• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

School me on digital...

Forums New posts
Meriden

Meriden

0
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,848
Reaction score
388
Location
At the back of the pack and out of the dust
I'm getting the bug again. Years ago I spent a lot of time shooting landscapes with an old Minolta XG1. I loved the camera, used bodies were cheap enough to get rowdy with, there was good manual control and the lens selection was good. Then came digital...

So now I'm thinking about getting back into photography and need some general schooling on digital. What are your suggestions for a general use camera body that has a fair selection of lenses and accessories? Is it reasonable to expect that used digital cameras have the same market that film cameras once enjoyed? I break cameras, and while I'm not afraid of paying for a good one, I'd rather have one I didn't have to treat like a newborn.

There have been some good photos posted here, so I know you guys know what you're doing. Point me in the right direction and I'll do the homework from there.

thanks
m
 
So many options, so many different opinions. I'm sure you will no doubt hear everything from "you need to buy full frame if you are shooting landscapes", to "there is a guy on here that shoots them from his iPhone and they look awesome".

All I can tell you is what I did, and looking back on it 3 or 4 years later I'm glad I went the route that I did. I ended up with a Nikon D5100, two prime lenses (35mm and 85mm), and some off camera flash equipment. I mainly shoot landscapes, motorbike trip photos, and some portrait work thrown in here and again for good measure; none of it professionally mind you. For what I do, the 5100 has 99% the capability that I was and still am looking for out of a camera. It will shoot in decently low light, has reasonably fast auto-focus, is small'ish for carrying on the bike, is fairly light, and takes pretty darn good photos.

My camera equipment, minus off camera flash stuff, fits within a small sling bag, and I can take it with me with little difficulty. For what I do, it was perfect 3+ years ago, and still is today. I have the same bag, same body, and same lens setup.

Now, what it is not good for: Really low light, really fast action (sports), weddings, birthday parties, etc. The prime lenses while they are great at what they do, will leave most folks wanting to zoom in order to frame their shot the way they want to. I wanted f1.8 lenses but didn't want to spend $2500 to have a zoom that got close to f2.8 so I took the trade-off.

The body is good, but for really low light it doesn't come close to the higher end cameras. My camera will produce a decent image at ISO3200, while Scott's D4s will produce an image with lower noise at something like ISO64000. It really is impressive as to what the higher end cameras will do in low light when you compare them to a lower end model.

I guess my best advice is to ask yourself what types of images you want to capture, and then go from there. Also, look at all the available lenses first, and go from there. When I was looking around, Canon didn't offer one of the lenses I wanted but Nikon did. So that is where I went. You can go with one of the off-shoot cameras (micro 4/3'rds) but just really look at how much accessories will end up costing you. I had one, and one of the lenses I wanted was going to end up costing more for that one lens than my Nikon body with comparable lens cost.
 
Budget is still a factor, which you don't mention. If you want the option for a lot of equipment on a budget, Canon has some good bodies with tons of aftermarket stuff available. If you're wanting higher resolution and professional grade lens availability, Nikon is your choice, but they are spendy.

Costco has some decent body/lens starter kits for both brands. BH Photo also has some good deals from time to time. Just have to watch.

I used a Canon EOS 350D for years with various makes of lenses, but when the new norm for resolution grew past 12mp, I bought a Nikon D5500 and never looked back.

Keep in mind, too, that digital gives you a LOT of post-production capability. Photoshop is the standard for editing, which has gone to a subscription based service. This is better IMO, because it gives people with a smaller budget more tools to play with.

Adobe's basic subscription is about $110 a year and their single app, full access plan runs about $240 annually. These are handy tools for touch up, cropping, and applying filters.
 
Thanks guys. It sounds like there are useful used camera bodies at a reasonable price. Landscapes, vacations and some wildlife is about the extend of what I expect to use the camera for and I have no illusions about creating professional quality work. As for budget, I wouldn't be opposed to putting $5k into it the first year, but I would like to get in under half of that. Again, I break stuff, so being able to replace a body or lens with a used one is attractive to me. The D5100 looks interesting. They are in the $300 range in the used market compared to $900 and up for some of the other models I've seen. I need to look into Nikon lenses to learn is there are any limitations switching between generations of cameras.

m
 
Ha ha! I got a refurbished Olympus "tough" camera, TG-830, that I throw in the tank bag and have issues with because it's built to take a beating. Granted it's a point & shoot.

My first (and only) DSLR was a used Sony. I already had some film Minolta bodies and lenses so figured I could use the same lenses. I ended up getting new lenses and not using any of the old stuff but they would work if I tried them. Got my camera body and a lens from a bloke off CraigsList in Austin (local). He said he was upgrading. 3 years later I still have it and it still works.

If you beat up your stuff I'd stick with used since you're going to be replacing it eventually anyway and there's plenty of used stuff. I've read many selling off all their high end DSLR stuff and replacing it with mirrorless cameras. You never know what kind of bargains you will find.

As far as DSLR's go I guess Nikon and Canon are top of the line but newer Sony's are right up there too. On the used market you'll find most of it is flooded with Nikon/Canon stuff.
 
For ALL of my bike trips in the last 9 years, I have used a Canon SD600. It does excellent landscapes and general outdoor or well lit conditions. It's a 6 Mp, but for posting ride reports that is overkill. It will only handle a 2GB SD card (which are hard to find nowadays!). Only in the last year have I finally had an issue with the original battery no longer holding a charge. It has been dropped countless times. I has fallen off the bike while I was riding a few times as well (bounced out of side pouch on tank bag). Most of the words on it have long since worn off, even on the control buttons. The lens makes a funny grinding noise when it extends and retracts because of silt that has gotten into the workings. I plan on getting a new battery for it and using it for many more years. I have newer versions of this camera, but they just don't work as well and are not as rugged. I tried using an SD800 on a recent trip and was very disappointed with most of the images.

