Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-418.html)

Friends,
Can someone please let me know which SLR camera is good for starter/learner?

Right now I have Digital Camera and learned little about framing and light effect. :)
Budget is around 30K.
Interested in nature and product photography.
Looking for long term use.

Thanks,
Vishal

iPlay ( follow him on FB) uses tele for landscape. Check his pix to know what it can do. And I remember him saying that he prefers using tele ( think he has 70-300 or so, not the 70-200) over his 16-35 .

Well, the Canon EOS 1000D is extremely good value for money - it is basically the cheapest SLR camera you can buy, and has more than enough manual features for a beginner. Most shops and websites have a good deal going for this camera. I have one as well, by the way, and I too am a beginner in this field.

Well, I won't say that a 70-200 f/2.8 is a very good lens for landscape photography.. It is better suited for other purposes. But, it can take some awesome landscape pictures too, provided you are at a distance from what you want to cover, or you get a good composition at least within the widest focal length the lens can get (70mm).

I had used my 70-210 for some landscape photography after getting inspired Rudraji's pictures, especially ones shot at Leh.

Couple of my shots with 70-210

True, specially if you are shooting some mountains or far away objects that has large area of interest. I had done something last week with my 70-200 f/2.8 and got a dozen landscapes all within the 100-150 range. One is below:

140mm, f/16

Thanks asliarun for information, I will have a look on this model on coming weekend. I have 550D in mind as well however budget constraint.

Thanks,
Vishal

Dont you think its a pain in the rear to do that, what was sony thinking while designing a rotating front end.


Pramod

A few questions I have here for the experts:

Background/Primary requirement:

1. Good entry/mid level DSLR. I have been using a Canon Powershot S5 IS for 4 years now and an upgrade is a must now.
2. I plan to use the camera for landscape photography and also for wild life photography. Hence plans are to take one wide angle lens and one telephoto zoom lens.
3. More biased towards Nikon than Canon, but EOS1000D looks like a steal at the price of 22K. Also the EF lenses of Canon are a bit cheaper than Nikon.

Questions are:

• Considering a bugdet of 35K for the camera, would it be better to go in for Nikon D3100 with 18-55 kit or would it be better to go in for Nikon D5000 body only @ ~33K?
• If I go in for the body only D5000, what are the lenses that are must have? Do I go in for Nikkor 18-55mm and 55-200/55-300mm or do I go in for the all in one 18-200mm? What are the equivalent comparable lenses for Canon?
• Obviously neither of the above is a telephoto zoom, but immediately I don't have the budget to go in for a Nikkor 70-300 F2.8 or a 200-400 zoom.
• If I get the D3100 with the kit lens, which other lenses should I get? One more option is that instead of a 18-55mm kit lens, I should get a 50mm F1.4 prime lens. What do you think?
• For wide angles, how is the Tokina 11-16mm lens? I have read the reviews and almost all say it is a good wide angle zoom lens. But is it available in India? And where? Though it will not autofocus on either D3100 or D5000.
• Is there any other good wide angle zoom lens either 1st party or 3rd party?

Please also suggest equivalent permutation/combinations for Canon EOS 1000D/EOS500D and the Canon EF lenses. Looks like, the more I am reading about DSLR's, the more I am getting confused!! please:

So in the end, summary of my questions is this >>

• Nikon or Canon but preferably Nikon, which one?
• 11-16mm, 18-55mm, 55-200mm or 11-16mm and 18-200mm?
• Or 11-16mm, 50mm prime and 18-200mm lens? stupid:
• D5000/EOS500D body only @~33K or D3100/EOS1000D with some lens combination at a price of ~35K?

The 1000D is definitely a bargain. You can get for less than 22K if you hunt enough I think. That way you can buy some more glass.

As far as the Nikons go, I would pick the D3100 over the D5000. The picture quality of the former is superb and it is cheaper and newer to boot. If you are going with the kit lens, then a 55-200/55-250 is a good other lens to have. There is no issue going with an 18-200 only that there would be some imperfections at either end of the zoom scale.

Why do you not look at the Canon 500D as well? It is within range I think and even though it is outdated, is a fantastic camera for the buck. The other option you do have is to look at EVIL cameras.

P.S. All my opinion is keeping in mind that you are a beginner and are looking at a beginner DSLR.

Awesome pics dude.

Seriously, I am amazed at the photography talent on this automobile forum. clap:

Regards,

Go with the Nikon D3100 instead of D5000, the money saved you can invest in the lens.
If you think changing between 18-55 and 55-200 is a hassle and willing to pay the extra buck to avoid this hassle, then only go for the 18-200 else buying 18-55 and 55-200 will save you good amount of money which you can plan for other items or may be the wide lens!!! See whether you can get the D3100 with the 18-55 and 55-200 is available as double/two lens kit, that might save some more money!!

Among Nikons I would say choose one which has built in AF motor so that It can use the cheapest of the lenses as well D3100 does not have that IMHO.

If you are keen on Nikon and have budget go for D90.

I would have suggested the D90 too..... But his budget is only 35k and hence suggested the D3100.
With 35K he might get only the D90 body in grey!!

500D retails at around 34k WITH the 18-55mm kit. (MRP is 38k) Add around 10k (44k) and you get the 18-200mm kit lens with the 500D body.

When you say 35K for camera it means just the body right ? As you are considering other lenses I think this 35K can be for body only.

If we consider 135mm and above as Telephoto then definitely 55-300 comes in category of Telephoto zoom. It is not absolutely essential that one must go for fast ( F2.8) telephoto to begin with , though it is always better if you have that budget.
Since you are asking for Canon equivalents
In Canon you have Canon 55-250 IS USM which is an excellent lens for long range photos ( not strictly birds) at around 10K.
Then you can have 70-300 IS USM at around 32 K which is also a very good lens.
There are several other telephoto L lenses which are considered best of the lenses. but quite expensive.

You can also buy Sigma 70-300 OS for around 24K or Tamron 70-300 VC for similar amount for both Nikon and Canon mounts.

50 F1.4 must be good but have you checked the prices and your needs ?

Any way I have a manual 50mm F1.4 and it is excellent lens for DOF and portraits but you can do with 50mm F1.8 and a fraction of cost of 50mm F1.4 as well and most probably that is what you will need.

Lenses depends on what you want to do , Everyone starts out by buying a telephoto but then very soon these lenses are on sale. Reason is that coming from world of super zoom P&S people assume that zoom is the best thing required for photography.

You need to decide based on your needs are you kind of person who goes to wild life sanctuaries regularly and love to identify the birds ? If yes a long range telephoto is what you need.
You go to jungles and nature but rather look at flowers and plants then what you actually may need is macro.
You go to jungles , mountains , valleys but what interest you is the scenery then an ultra wide angle is for you.

If you are not sure what you need from above at this point you actually need just a kit lens or an excellent normal to short telephoto lens like
Canon 15-85 IS USM or Sigma 17-70 OS for all opportunistic photography
Search this thread there are lots of them and all of them are excellent they start from 20K onwards,I have used Canon 10-20 though I do not own it and a very good lens as most Canon lenses are but for price / performance reasons I would suggest Sigma 10-20 F4.5 ~ 5.6 , 1 mm matters a lot at wide angle

I see a pattern here you are asking for best of the equipments and also willing to spend a good money on Nikon body but in Canon starting at lowest point.

You need to ask yourself what is there in Canon brand which force you to tighten purse strings and in Nikon which is forcing you to part with hard earned money.