Join Now
Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Hi,
I've never owned a dslr before but would like to get one. I've spoken to someone who is generally knowledgable in all things dslr but I just want to get a second opinion on something he said before I take the plunge.
I was looking at the Nikon d5000 and was thinking of getting the body only and then buying a new lens. I'm interested in wildlife photography, but after reading the lens requirements on this forum, I think I'll have to stick with a none telephoto lens for now. I would say my priority is quality and so this person said the lens would make a bigger difference than the camera (to an extent) and said if quality is key, it's worth buying an older body which doesn't have as many fancy extras and spending the main money on a lens (I think I'll have to stick to a decent 24-105mm to start with). So really I just wanted to check if that's actually accurate. Could I do without a d5000 and get a model a few years older then spend the bulk of the money on a lens, or wouldn't that be a good idea? Ideally my budget is around £750 and I have no qualms buying second hand kit, so, any ideas?
Thanks for any help.
Personally I would not advise buying an older model, Unless your budget is so tight that your forced to.....!
Reason, The newer body are not just loaded with add-ons and gimmicks, They also have much better image sensors, Better AF, Better on board processors too.
All these better items add up to a camera that will give you better quality images, Especially at the higher ISO speeds......
So the choice of a D5000 as a starting point, Is a very good choice indeed, Add to that a Nikon 18-200mm VR lens, Then your good to go for most situations.
Once you have some miles under your belt, And maybe a few more quid in the kitty, You will have a better idea whats your bag photographically speaking, Then you can make a more informed choice on future lens upgrades etc etc .......
If your up for a bargain in the slightly used department, Have a look at the " Classifieds " here on ePHOTOzine ( Under the Home Tab ) .......
There is one member selling a D5000 with almost no useage, And another selling a Nikon 18-200mm in mint condition......
Its up to you, But there would be nothing lost in having a word with the sellers, Who knows you might be able to knock a few quid off......
Whatever, If you have any problems contacting sellers, Just come back here and ask someone to " PM " Them for you......
The D5000 looks good on the classifieds section, however in combination with the lens I'd be looking at nearly £900, which, unfortunately, is well above my budget. I've seen a website called mifsuds named on here and have had a look, where they have this:
Used Nikon Nikkor 18-200mm F3.5/5.6 AFS DX VR
Price: £369.00
That seems like the same thing except it's only VR instead of VRII. I'm not really up on all this yet, but does the II really make that much of a difference? If not, that combination would be within budget.
Just becausee the first person you spoke to was a Nikon fan, don't forget there are Canon cameras out there with equally good specs (and I think, better lenses)! Make sure you look at all your options and don't rush into it.
I'm well into wildlife and my (older) Canon 40D is adequate for my needs but I do have a good lens on the front. The lens is by far the most important item so skimp on the body but not the lens!
Please visit http://applewood.sc11.co.uk/main.php?g2_itemId=2599 to see some of my pictures.
Thank you
Cheddar-caveman, I agree there are some good canons out there, but having read reviews of the Nikon here and on other sites, I thought it came out on top. The 40d is out of my budget and the canon alternatives to the d5000 (such as the the 450/500d and so) seem to come out slightly worse off. Having said I don't need any extras, now that I'm considering it, having HD video would be quite nice...camcorder was stolen last year so having both in 1 could be pretty useful as an interim until I can afford to fork out another £600 for a new cam.
On your budget, an SLR may not necessarily be the best bet.
A secondhand camera such as the old Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ10 will only cost you about £100 or so and it has a superb Leica 12x zoom lens that will give you the 35mm equivalent of a 450mm telephoto. My wife has one and it has taken some truly spectacular wildlife shots. The sensor is only 4 Megapixel but if you are not looking for prints above about A3, that is surprisingly adequate.
There are later models of the same marque that you should find in the £200-£400 price range with 18x zoom lenses and even more megapixels.
Given your budget, really the only reason for going for a dSLR is if you expect to have lots of money to buy extra lenses reasonably soon. If you do go that route, then the Nikon D5000 would be an excellent starting point, but expect to find yourself spending another £2000 (at least) on lenses and accessories before many moons have passed.
Good luck whichever route you take.
Quote: Cheddar-caveman, I agree there are some good canons out there, but having read reviews of the Nikon here and on other sites, I thought it came out on top. The 40d is out of my budget and the canon alternatives to the d5000 (such as the the 450/500d and so) seem to come out slightly worse off. Having said I don't need any extras, now that I'm considering it, having HD video would be quite nice...camcorder was stolen last year so having both in 1 could be pretty useful as an interim until I can afford to fork out another £600 for a new cam.
Well if you are swayed by reviews just google Pentax k-x reviews... one here for starters
Would seem to be a bargain I'd certainly consider it if I was thinking of buying a first dslr...
Also take into consideration where you would like to get to photographically, as one system may suit you better than the others, and upgrading from your first DLSR to equipment fitting the same brand is easier than later deciding to switch to a different system.
If you like the look of the D5000, then go for it. (£409 at Bristol camerasbody only, £473 at Amazon with the 18-55 kit). I'd add something like the Sigma 70-300mm APO which is a great starter lens for wildlife (£175 at Jacobs) and produces decent quality images. You'll probably want a longer focal length eventually, but going to 400mm adds signifcantly to the cost both new and used. The above would leave you with a bit of cash for a bag, UV/Skylight filter, memory card, etc.
