Going SLR - Buy a slr kit or body and lense seperate? Need advice please

Loobz

Hey,

Im thinking of getting my first slr setup. Should I buy a kit (body and lens together) or body with seperate lens? I have a feeling the kits may have a bog standard lens bundled, so would it be worth the few quid to buy a lens seperate? I plan on taking outdoor shots, with the ability to zoom a bit. Also may be raining when Im using it so would this help? CLICK

I was looking at the nikon d90 (getting thumbs up reviews everywhere, even though its probably personal choice when choosing a slr). Would a d90 be overkill? I wont leave the camera on AUTO al the time. I do plan on learning how to use it properly. I obviously need to get best value for money, so where is the cheapest place to buy or should I chance Ebay?

I currently use a Fuji 5800, which is a decent snapper but not near slr qualities.. Anyone got hands on experience with the d90, and where can I get the best value? Need a spare battery also
I also need a proper photo printer (possibly Canon Pixma pro 9500 mark 2 or similar), if anyone wants to advise on this please it would be great. Need excellent quality prints\low ink consumption\fast printing on A4 mainly (the A3 on the 9500 may be needed in the future)

Sorry for all the questions at once but I dont want to make a mistake first time around.

Thanks in advance

petercox

Loobz -
Any of the basic DSLRs will do the job for you if you're just starting out. The D90 is a very capable camera, but whether you need all it has to offer is something you need to decide for yourself.

If you're just getting started out on the DSLR road, the D5000 is a cheaper option which features the articulated LCD - this proves very handy indeed if you're shooting at odd angles (particularly low to the ground), and the image quality from the camera should be very good.

Basically, whatever camera you buy will take excellent images. The more expensive cameras have more bells and whistles and higher resolutions (which will only offer a real advantage if you need to bring very large (greater than A3 size, as a rough guideline)) or if you need to crop aggressively (sports/wildlife photography comes to mind).

I advise going into a shop and handling both the Canon and Nikon offerings in your price range, and see which one feels the best in your hands - ergonomics has a big part to play in whether you're comfortable with a particular camera or not.

As far as buying the camera with a kit lens or not, if you don't know exactly what you need, then spending a lot of money on a lens at this point is probably not wise. Get the kit lens and use it for a while. When you have a better idea as to what you'll use the camera for, then you can decide whether to upgrade, and what you should upgrade to.

As for the Kata cover, if you're going to be using the camera in the rain, it's advisable to get something along those lines. I use those covers myself and find them to be excellent.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,
Peter

TJM

Unless you can get a discount if you bundle a more expensive lens with the body you might as well buy the kit lens bundle. The price difference between body plus kit lens v. body alone is generally negligible and it's handy to have the kit lens available for those moments when the 50 1.4 (or whatever) won't do.

greeneyedspirit

I'd agree with the above - go with the kit lens first. Take your time to get your head around the camera, play around a bit, and when you come to a point when you feel you could do more with a different lens, upgrade.

Loobz

Excellent stuff lads, some good solid advice coming out here.

petercox wrote: »

When you have a better idea as to what you'll use the camera for, then you can decide whether to upgrade, and what you should upgrade to.

I actually have a very specific use for the camera. I will be taking photos of outdoor sporting events. So being able to 'capture the moment' in all its detail is essential, especially fast moving objects. So i need to set a high shutter speed. But would a lens have any part to play in this. My understanding is the lens gives a certain 'effect' to a captured image (ie zoomed, macro, fisheye)

Keep it coming guys, planning on getting my kit soon

CabanSail

First off I would ask where the Fuji S5800 is limiting you now?

Looking at that camera it seems to be a very capable camera for the sort of photography you are describing. It also has manual modes & will give you the scope to explore exposure & understand how to control you image. It has a lens which goes from 38mm to 380mm (35mm equiv) at f3.5 - f3.7 which is quite impressive. If you are using the Fuji in Auto now I would suggest that there is a whole load of capability you have yet to unleash in it before you need to move to a DSLR.

If you have found limitations already then you would probably be looking at a DSLR with some specialty glass.

CabanSail

The post above was written while you were also replying. Got called away mid post

Well the Frames per Second (fps) would limit you for Sports Photography. The D90 has 4.5 which is still may be not as fast as you will require. The D300 with a MB D10 will almost double that fps.

