[HEMIOrange]

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

As an amateur photographer but a fast learner, what cam would be best for me?
I'd prefer a small compact/mirrorless with super fast A.F, but want full weather sealing.

In fact, i am willing to go for a full frame the massive weight not-withstanding, if there are no good candidates in the compact cam segment.

There is no point in buying an expensive DSLR and keeping it idle during monsoon/wintery seasons , my .02$

what are you willing to spend??

[1985Darkkid85]

Originally Posted by HEMIOrange

what are you willing to spend??

A little less than 1.5 lacs including body and lenses.

It would be a 1 time investment, so I'd rather shoot for the stars.

Also , it would be better if the model stands the test of time and quickly does not become outdated

[HEMIOrange]

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

A little less than 1.5 lacs including body and lenses.

It would be a 1 time investment, so I'd rather shoot for the stars.

Also , it would be better if the model stands the test of time and quickly does not become outdated

A full frame will cost you around a lakh for body only, lenses are additional expense, if you want something tried and tested I would suggest you going for DSLR rather than mirror less and so recommend you a Nikon D750 (full frame), it might be a bit expensive but will be worth it.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

A little less than 1.5 lacs including body and lenses.

It would be a 1 time investment, so I'd rather shoot for the stars.

Also , it would be better if the model stands the test of time and quickly does not become outdated

Hello,

I am also based out of Mysuru & have posted my 2 year old Nikon Z6 full frame mirrorless kit for sale, in the classifieds section. Please check that out & let me know if you are interested.

[1985Darkkid85]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

Hello,

I am also based out of Mysuru & have posted my 2 year old Nikon Z6 full frame mirrorless kit for sale, in the classifieds section. Please check that out & let me know if you are interested.

Can you directly link the the ad that you given for your camera?

I will connect with you over p.m. very soon, I currently do not have the the facility since I am a newbie.

Are you just telling the body alone or the lenses as well?

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

Can you directly link the the ad that you given for your camera?

https://classifieds.team-bhp.com/buy...mera-Kit.html/

I am selling the entire kit, which includes one lens. You can call me on the number in the listing.

[click]

Here is what I would recommend... and it doesn’t matter if it’s mirrorless or full frame.

Get good quality new lens, perhaps a general zoom focal length of 24-70 1.2 and get a 50mm 1.8. These lens will last you for years and will cover most your photography needs.

Buy a used camera body. With digital, no camera is going to last the test of time. And make sure the camera is serviced by the seller before taking the delivery. Learn and practice the craft. Eventually you will know what you like to shoot more and then...buy the gear that meets your requirement. Even then, this 24-70 and a 50 will still serve you well.

Buying new and latest gear is over rated. 90% of people don’t use even half the features of their gear. So buy good quality used that will meet your current purpose.

Good luck.

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

A little less than 1.5 lacs including body and lenses.

It would be a 1 time investment, so I'd rather shoot for the stars.

Also , it would be better if the model stands the test of time and quickly does not become outdated

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

A little less than 1.5 lacs including body and lenses.

It would be a 1 time investment, so I'd rather shoot for the stars.

Also , it would be better if the model stands the test of time and quickly does not become outdated

As suggested in this forum, start slowly and keep adding as and when needed. One time expense is never a good idea as you do not know what will suit you.

. Start with a second hand DSLR (not mirror less) say D750.
. If it does not come with a lens get the kit zoom

Now after a few months you will figure out what types of images you take mostly and what you like to.

. If it is general photography then add a better zoom.
. If you like close ups, add a macro lens
. If you love portraits then a prime lense - F1.8 or F1.4 (focal lengths depend on the subject - 50mm, 85mm or 105mm)
. For birding the 200-500.

Then you may add a dedicated flash, or other accessories.

In short photography is a never ending acquisition

[1985Darkkid85]

Originally Posted by click

Here is what I would recommend... and it doesn’t matter if it’s mirrorless or full frame!

Good luck.

Why is the 24-70 2.8 lens being recommended over the default 18-55mm lens?
I only intend to do portrait photography and some close-ups.

