sales person that wanted to sell you alot of very costly stuff that (albeit very nice) is not exactly what you need.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>For family and vacation photos you are better of with small camera that you are likely to bring with you everywhere. A DSLR is not really that type of camera. I suggest looking at a Canon G10 or Nikon P6000, with the G10 being the better camera (unfortunately).</p>

<p>These cameras can be run in manual mode, have hotshoe attachment for flash and can shot raw so they are not your ordinary run of the mill compact digital. If you are new to photography you can learn all the important things with these cameras such as framing, composition and lighting. They cover the same range of focal lengths as is normally used on dslrs as well and with the manual control you have the same ability to set aperture, shutter speed, iso for creative exposures.</p>

<p> </p>

[tri-x1]

<p>If you want to shoot more than family photos: D90. 18-70 0r 16-85 lens, 50mm f1,8 lens, SB600 flash.<br>

If snapshots are your main interest Canon has a number of smaller, lighter point and shoots that will do the job and not break your bank.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>...and there are two of these threads. This is why you shuld only post each question in one place.</p>

<p>It just occurred to me - you're taking a beginning photography class. Would that be film or digital? Don't most beginning photography classes still want you to use the most manual film camera you can get? If it's that, I revise my answer to "any manual Minolta SLR with a 50mm or 58mm lens that you can buy fully working from a trusted source".</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Lindsay,</p>

<p>Like Rainer just said, the advice you seem to have gotten, from who ever you talked to, was for very good stuff, but also very EXPENSIVE stuff, and as a begginer you wouldn't see the difference is picture quality between the two.<br>

Here are a few things to keep in mind with all of the cameras that have been mentioned.</p>

<p>1) The consumer and even high end enthusiest Nikon cameras have a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film. This means that what you might consider a lens that can get a wide view for large groups of people or scenic landscapes will not be wide enough. As someone mentioned above, I would recomend something that starts at the 18mm range and zooms out. Otherwise you'll have to be further away from everything.</p>

<p>2) Many of the cameras listed have very similar sensors. The less expensive camera bodies just have less features. There are differences in the older cameras vs. the brand new ones, but ... in good hands you couldn't tell the difference in the pictures.</p>

<p>3) It is believed that the D40 may be discontinued already or will be very soon. It's the oldest camera in Nikon's current line up, but, it takes very nice pictures and is the least expensive. The downside is that it, along with the D60, require AF-S lenses to be able to auto focus. The D90 and higher can use ANY Nikon auto focus lens. </p>

<p>4) As a begginer, you do NOT need some of the expensive lenses you mentioned. They are big, sometimes heavy, and cost a lot. Pro's need them for specific reasons and are willing to pay for that. You really don't, yet. Many folks might suggest the 18-200mm. It covers a very wide range and costs less than any of the f2.8 lenses. Once you get much further along, you'll know what you need much better. You could then sell this lens, or keep it, depending on how you like it. There are other "kit" lenses that would work well too.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>If you're taking a photography class, I think that a dSLR would be a better choice than a compact digital camera (it's nice to have a small camera as well, of course). I don't think the huge, heavy, and telephoto only 70-200 2.8 would be a good choice for a beginner. I'd suggest getting a single general purpose zoom like the 18-70, 16-85, or even the 'do it all' 18-200 for now, then seeing how your interests develop. You can (potentially!) take fantastic photos with any current Nikon dSLR. All of them have a program mode that can be used by beginners. More expensive cameras like the D300 add more complex control options, a more durable (but heavier) body, and better performance (more frames per second, faster and more configurable autofocus, etc - nice to have but not essential if you're not shooting fast action). I'd strongly suggest trying out several cameras from the range in a shop to get an idea of how you like the handling (size, weight, viewfinder, etc.), and take anything the sales people say with a pinch of salt (you'll probably get better advice online).</p>

[linz_rose]

<p>Wow, this is all fantastic advice! And thanks for speaking in beginner terms - all these numbers (even if I am an accountant) are making my head spin!<br />Actaully, the advice I got was from the director of the photography workshop and instructor of the class I will be taking. I probably led him a bit to the response/suggestions on equipment by telling him I wanted a professional camera. I obviously didn't really know what that meant, so the advice herein on other options is much appreciated! To answer Andrew, since the instructor gave me this advice, I guess digital is fine for the class and not film. <br />In summary, I think I am hearing that the D90 is a good option with a lens from 18-200 so I have wide range. But, I can shoot close pictures with this right for just normal, spontaneous, out with family, don't want to think about setting the camera type shots, right (for those days when I am not wanting to be a photographer, but just want nice pictures)?<br />But what about a flash. Does it make sense to invest in a good flash as well? I feel like lighting is something that is so important - would a good flash fix any lighting problems?<br />Thanks again - this forum is great!</p>

[richard_turner1]