Hey,
The old rigmarole that 'lenses make more difference than the camera' is probably very true, there are always enough people saying it. But it eliminates a certain practical factor - that you can always save up for the lens afterwards. In film SLR photography - lens was probably 90% of the issue. But DSLRs seem to have grown all these useful features which just get better and better. For example, the ability to shoot at higher ISO rates (without changing the film!) will give you the ability to speed your shutter up when you're at the long end of a large zoom lens - which could be crucial in getting a pin sharp image in difficult light. A bit of investment in the body followed by an investment in the lens as you get more professional is likely to pay dividends.
Also - in your post you say you want to be a wildlife photographer, but want to spend most of your money on a 24-105mm lens. I'm not a wildlife photographer, but I'm well aware that generally for wildlife you need fast, long lenses. The quality of the lens is one thing - but the main way a new lens can improve your photography is by having the right kind of lens. That means - the right focal length / aperture range for what you want do. I doubt an 18-135 will meet your requirements. Unless you are planning to nail wild animals to the floor before photographing them, the majority of the focal length (18 - about 70mm) will be pretty much useless, and the remainder unlikely to be large enough to get the shots you want.
LensYews' advice seems pretty solid, I reckon. Start with a reasonably priced long lens.
I've been shopping for my first DSLR (upgrading from film, finally) for about the last month or so. I've found the biggest difference between all of them (after reading tonnes of reviews and trying out whatever I could get my hands on) is the handling. I thought the Canon D550 looked like a good bet on paper, for example, until I tried it out for half an hour or so and found out that I just couldn't adjust several settings comfortably. I'm sure others like it, but I just wasn't comfortable. So whatever you do, try (extensively) before you buy!
Thanks for all the info. I'll continue to read around a bit, however Ericbegbie, with all due respect, I don't agree that £750 isn't a good enough budget for some standard of dslr Everyone has to start somewhere and I doubt everybody jumps from a £200 point and shoot to a £1000 dslr...but I could be wrong?
Take a trip to a local camera shop and try holding some of the cameras in your hands, they all feel different, the D5000 may well be a good camera but it might not feel right in your hands. Canon and Nikon are right up there on top but Sony, Pentax, Panasonic all make great cameras too. You would not buy a car without sitting in it first to see how it feels, cameras are the same.
Good luck in whatever you choose.
Quote: Thanks for all the info. I'll continue to read around a bit, however Ericbegbie, with all due respect, I don't agree that £750 isn't a good enough budget for some standard of dslr Everyone has to start somewhere and I doubt everybody jumps from a £200 point and shoot to a £1000 dslr...but I could be wrong?
If you read my post properly, that's not what I said. I said the Nikon D5000 was a good starting point if you want to go down the dSLR route. What I do say is that £750 is a meagre budget for a dSLR outfit for serious wildlife photography, as you will inevitably want to spend much more on lenses than on the camera itself. Even on a crop frame dSLR you are going to be seriously handicapped if you cannot stretch to 400mm.
All I was pointing out was that there are other options which might give you much more "bang for your buck" as far as wildlife photography on a limited budget is concerned.
The length of lens you need depends on what sort of wildlife you want to photograph!!
If you are interested in Nikon, I would seriously look at something secondhand. I would personally recommend the D200, image quality is excellent and you can use the older manual lenses on it without losing metering etc as well, so a secondhand long fast lens will cost far less cash than a new one. Something like the 18 - 70, 18 - 200 or similar is fine for general use (avoid the cheapie plastic kit lenses), and you can add a specialist lens when you know exactly what you want.
Incidentally, Pentax also use the same lens mount as their old manual focus stuff. Olympus can use their old OM lenses with an adapter, and Sony use Minolta AF fitting lenses. All of these are readily available secondhand.
Many people on here seem to forget that unless you have hatfuls of money, it is better to start with something modest and see where you go from there. All of the major camera systems are supported with additional lenses and accessories, and there is a wealth of good secondhand kit available.
Thanks again. I think I am going to reassess what I want. When I first started looking into this I did want the emphasis on wildlife, however I don't really plan to take this too seriously. I think my definition of what wildlife photography is, is a bit different to the general concensus in the photographic world. I live in inner city London and I was just meaning taking photos of birds in the garden or the local park, and I'm still only young(ish) so if I do decide to get more serious about it, I can go down that route later. For now I think I'll be happy with a decent camera and lens combo which will provide me with a good all round base.
My problem is that, maybe my eyesight is good, or maybe because I'm just too much of a perfectionist, but I really want good quality images. My dad has a 5d with an L series canon lens and this is the kind of quality I am happy with. Now I know on my budget I am a long way from being able to get that, but I would like to get as close as possible to it. I think my best bet is to take everything that has been said here into consideration, have a read about the suggested setups and see what I think. Of course I'll also go into a shop and physically hold the camera before buying.
Thanks for all the information
Add a Comment
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
Login or Join Now
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Join Our Free Newsletter
Awards
Current Competitions
foliopic 'Movement' Competition
1st May 2012 - 31st May 2012
This month's competition theme is 'Movement' which can be interpreted in a number of ways. You could photograph an animal running, a person walking or a car speeding...Featured e2 Photo
Featured Directory Listing
May's Photo Month
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
Interact
Photography Gallery Photography Forums Recent Forum Activity Members' Meetings Members' BlogsSearch ePHOTOzine
Having trouble or would like to make a suggestion? Create a report
Calibrate your monitor so you can see 16 different shades.
ePHOTOzine © 2001 - 2012 Magezine Publishing | Contact Us | Site Map | Top