[PatchyBoy]

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

Why is the 24-70 2.8 lens being recommended over the default 18-55mm lens?
I only intend to do portrait photography and some close-ups.

The 18-55 kit lens will most likely not step down to f/2.8. You will need a wider aperture for portrait & close-ups. f/1.4 or f/1.8 would be ideal. Also a prime lens will be a great choice for such photos, as compared to a zoom lens. Don't just go by the 24-70 or 18-55 numbers. See what is the widest aperture of the lens. Research on "Exposure Triangle" & you will understand better

[click]

24-70 is a excellent general purpose focal length. bought my canon f1.2 20 years ago and it is still chugging along. Most journalist have this in their arsenal as it allows them to go wide or even closer for portraits.

24mm is a good length for landscape, city scape or environment portraits. 70mm when you want to go slightly closer or take portraits.

but in your case I would even say don't get 24-70, but just get a 50mm or a 80mm portrait lens. A good lens on good old camera will still give fantastic results. Most kit lenses like 18-55 are of medium quality. The difference between kit and good lens is far more easier to see than between a 12, 16 or a 24mp camera.

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

Why is the 24-70 2.8 lens being recommended over the default 18-55mm lens?
I only intend to do portrait photography and some close-ups.

[DaptChatterjee]

Originally Posted by 1985Darkkid85

Why is the 24-70 2.8 lens being recommended over the default 18-55mm lens?

18-55mm range is available for APSC cameras whereas 24-70mm is available for full-frame cameras.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by PatchyBoy

The 18-55 kit lens will most likely not step down to f/2.8. You will need a wider aperture for portrait & close-ups. f/1.4 or f/1.8 would be ideal. Also a prime lens will be a great choice for such photos, as compared to a zoom lens.

I think the enquirer needs to be told why.

There are two basic reasons that "fast" lenses, those with large apertures (small f numbers) are prized:

1. They allow taking photos in lower light without flash.

2. They allow compositions where less of the photo is in focus. This sounds like a disadvantage, but for portraiture, flower pictures, etc, it is not. It allows those blurry backgrounds. Things to read up: depth of field and bokeh.

If a person is doing formal portraiture, they will probably also be buying some lights. Or if they are doing outdoor, or otherwise well-lit portraits they won't need them. Either way, they are then free to set their aperture purely for the artist composition they want: background blurred our, blurry, soft, or sharp. But if you don't have at least one lens with those small f numbers, you don't get that choice.

Another aspect of these low-f-number lenses is that, (3) the larger the aperture, the faster you can make your shutter speed. If someone is posing for you, that may be less important, but if you cannot make them be still it is important.

I photograph mostly classical musicians on stage. The lighting is rough and ready, and not very bright; I want to be able to make one face stand out against a soft background; these people move as they sing or play. Thus you can see that 1, 2 and 3 are vital to me.

I didn't know this when I got back into "real-camera" photography a few years ago, and was sorely disappointed with the poor results I was getting from a cheap zoom kit lens. We learn these things the hard, and expensive way!

What do the more experienced folk here think of this suggestion: rather than a slow zoom as a starter single lens, begin with a faster 50mm "standard*" lens. I think that every brand has a reasonable-price "nifty fifty." There is a reason why this was the lens that came with the camera back in the days that I bought a film slr: it may not be best for anything, but is good for everything. The addition of low-cost extension rings even opens up the world of macro.


*on full frame. 30-ish on APS-C.

[snr]

Not sure if this is the right thread, but please suggest a DSLR with a good lens, with a budget of 50-60k. This is for my husband and he likes wildlife photography. I don't want to ask his preference because he will find out it's for him and I wanted to give him a surprise

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by snr

... This is for my husband and he likes wildlife photography. I don't want to ask his preference because he will find out it's for him and I wanted to give him a surprise

A nice, but not necessarily good idea. Cameras are awfully personal.

Also, 50-60k doesn't go far in the camera world, I'm afraid.

What is he using now?