Need advice on what Camera and Lenses to buy

[gregory_scarcell]

<p>I am a serious amateur photographic hobbyist that shoots mostly landscape, wildlife and urban scenes looking to buy all new equipment. I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions and advice on what camera AND lenses to buy. I plan to show my photos on websites, photo albums and print no larger than 11x18. I have a $7,000 budget. <br>

I have been using the Nikon D40x (no longer made) since 2006 and have exhausted ALL of its features. I have two inexpensive Nikon lenses that I do not have to keep. I have done extensive and thorough research on the Canon 5D Mark III, Nikon D4, Nikon D800 and Nikon D700 (no longer made but I don’t care) so I am not looking for any reviews on these camera. I am not interested in video now but maybe later (?) and need a high FPS. I also shoot at night in low light conditions. My ideal, dream camera would be the Nikon D4, which my budget allows but leaves very little money for lenses. I am open to Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Tamron lenses. I need lots of advice on what lenses I should buy. <br>

Here is my thinking. If I were a professional photographer I would not hesitate on the Nikon D4 because the business would pay for it. I also heard that a quality lens is more important than the camera – buy a cheaper camera and put the money in the lens??<br>

Thank you in advance for any and all helpful suggestions! If you have questions, please ask. It is greatly appreciated!<br>

-Gregory</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>You're going to get a bunch of answers for this question. And you have looked over several very good cameras in your post. I shoot only Canon when it comes to DSLR, so get the Canon 5D Mark III. If you want just one lens for it, you could buy the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, or these three. Or a combination of two to meet the budget. <br /> EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM<br /> EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM<br /> EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM</p>

<h1> </h1>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The first thing that jumps out at me is the word "wildlife." Can you be more specific? Are we talking herds of water buffalo just outside the door of the truck ... or an indigo bunting catching a grasshopper a hundred feet away? Because lenses, lenses, lenses. But which? It really comes down to whether you're having to push the hairy edges, performance-wise. Everything that really costs money happens just past the boundaries of normal shooting. If you spent a week shooting with even a modest D7000, you'd be amazed at the difference (relative to your D40).<br /><br />Whether that D4 makes sense (within the budget, plus glass) or whether whatever Nikon will announce in August/September will make more sense really - for me - comes down to how you define "wildlife."</p>

[johnw63]

<p>OK,</p>

<p>Since you've ," exhausted all the features of the D40 " , what newer features are the ones you really wish you had, but don't ? </p>

<p>That laundry list would go a long way with suggestions on what camera will best suit you. </p>

<p>When I moved from my Nikon FG, to the F4, there was specific things that I wanted. Mirror lock-up and Depth of Field Preview where two big ones. When I finally moved to a digital SLR, I wanted to be able to STILL use my old lenses. I chose the D7000 for that reason. The point is, I knew what features I needed and let those guide me to the camera body that had them, at the price I wanted.</p>

<p>In my view, unless you ARE a professional, and can specifically point to features that the D4 or similar camera has that no other one does, the D4 is not for you. As a serious photographic hobbyist, your money would be better spent on lenses and other gear than the top of the line camera from Nikon or Canon or any other brand. </p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>As Katherine Hepburn said "you can't have it all" so you have to pick and choose.</p>

<p>If you've been doing what you want to do with the 'cheaper' lenses, maybe you don't need super long telephotos. In which case go for the fancy body with many MP dancing on the sensor.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you are wanting to get pictures of Matt's bunting (a small fast moving bird, and they actually eat grasshoppers) assaulting the insect, then you need to get a honking great telephoto and get a cheaper body to fill out the money you have to spend.</p>

<p>$7000 is a lot of money, but it will not buy the sort of kit with "everything", unfortunately.</p>

[aman1]

<p>I agree that $7000 is a lot of money. If you are used to D40x, you will find something like a Nikon D7000 a huge upgrade. For 11x18 print size, and kind of shooting you do, I think the still available nikon D700 is perhaps the best camera for you. Combine it with good lenses, like:<br>