<p>This time last year i was in the same boat, i would suggest the d90 and the 18-200mmvr, play with it for 6 months and see what focal lenths you are using the most and go from there. After a while you will know what you want and the 18-200 will make everything easy to begin with whilst learning. It is not all things to all men but it is a fantastic compromise, which don't happen much in this game usually.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Yes. The 18-200 is ideal for when you're being spontaneous and don't know what you're going to need, because it does everything without having to switch lenses which causes you to miss shots. That said, it's a "jack of all trades, master of none" situation - it does everything, but it doesn't do anything as well as a more specialized lens. It has barrel distortion (which you can correct is software) at almost any zoom level and it isn't "fast" (it doesn't have a wide aperture) so my advice would be either a D90 or a D60 (both work very well with that lens; the D90 is better in low light because it can do higher ISO with less noise) and don't rule out a second lens.</p>

<p>Likely candidated for the second lens would be the 50/1.8 and the new model 35/1.8. The 35 is the "standard" lens on a DX camera (because the sensor is smaller the focal length is multiplied by 1.5 to get the equivalent lens on a film camera - so the 35 is the same as a 52.5 on film, and a 50 on film is the classic "standard" lens). The 50mm is an excellent portrait lens when used on DX as it gets a full person in the shot when standing 10-15 feet away, and it costs practically nothing but is not autofocus when used on the D60. Both are much smaller and lighter than a zoom lens. I use both.</p>

<p>Later on if you want a better flash (see my comment on flashes in your other thread) you can get one but the SB-900 is overkill. For your purposes, the most useful situations for an added flash will be:<br>

-You are taking photos of family indoors and need additional light. If you use the built-in flash you will get the nasty flash lighting that everybody hates, that's caused by shining a bright light directly at the person. With a hot-shoe flash you can aim the flash at the ceiling or wall and used bounced light which is almost always much better, or you can use a cable to attach the flash to the camera and light from the side, or use a diffuser to gt diffuse light.<br>

-You are outside in sunlight but your subject is in shadow. The flash provides fill light (try the camera on "slow" flash mode) but the built in flash isn't powerful enough.</p>

[richard_turner1]

<p>I have done that very thing and bought the 50mm, 1.8 since i first bought my d300 and 18-200mm, i found i wanted more lenth and have also got the 70-300 vr but my 18-200 still sits on the camera in my bag just in case. if your going to use a tripod, don't do what i did, buy 3 until you pay enough to find the one you want, don't pay less than £120, they are all crap. Get a uv filter for what ever lens you get, it will protect that expensive investment if nothing else. Don't worry about a flash for the time being, you'll have enough on your plate to learn what with PP as well.</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have some thoughts. First, what you shoot determines what you should buy. It's the classic beginner's mistake to put a lot of money on a camera and then just a little bit on lenses. That's exactly backwards. I would skip the Nikon 24-120mm lens. It's not very wide on the 24mm end, but more importantly it consistently gets mediocre reviews for image quality, at best. I would also skip the single focal lenses such as 50mm f1.8 unless you are planning on taking photos at night or other dimly lit places. It's money tied up that could go for something more useful. Since taking photos of family is important to you, I think you do need a flash. I would suggest either a used Nikon SB-800 or maybe an SB-600. For lenses, consider a Nikon 16-85mm VR or an 18-70mm. (The VR is very useful and works to make photos sharper.) Add a Nikon 70-300mm VR for longer range. The Nikon 18-200mm VR would not be a bad choice for a first camera set up and is a capable lens. If you want to take close up photos such as of butterflies, flowers, etc. I highly recommend a Tamron 90mm macro. It's an excellent lens. Another very useful addition is a decent tripod, especially for close up shots (macro). One can be found on eBay for about $150. I consider the tripod to be more important than the camera, BTW. Last in importance is the camera. The image quality from the D90 is equal to that of the D300, and with the difference in cost you could buy a lens. It also has a good video mode. It's a no-brainer. When I put together lists of photo gear for people here, I do put a lot of thought into it. I start with what they want to spend, what they want it to do, and most importantly what they want to photo. What you photo determines what lenses to buy, and lenses are key. I have the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR you mention, and it's one of Nikon's best lenses. However, it's huge, very heavy, and hard to find a camera bag for. It's not at all what I would consider a family snapshot lens. Don't even think of hauling a cinder block like that around at DisneyWorld, for example. The items I've suggested are all good quality, a good value for the $$, and will do what you want. One other thing I'll add the no one else has mentioned. I strongly suggest you get a copy of PHotoshop Elements v6.0. Software has become as important as photo gear, and PS Elements is a very good one and not too costly. You will definitely get your money's worth out of it.<br>

<br />Kent in SD</p>

[linz_rose]

