Just a few tips on a beginners start

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Hi. I'm just starting to get into photography and I am in a bind of what to get. I have a budget of $1200 and was wondering if it would be a bad idea to start out of the Nikon D5000 or maybe the Nikon D90. I am looking for more Nikon related models. Also, should I stay with the stock lens or jump right into more zooms or maybe a prime 50mm for portraits. I am looking to be more portrait, landscape, and nighttime/street photography. If I have any leftover money, should I purchase a tripod, remote, external flash, lenses, battery grip, lights, meters, or any other accessories? I just want the best for the amount that I can spend.<br>

If anyone could give me any input on this shopping list, it would be greatly appreciated!</p>

<p>Thanks for taking the time and reading, now post your decisions you would make if you were me.</p>

[tangibleimages]

For a budget like that I recommend the d90, a 50mm 1.8, a used 24mm 2.8, and a tripod.

 

You want to avoid the cheap zoom lenses as their apertures aren't large enough for low light photography.

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Thanks for the response. that actually sounds like a nice setup. I'll for sure look into that stuff. with the 50mm, should that be 1.8 or 1.4? And since I would like to take portraits, should I get a flash? and if so, doesn't the D90 have a hot-sink for the lights?</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>Hi Nathan:</p>

<p>Here's a D90 vs. D5000 comparison thread (<a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TFB1">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00TFB1</a>). The D90 is a more versatile platform since it has a built in autofocus motor, and can use off-camera flash. It'll last you a lot time, and can allow you to grow into a lot of photography realms. The D5000 is a fine camera if you don't think you'll use off-camera flash, and don't mind your somewhat smaller selection of lenses (it's not... *that* bad of a selection).</p>

<p>Lenses: I would actually recommend 1 prime and 1 zoom. If you get the D90, the kit lens will serve you well. If you get the D5000, you can either use the kit lens (a bargain really... it's only like +$100 over the body) or shell out some extra for a 17-50, or 18-50'ish zoom from Tamron or Sigma that can get you down to f/2.8. What's critical may be to get the 17/18mm wide, since you can start playing with interesting wide angle photography. Your prime will cover your low-light shooting, your zoom will hopefully cover other stuff you might see with landscapes.</p>

<p>I think how you should approach this: pick your camera body, pick your prime lens, and then see how much money you have for a zoom.</p>

<p>A tripod might be nice, a filter (Circular Polarizer for landscape)...</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Philip,<br>

Thanks a lot for those tips. Really am taking that rout into consideration. Good information. So by getting the body then a prime lens, would I be able to successfully start portrait photography and wait on the landscape till I save up for either a zoom lens or a 17/18mm wide?</p>

[tangibleimages]

Scratch the 24mm. I forgot the d90 is a crop sensor. The kit lens will work okay as a wide angle. I would definitely get a

flash. The sb600 is a great flash for the price and you can use it wirelessly with the d90.

 

Since you are crossing off the 24mm due to the crop factor, get the flash and if there is money left over the 85mm 1.8.

This will be a great portrait lens (effectively a 120mm 1.8) and will give you nice blurry backgrounds.

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Thanks Jake, I am looking for a nice background blur in my portraits. Very helpful stuff, please keep on feeding me with all this great knowledge!</p>

[yann1]

<p> I have a 18-55 mm, I bought it extremely cheaply since it's the ol version non VR, and it's an unbelievably good lens for the price. The price difference between the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 is huge, I'm very happy with the 1.8 D, it's very affordable.</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Yann, using the 17-55, doesn't that give you a smaller choice of area to snap a shot of, but say I had an 18-105mm would that be better?</p>

[philip_tam]

<blockquote>

<p>So by getting the body then a prime lens, would I be able to successfully start portrait photography and wait on the landscape till I save up for either a zoom lens or a 17/18mm wide?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm, I hesitate to say anything definitive. You can take great portraits with many different lenses, it's just that different lenses do different things.</p>

<p>Very generally speaking... yes, when you get a camera body and a fast prime, you'll be able to get nice, sharp portraits and nicely blurred backgrounds. For portraits, a flash may help with more difficult lighting situations. If you plan to do any sort of studio portraits... off-camera flash sounds like fun so you might want to look into the D90.</p>

<p>A zoom lens that can go 17/18mm wide will be good to play with perspective or foreground interest. This is applicable for landscapes AND portraits.</p>