I do not do Sports Photography but do know that when you get into that area the Camera Body is considered an accessory that you fit to the rear of your lenses. The Kit lens will do you for general photography but if you really want to get into shooting sports then you will probably be soon looking at some long & fast glass. Unfortunately this does not come cheap.

petercox

Yes, if you're doing sports photography the kit lens won't cut the mustard. I'd still get it though, as a lens you'd buy for sports wouldn't be suitable for more general photography.

You'll need a telephoto lens that has a wide maximum aperture (at least f/4, but preferably f/2.8). The wide aperture will allow you to select a faster shutter speed than would otherwise be possible. You'll also want a camera body that can perform well at high ISO settings and that has a high burst rate. The Nikon D90 would do passably well there, but the the suggestion of a D300 with battery grip would probably be better. A lot more money, though.

As CabanSail mentions, the lenses you'll need to do the job properly are not cheap. Probably the best value option to get started would be the 70-200 f/2.8 VR lens with a 1.4x teleconverter. 200mm is a little short for sports played on a large field if the action is at the far end, but with the teleconverter it can be made into a 98-280mm f/4 lens - still shorter than the pros use, but it'll get the job done.

A 300mm f/2.8 would be the next logical step up. With the 1.4x teleconverter that can become a 420mm f/4 lens. But now you're getting into serious money.

If you're absolutely on a budget and can't stretch to the 70-200, you could get away with the cheap and cheerful 70-300mm VR lens, which is f/5.6 at the long end. This will work fine, but only on bright days. Shooting in the evening when the light is lower or on overcast days you'll struggle to get fast enough shutter speeds.

You should also consider that in order to use any of this equipment well, you'll need to know how to use it. A workshop or course would be a wise investment.

Cheers,
Peter

Loobz

CabanSail wrote: »

First off I would ask where the Fuji S5800 is limiting you now? Looking at that camera it seems to be a very capable camera for the sort of photography you are describing.

Yeah it is a decent camera but its not fast enough, and thanks for elaborating on this in your next post. I have seen the prices of some lenses - fairly €€€. Thing is, I can get within probably 20-30 feet of most subjects, so telephoto (even though it would be nice) is not neessary. And of course when Im not doing sports, I will be using it at home also.

It is important to capture the 'spills and thrills' with good detail and have the option to look through a sequence of shots.

Rb

Loobz wrote: »

So i need to set a high shutter speed. But would a lens have any part to play in this.

Oh, just a little bit

Shutter speed, particularly maximum shutter speed, is restricted by the amount of light available to the sensor. Aperture (measured in F-Stops, eg F8, F11, F16 etc) controls the amount of light that hits your cameras sensor. It is in effect the same as the iris in your eye. When it is at its widest, letting the most amount of light it can through, it will have a low Fstop number such as F1.8. This is also completely dependent on the amount of light actually available.

The more light, the faster the shutter speed possible. Although there are limitations of course.

On a fine, sunny day I could achieve good, fast shutter speeds at F5.6. However, if I then went into a poorly lit scene and tried to shoot at F5.6, I would only be able to use slower shutter speeds because there is less light available. To achieve the same shutter speeds, or even similar, I would have to open my aperture to F2.8, F1.8, F1.4 so as to try to take in more of the available light to the sensor.

All lenses control this.

Loobz wrote:

My understanding is the lens gives a certain 'effect' to a captured image (ie zoomed, macro, fisheye)

There are four general types of lenses

1: Zoom Lenses
2: Fixed Focal Length or "Prime" Lenses
3: Macro Lenses
4: Tilt and Shift Lenses

You will also find some crossover, such as zoom lenses with macro capabilities.

Zoom lenses cover focal ranges, such as 17mm-85mm, 18mm-200mm, 55mm-250mm, 100mm-400mm etc. These lenses do what the name suggests i.e they're for zooming. A lot of zoom lenses are often described as ideal "walkabout" lenses due to their focal range, for example if I want to take a wide shot I can go to 18mm, or if I need to zoom in I can go to 200, so pretty handy to save on changing lenses the whole time.

There are two types of zoom lenses, those with fixed minimum apertures and those with maximum aperture ranges.

An example of a zoom lenses with a fixed aperture would be the Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 USM lens.

However, the bulk of zoom lenses will have maximum aperture ranges. An example of this would be the Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6.

Canon, in fairness to them, provide some very good zoom lenses. They've an entire, affordable range of zoom lenses with maximum apertures of F4 throughout their focal range. They also have quite a few F2.8 zoom lenses which are fantastic also, such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens.