<p>Thank you Kent - to answer your question on what I would shoot: I love to travel to places such as Africa (safari and landscape), Europe (archetecture and landscape), deserted paradise islands (landscape). I want to be able to take great pics when I travel. I guess the theme is mostly archetecture and landscape. Would this make a difference in your suggestions.<br>

Again, thanks a million to all!!</p>

[Two23]

<p>The more info we have, the better we can zero in. For travel, light & compact is important. Right there the nod goes to the D90. For landscapes, I think a tripod becomes even more important, so I'll recommend you spend a little money here and get a carbon fiber model. A couple I think are good values are the Bogen/Manfrotto 055CX3, or 190CX3. Also the Slik 813 or Velbon 630A. These all support at least 10 pounds and rise to at least 60 inches. For a ballhead, maybe a Slik SBH-280E would be a good relatively cheap one, judging from reviews. You do want a ballhead with quick release, and at least 10 pound capacity. The tripod & head I suggest will run you about $400. You are no doubt thinking, "For a tripod?" Yes. It sounds like a lot, but tripods are absolutely critical for what you want. Mine cost about $1,000. A good tripod you will keep for at least a decade, but cameras will come & go. My current tripod has now seen 4 cameras come & go. The cameras are now worth very little, but my Gitzo 1325cf is still likely worth about what I paid for it. Same for the head. A good tripod holds its value well. For lenses, I'm now thinking either the Nikon 16-85mm VR or the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8. The Tamron will come into its own if you're inside a Cathedral or shooting in dim light. The Tamron is very high quality and a favorite of beginning wedding photographers. Bringing up the rear is the Nikon 70-300mm VR. Add a good Hoya polarizer filter ($60), which I consider essential, myself. Camera bag, lens cloth, SB-600 or used SB-800 flash, and Photoshop Elements 6.0 software. I think all of this will do what you want and is a good value. It will all work together as a balanced system and will deliver professional results. It's a very flexible package and I'm sure you will use and appreciate each piece.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[johnw63]

<p>Lindsay,</p>

<p>As long as you take care of the camera, the D90 would be fine. The "Safari" and "deserted island" stuff makes me want to have you look at the D300, because it has better weather sealing for rugged locations. Some people feel it is too big, so I would suggest you check it and the D90 out at a camera store before you decide.</p>

<p>One thing about digital camera, you can adjust it for use in bright or dim situations, unlike film. So, the new cameras can shoot quite nice shots in places , without a flash, that you would really NEED one with film. That makes them rather versitile, in that regard. So, in many of your listed locations, you may not need an extra flash. Just set your camera for low light. ( Change the ISO from say 200 to perhaps 800 or 1600 or even higher. )</p>

<p> </p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Weight of camera equipment is a big concern for me when I travel. I think you should go to the camera store and look, hold the D40, D90 and D300. Put that 70-200mm f2.8 on the body and get an idea of the package. Fast tele zoom can be very handy but they cost and weigh more than prime. If you are not shooting action an older manual focus tele prime may be a better choice used with a D300. I think its best to have great glass and decent body but if you are unsure exactly what your needs are then maybe a 18-55 kit lens or the 18-200 will give you something to learn about your needs. It is possible to get great images from a D40 and kit lens. I have two tripods one small and light for hiking the other much bigger for a large telephoto lense. Both carbon and $$$ but should last forever.</p>

[Two23]

<p>John is correct that often you could simply crank up the ISO on a D90 and get away without flash. However, with a flash you have a LOT more control over the light. You don't have to settle for what you're given at a scene. For my own family photos I find a flash very nice to have. The D90 + SB-600/800 will even allow you to take the flash off the camera, which gives the shots more of a "pro" look. There are people on the forum here who are much better portrait shooters than I am and could also comment. I find I use my SB-800 flash daily when I'm on a family trip. Here's a few examples where I used it that simply cranking up ISO would not have done the same thing:</p>

<p>Kent in SD<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/3282908885_6a7e75f8ce.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="335" /></p><div></div>

[Richard Williams]

<p>'I guess the theme is mostly archetecture and landscape. Would this make a difference in your suggestions.'</p>

<p>One thing to watch out for with the ~18-x zooms several of us suggested is the level of distortion at the wide end. For most purposes this isn't a big deal (and can mostly be corrected in software). But for architectural shots, the distortion will be more obvious. Prime lenses and the expensive f/2.8 zooms are better at this sort of thing.</p>

[diane_madura]

<p>Hi, Lindsay. For me, the D300 is a little heavy to be taking on exotic trips. Weight is always an issue for me when hiking. As suggested above, maybe check out the different models in a store. And don't forget how much heavier the camera will be with a heavy lens. Have you tried a D300 with the 70-200 lens? Yipes, it's heavy!<br>

Why not settle on a camera with a kit lens (the D90 will probably be fine for you), or some other zoom, then see what else you might need? I wouldn't be in a hurry to buy a separate flash just yet either.</p>