<p>With your budget, depending on which camera body you choose, you might be able to afford all 3. Just keep in mind... lots of people will probably tell you that the lens is a tool. If someone asks an artist to craft their likeness, and gives them a brush, they'll paint. Give them a block of clay, they'll sculpt. If you give a good photographer a lens, they will know what to do with it... and if a photographer wants to do something, they will know which lens to reach for. Sometimes it'll be a prime, sometimes it'll be a zoom. For portraits, often, but not always...... it's a prime. The flip side to this, if you give paintbrush to someone like me... you're not going to get a very nice painting, haha.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>You probably won't be satisfied with your initial purchase anyway, no matter what you buy. Only a bit of experience can guide you, and you need to earn that first before you can even have an idea what works for you. Keep that in mind before spending too much money right off the bat. Photography is not about what you buy, or what stuff you have in your kit in case you might need it, or what some wealthy equipment nuts on the internet recommend. These guys are the first to ditch their well-recommended expensive gear the minute a new model comes out.</p>

<p>It's about taking pictures, and any camera can do that. Some of my favourite pictures are the ones I took with cheap plastic cameras. If it was me, I wouldn't get too much camera. If it's going to be Nikon, or any other, the entry-level model with a better-than-kit lens will be better than the top of the line camera with a cheap kit zoom.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Nathan,</p>

<p>My suggestion is to buy the D90 and a Prime...either the 50mm f/1.8 or the 35mm f/1.8DX. I'd suggest the 35mm.</p>

<p>Here's why:</p>

<p>~A 35mm is very close to the equivalent of a 50mm lens on a full-frame sensor or 35mm film camera. This is what is considered a "normal" perspective lens. In other words, what you see with your eyes is very close to what you get with your lens. Armed with this, you will be able to learn what most beginners neglect...perspective.</p>

<p>~With a prime lens, (be it the 35mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f/1.8), you will hopefully learn about the perspective you want to portray and how that translates to focal length. In essence, a prime lens will force you to look at how your position relative to the subject controls perspective vs just zooming in to get the framing you want.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you aren't really sure what style of photography you want to go for, (I suggest your own style, but you will have to learn others' styles before you develop your own), a zoom will help you determine which focal lengths you will use most often. </p>

<p>HOWEVER, you need to learn to use a zoom lens the way it was intended to be used.</p>

<p>RICHARD'S RULE FOR BEGINNERS WITH ZOOM LENSES:<br>

Determine what you want your shot to look like in your head. Determine which focal length will give you the perspective you want...you will have to play with this for a while to learn what different perspectives the focal lengths of your lens and distance from subject give you. Zoom to the proper focal length, and THEN move to the spot that gives you the framing you want...<em><strong>DO NOT STAND IN ONE PLACE AND ZOOM UNLESS YOU ARE FORCED TO DO SO!</strong></em></p>

<p>Just my 2 cents worth, take it or leave it.<br>

RS</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Basic DSLR body, the kit lens and a tripod. Add hot shoe flash as soon as you can.</p>

<p>I know that set of choices sounds boring, but it's a good general purpose setup. I recommend the kit lenses for beginners because it can teach you what end of the focal lengths you favor. There will be some wide angle in there, some normal fields of view, and some short telephoto fields of view. That one lens assembly will cover the basics okay.</p>

<p>I did not get to look through a wide angle lens until I had been snapping some photos for over five years. If you get the kit lens, you can have some variety from the beginning. There are so many mistakes to be made, that I don't know if the image quality arguments behind primes would be worth it.</p>

<p>Some of my most frequently viewed photos were made with a $17 plastic bodied kit lens. They're triathlon photos of local races. I got out there with the camera and used the kit lens other people rejected. <strong>Used</strong> is the key idea here.</p>

<p>I think a high percentage of photographers will use <em>whatever lens</em> they decide. I wouldn't get hung up on the idea that one lens is better than the other because it comes in a camera kit. I use whatever I choose, really. A lot of us do.</p>

<p>"It's broken" = bad lens. "Whatever works" = good lens.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>whatever equipment you decide to get, the most important thing is to learn the concept of photography and how your equipment works. Learn you camera and how to use it. If you understand how photography works and how to make your camera do exactly what you want it to you will know more than most people do.</p>

[yann1]

<p>The 18-105, yes, more distortion though, more expensive too. The 17-55, if you talk about the AF-s 2.8, this lens costs about $1000...<br>