16-35mm f/4<br>

24-120mm f/4<br>

Sigma or Nikon 50mm f/1.4<br>

And something like Nikon/Tamron 70-300mm VR for longer reach<br>

I didn't have the kind of budget as you, but I just upgraded myself from Nikon D40 (which is identical to D40x except the resolution). I thought between D7000 vs Olympus E-M5, ultimately thought E-M5 is a good enough camera for me and smaller size is more important. Have been loving it so far. With your kind of money, you could buy the following lenses:<br>

12mm f/2<br>

12-35mm f/2.8<br>

25mm f/1.4<br>

45mm f/1.8<br>

and long lens like the Panasonic 100-300mm for wildlife.<br>

I am 100% sure you will not be disappointed by this kit as well.<br>

Just personal opinion - if I had that kind of money as you, I would buy my gear within 3k or so, and spend the rest of outstation travelling workshops with great photographers.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Gregory: Can you wait a couple of months? I believe many of us are expecting a successor to Nikon's D300(s) to be one of the next cameras that Nikon announces, and this may (or may not) happen in the near future. At least for me, that's not based on any internal knowledge at Nikon, but there's clearly market demand and the D300s is one of the older models in Nikon's line-up. I would be guessing that a "D400" might have the sensor from the D7000 (or possibly D3200, but the D7000's is probably the better low-light performer) with the autofocus and frame rate - and build - of the D300. I would not be surprised if Canon also made some updates in that time frame - a 7D (which is also old) with the 5D3's autofocus module might also be what you're after. I have no inside knowledge, but with your demands I'd not be rushing right now unless I had a deadline.<br />

<br />

If you're not waiting... I'm a Nikon shooter these days, but a Canon 7D would give you more resolution in high-end DX than a D7000 does. The 5D3 is probably a better compromise camera than the Nikon alternatives (I love my D700 but it's not an ideal landscape camera; I plan to get a D800 soon but the frame rate and high ISO performance aren't what you want). I wonder whether a single camera is actually your best option - for example, a Nikon D3200 is tiny and cheap and has a scary 24MP sensor, but has low-end frame rate and autofocus; a D3s (or D700) has better autofocus and better low light but less resolution and is much bigger, but no rule says you can't have both (for less than the price of a D4).<br />

<br />

For wildlife, going full-frame means that you're going to pay more for reach; going small camera means that you lose low light and DoF control. I'd suggest that APS-C is the best compromise, especially if you're not worried about huge prints. I would be concerned about suggesting anything but Canon or Nikon for your needs - it sounds like you need the lens range (these two still have much more than Pentax, Sony, or any of the mirrorless systems - even micro 4/3) and for moving subjects phase-detect autofocus (DSLRs, mostly) are your friend.<br />

<br />

I hope some of that helps. Good luck.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>As a general answer to your questions, most folks her at P-Net would say lenses are a higher priority than what kind of body you get, especially if you have something specific (like wildlife) to shoot. Andrew's suggestion about waiting a couple months is a good one as there should be some new stuff being announced in the near future.</p>

<p>My advice would be to get the best body you can afford that does what you need as far as autofocus, high ISO performance, shooting speed, etc. but spend the majority on good lenses and a good tripod.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>You list only full frame cameras, is there a reason for that?<br>

Otherwise, what others are asking. Which features you really found lacking on the D40x, and are must-have-features on this new body?In short: which problem does this new body have to solve? Obviously given the print sizes, resolution isn't an issue, but otherwise be more specific than "more FPS". A D4 can be a nice camera to dream about, but what exactly makes you dream?</p>

<p>More practical, did you try any of these bodies in a shop to find if there are some which you find more appealing in handling? If yes, did you notice how FF cameras are quite large and heavy, and the good lenses also? Are you OK with hiking around with several kilos of gear? Reviews will tell you enough about what a camera can do, but not what it is like tio actually really use it - and spending this amount of money, it better be a camera you like using.</p>

<p>Having a generous budget, still consider that a body and lenses are just a part of the total. So, maybe first define better what it is you really want in a camera body, get that body with one decent midrange lens to get started, and then see which focal lengths you need to add, get a decent tripod (sturdy enough for your much heavier gear; and a tripod is frequently more important to good night photography than the ISO 51200), add a flash, a good bag for your gear and so on. It all adds up quickly.</p>