Fixed Focal Length or "Prime" Lenses are just as it says on the tin, they have fixed focal lengths and along with that, fixed maximum apertures.

In the Canon EF range, the fixed focal length lenses range from 14mm to 800mm. The thing that sets these lenses apart from the zoom lenses (excluding the fact that they have fixed focal lengths as opposed to a focal length range), is that they generally have exceptional apertures at their focal length. For example, the Canon EF 50mm F/1.2L lens.

The focal length is fixed to 50mm, and it's maximum aperture is F1.2 which is great for shooting in extremely poor lighting. Compare this to a common zoom lens, such as the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM lens, where at 70mm it's maximum aperture is 4.0, you can see which one wins hands down for shooting in bad lighting.

Again, the lower the f stop number, the wider the aperture and the greater the shutter speeds attainable are.



Macro lenses are lenses which have been built to have lower minimum focusing distances than other lenses. They also have larger maximum magnification factors.

Going back to my previous example of the Canon 24-70mm F2.8 USM lens. This lens has a minimum focusing distance of 0.38 metres, just over a foot. This is a good example, however, as a lot of zoom lenses will have larger minimum focusing distances, such as the 100-400mm zoom lenses which has a minimum distance of 1.4 metres.
The maximum magnification factor of the 24-70mm lens is 0.29x.

Now, to compare this to the Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM lens. (Note, it has a fixed focal length AND quality maximum aperture). This lens has a minimum focusing distance of 0.24 metres and a magnification factor of 1.0x

So, for the purpose intended (Macro/"Close Up" photography with large magnifications), you can clearly see which lenses are appropriate and which will not be great. The Macro lens above, compared with the 24-70mm zoom lens, can focus almost 1/3 closer to the object and with a magnification factor of over 3 times that of the 24-70mm lens.

As I mentioned above, you can also get zoom lenses with macro capabilities, such as the Sigma 75-300mm Macro.



Tilt and Shift Lenses

All I can say is if you like this then you'll like Tilt & Shift, however the lenses don't come cheap


So as you can see, it's fairly complex and can get expensive. Lenses do and will control the shutter speeds you can achieve. You camera will have maximums also (such as 1/4000), but they won't achieve this without light, which is controlled by the lens and its aperture.

Relating to what you've been saying, if you need a kit for high shutter speeds it's not going to come cheap.

Personally I prefer Canon and as you can see above, it's what I have learned. Reason being is that there is a much broader market for second hand lenses, along with a much broader "consumer" range for fast lenses that aren't OTT in price, such as the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM lens and the F4L range also.

It really depends on how much time and money you're going to invest in it at the end of the day, and going from using auto on a bridge to learning manual along with everything else that DSLRs bring is going to take time/money too and you'd be probably better off doing a course if you need to acquire the basics quickly!

I hope that helps in some way anyway.

Edit: That took a long time to write, and I see others have got there before me, but I'm going to leave it anyway as it took effort

Loobz

Rb, I stand and applaude you, and others. Thanks for the effort guys, feels like im in a classroom except Im actally interested in whats going on

Some good info here, I really need to think about the lense options. I think maybe for now I may get a kit of sorts, see how I progress and maybe buy a telephoto lense later. I dont want to be tied down with lets say a good body/telephoto combo, and not just point and shoot when at home etc. What you guys think of the printer side of things?

CabanSail

For the Printer it is often better these days to get a Calibrator for your screen & then send them out for printing. When you factor in the cost of Paper & Ink you will find that it costs a lot more at home.

Loobz

CabanSail wrote: »

For the Printer it is often better these days to get a Calibrator for your screen & then send them out for printing. When you factor in the cost of Paper & Ink you will find that it costs a lot more at home.

Yes but I was thinking of taking the printer with me, going mobile.

Rb

Loobz wrote: »

Yes but I was thinking of taking the printer with me, going mobile.

Is there any reason in particular?

Reason I ask is, as pointed out above, printing your own prints can really cost a lot. It's good for experimenting at home, but if you plan on selling prints or even providing them to clubs or whatever, you're way better off just using a printing service.

Loobz

Rb wrote: »

Is there any reason in particular?

Reason I ask is, as pointed out above, printing your own prints can really cost a lot. It's good for experimenting at home, but if you plan on selling prints or even providing them to clubs or whatever, you're way better off just using a printing service.

I will be going to events and printing there and then