No need to pay too much on gear if you aren't a pro, get a D90,cherish it, get a reasonable zoom, and a nice prime.</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Thanks a lot everyone!<br>

Everyone's information is really helping me out.<br>

So would it be a bad idea if I would get, say.. Nikon D90, 18-105f/3.5-5.6G ED AF-s VR, a tripod that can last, and possible a flash or lens or battery grip?</p>

 

[JAPster]

<p>The lens will be THE most important part of the camera, and THE part that forms the exact optic image picked up by the digital sensor. I would suggest you invest in a seriously fast high quality normal lens - the faster the better - and then pick a camera body that will function with it. You will NEVER regret getting a fast lens as it will allow you to take shots in marginal light that you simply cannot get with medium speed kit lenses.</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>Well... if you get the D90 with it's kit lens, if I were in your place, I would be aiming to get a prime lens ASAP. Your kit lens will do a lot for you, except do well in low light and in situations where you want to blur out background. I think this takes precedence before the tripod, flash, or batter grip (do you really need a battery grip?). The D90 might be stretching your budget, so what you can do is get the kit lens, set your zoom to 50mm and see if you like working in that focal length, framing pictures (see if it feels too close). Then try setting it to 35mm and play with that (see if it feels too far). If 50mm is cool, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is only around $120. If you can spare an extra $80, the 35mm f/1.8 is $200.</p>

<p>I know I spent a good paragraph explaining why the prime is not the answer to all your prayers... but it is the lens that people use for the meat of portrait work which you seem most interested in.</p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Philip, thanks a lot for your comment. That makes really good sense to get that stuff. Now that I have this in mind, what would I need to shoot low light night pictures or streets?</p>

[philip_tam]

<p>I guess I wasn't clear: a Prime Lens, with a large aperture, will help you shoot better in low-light, and will be a good lens to use with portraits. I think this is why lots of folks are recommending a normal'ish (35mm or 50mm) Prime Lens for you.</p>

<p>Just to make it clear what this is going to do for you (in case it isn't obvious): Usually a prime lens lets you work at a larger aperture. Whereas your kit lens, is f/3.5-5.6, you'll eventually learn to spend the bulk of your time around f/8. With the prime lens, like say the 35mm f/1.8, you can work in larger apertures, f/2.2 to f/2.8 for example, and the pics will look great. You'll be using a larger aperture, taking in more light (in low light situations), and if will be making your depth of field more shallow (good for portraits).</p>

<p>Street pics are more varied situations than portraits or landscapes, so it's just a matter of using what you have to do different things. You can shoot street pics with any of the lenses people have been talking about.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>You thought about tripod and external flash only with the leftover money. But in fact, tripod, external flash and prime lenses are what you MUST have. Since money is a concern here and you are a beginner (I assume you said so) you should not look into ANY new models. Go for the old and discontinued models, look for it in the used market. You dont need a "flashy" camera only some that helps you to learn a lot, and it doesn't have to be a Nikon or Canon. That way you can get decent camera, decent prime lenses, tripod and flash for just a small amount of money and you dont have to go for a "low-end" camera. People advise you to stay away from the zoom kit lenses and for the same reasons you should stay away with the "low-end" camera.</p>

<p>Let me give you a few simple tips to spot a cheap "low-end" camera and stay away from it. Usually these cameras have some of the following properties:</p>

<p>- There is only one control wheel (not two)<br>

- The viewfinder is small and dark and not clear because it uses mirrors, not pentaprism<br>

- The body, buttons, switches,... are really cheap plasticky<br>

- The mode dial has many scene modes on it</p>

<p>To really save money and get decent equipments, I strongly suggest to go for a Pentax *istD (I mean the original *istD, not the *istDL, *istDS,.. or any similar) or a Minolta 7D (not the Minolta 5D). These can be had for $200-$300 in mint condition, but that is NOT where you really save the money. The old Minolta and Pentax lenses are much cheaper than Nikon or Canon.</p>

<p>If you choose Minolta 7D, buy the Minolta AF lenses, they are cheap, sharp and "full frame" in case later you will upgrade to a Sony full frame camera. Sony is a well-known electronics company that you can rely on to get top-notch sensors (Nikon bought sensors from Sony anyway). Only that the flash will be a little higher priced than if you go with Pentax</p>