I have a D7000 that I bought with the 18-200 f/3.5-5.8 VRII zoom. I am sure it is a great camera and I do occasionally get some really nice shots with it. However, I would never take it on a bike trip. It is too bulky, heavy, and fragile. I also have to take my helmet off to frame a shot looking through the eyepiece because you cannot use the rear screen unless in "Live Mode" (uses different focus modes than normal). I don't know if it is user error or the camera, but I can never seem to get the focus working the way I want. You know, ground focused behind the flower and the flower blurry, or something like that. Thus far, I've managed to NOT go through that 25 step process and haven't really purchased anything camera related since getting the D7000 a few years back.

It's kind of like carrying a gun. The gun you carry is the one you will use. A "carry gun" that stays home all the time is not really any use. I've even found that on the trips in the last few years, I've been shooting quite a few really nice images with my iPhone 4 and now 6. I've used them for video as well. They are easy to carry and I pretty much always have my phone with me.

The D7000 comes out for special events: Christmas, Easter, birthdays, other indoor stuff where a real flash is needed or better low light capabilities. I also use it for shooting action shots of the kids on their motorcycles. The 18-200 zoom is convenient because I can frame shots quickly without having to change positions. The sacrifice is slight in image quality. I had a 55-300 zoom that was great for stills at a distance (birds, critters, etc,...) but it sucked when I took it to the MotoGP in Austin in 2013 and tried to get decent action shots of the racing. After getting home and seeing some of the photos other guys were posting, I never even bothered to share mine.

Way back when I bought the D7000 (just after it came out), I think I went all in for the body with the 18-200 zoom and a SB700 flash for something like $1800-1900.
 
I've had multiple point and shoots over the years, but my first digital SLR was a Canon T1i. Used it a bunch and carried it on the bike some too. Still have it, but upgraded about this time last year to something more suited to what I shoot (outdoors, action). I carried it on the bike to Montana this summer in the tank bag. Just a layer of foam between it and the normal junk in there. I wear a flip up helmet so I can still get to the viewfinder. With it close to reach, it gets used more often. Modern cameras are actually pretty tough. Like your teeth, keep them clean and they'll work a long time.

I'd agree with others that starting with a used camera is a cheap way to get started and help you refine what your long term needs are. The newer micro four thirds cameras are intriguing to me. Interchangeable lenses, small size, still have a viewfinder. Why is a viewfinder important? I don't want to have to carry reading glasses to view a lcd panel. And even so, wearing them and holding up a camera where you want to see the panel and the subject beyond it, is hard with readers.
 
Finding the right camera is like finding the right bike... :zen:
 
Thanks again for all of the advice. I plan on going used if I can and taking advantage of another amateur photographer's 25 step plan. And yes, it is like finding the right bike... there is always someone who needs the newest and best, but for me and my riding habits a 2016 RT is not that much better than a 1999, plus I can drop the '99 and not cry. I have a couple of $100 point and shoots that I picked up over the years and they, and my Samsung phone, are the reason that I want a new camera. This weekend I was out during the golden hour and really missing some good shots. That old Minolta with Fuji Velvia and a tripod could really catch the light. The point and shoot, not so much.
 
I have a Canon 20d and an EF-S 50mm f/1.8. It's the body is old but works great and does everything I need, for now. I really like the cheap prime lens. I'm thinking I'm going to pick up a EF-S 24mm f/2.8.

This kit with a used body and new glass would run about $400.

I still need a good tripod, along with a few flashes and stands.
 
Go big and buy used. 2 of the lenses listed below are the last generation models, and you would never know it when looking at your pictures.

Used D810 - $2,100
Used Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 - $1,300
Used Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 (non-VR) - 1,200
Used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR I - $1,000

Total Investment: $5,600 (you may be able to find these cheaper if you search and act fast)


Or...

If you prefer a couple sharp primes over the zooms:

Used D810 - $2,100
New Nikon 20mm f/1.8g: $800
New Nikon 35mm f/1.8g: $530
New Nikon 50mm f/1.8g: $220
Used Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR I - $1,000

Total Investment: $4,650
 
Wanted to pass along a thank you to all for the advice above. Ultimately I followed Bill's specific suggestion and ended up with a D5100 and a 18-135 zoom to get me started. I could have escaped Houston Camera Exchange for about $400, if I hadn't stopped to browse. Anyway, I think it will be a good system with plenty of used camera bodies available for the coming years and enough lenses to take care of my amateur needs.

Coming from film and used to point and click digitals, I'm very impressed with the quality of the images and interested to see what I can get it to do once I start playing with the settings. This is my first auto focus camera and I'm starting to believe it's called "auto focus" because it won't focus on anything smaller than an automobile. User error I'm sure. ;-)

m
 
Well... auto focus has its ups and downs. The first and foremost things to consider is with the 5100 the center focus point will almost always be a faster focusing point than any of the others. Because of this, I would almost always shoot in AF-S when I had the camera. Half-press, hold, and recompose the shot. It doesn't work well with action, or situations that are dynamic, but it does work.

Second, the lens matters. Different lenses will focus much quicker or slower than others.

Third, low light is tough. I would say that getting a better camera helps but only marginally so. My D750 is still lacking when it comes to low light focusing if you ask me, but others say it is great.

Give it time, I'm sure you will get the hang of it.
 
The motor in the zoom lens does seem to be working overtime. I'm so used to manual focus that it is second nature anyway. Still I need to practice with all of the features. I'll check to make sure I'm on AF-S.

thanks
m
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top