<p>If you choose Pentax *istD, you can use VERY sharp lenses at VERY low price if you go for manual focus lenses, or you can use a lot (I think ALL) the sigma lenses autofocus too. These are very low priced. You can also use "dirt cheap" and strong flashes. The only issue is even though these lenses are mostly full frame, I dont know if Pentax will ever have a full frame camera. But they may!!!. and it's not too bad to switch to say Canon later when you already learn enough</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Nathan,</p>

<p>I agree with John that used is a good market to scour to try to get a great camera for low cost. <br>

Alternatively, you could look at Adorama for a Factory Reconditioned D90 for a similar price to a used one. The reconditioned one will at least have a 90 day warranty where with used it's usually a crapshoot as to what you are really going to get. (BTW, Nikon does not allow transfer of Factory Warranty to a second owner.)</p>

<p>I disagree with John Tran about purchasing a system that you don't intend on sticking with. When you choose a camera you are not only choosing the camera body, but the entire camera system. This includes future bodies, lenses, hot shoe flashguns, lenses, teleconverters, lenses, and oh yeah...did I mention lenses...</p>

<p>If you were to purchase, say, a Pentax system and invest in a few lenses, (a 50mm prime and a reasonable zoom)...then in a year or so decide that you want to move to another manufacturer, (like Nikon)...you could keep everything as a backup in case of failure OR you could SELL EVERYTHING AT A LOSS.</p>

<p>NEVER, never, never make a conscious decision to buy into one camera system with the intention of changing down the road. The only thing you will do is LOSE MONEY!!! On top of that, you will have to find someone willing to purchase your old equipment. With a lesser known manufacturer, you will have a harder time doing so.</p>

<p>Stick with Nikon or Canon. They've been doing this a long time, have a great selection of lenses , (both proprietary and off-brand), and you will most likely keep the lenses you buy. If you don't, you will have a much easier time finding someone that shoots Nikon or Canon to offload your old equipment to than someone shooting Pentax or Minolta.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents, (and yes, I shoot Nikon)<br>

RS</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>Actually, I totally agree with Richard Snow. It's better to plan to stay with one brand<br>

I mean you should go with Pentax only if you dont think you will need to move up to full frame anytime soon. If you do think you will move to full frame soon, then first of all dont touch any "aps" lenses like the kit lens or the new aps Nikon or Sony primes. Minolta/Sony is also a good way to go full frame (and it is cheap too). To the end, the real quality is in the sensors and the lenses. You shouldn't worry about Sony sensors. About the lenses, I am not sure the top Canon, Nikon or Zeiss lenses (for Sony) which would be better, and I'm not sure Nathan will go for those top quality lenses later either(because of their sky-high prices). And if he will go for those top quality lenses, the lenses that he plans to buy now will have to go anyway</p>

<p>Another thing is when you buy used, you dont lose much when you resell, especially for lenses. In fact, people are making profit reselling the gears that they bought used a few years ago. Only it is true that if you buy the newest (or nearly newest) model, you will lose a lot right away. The way it goes is: the value drops extremely fast in the first year, then slower after a few years , then stays there for a while, and sometimes even goes up a little bit later.</p>

<p>And yes, I am shooting Nikon too, and I shot Canon too. That's why I know they are expensive and they often lock Sigma out (by incompatibility) to reduce competition. I know a lot of people cannot stand Canon lens price for example and go for M42 or Minolta MD lenses to mount on their DSLR, sacrificing the very important reasons to use Canon. They do that less with Nikon, Sony or Pentax</p>

 

[richardsnow]

<p>John...I agree...all good points. </p>

<p>Definitely invest in used lenses. Keep an eye on the classifieds here for lenses if you go Canon/Nikon/Sony. There are a lot of pros here that have never (or rarely) bought a new lens. When the pro's that have to have the newest equipment want to upgrade, you may find a bargain. </p>

<p>I have tended to (recently) purchase new only because it is hard(er) to find Pro/Pro-Sumer lenses used and reasonably priced than amateur/kit lenses. (in fact, I purchased my 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI for the same price new as the cheapest, non-gray market, used copy I could find, including fleabay).</p>

<p>I don't publicly sell used equipment myself. I have plenty of friends and family that are happy to keep their photography fresh by investing what I no longer use.</p>

<p>Hope this helps.<br>

RS</p>

<p> </p>

[nathan_hoefert]

<p>Okay, thanks everyone for the comments and info. This all is helping me get that much closer to spending the money. So, it would be a good idea to buy a used/refurbished or possible a new one that I would keep for a while.</p>