$1200.00 budget

[kruxy]

Looking to take a trip to Alaska on a sail boat this summer. I am searching for a camera of around 10mp and a decent lens for taking photos of the landscape from the boat... glaciers, mountains, etc.

Curious of a D60 with more spent on the lens is a better way to go than getting a more expensive body with less in the lens but possibly more features.

Any recommendations on a lens that will do some nice telephoto shots that won't break the bank?

Is there a decent kit that would give me an all around shooting lens for at home, and then a second strictly telephoto for the trip? I would like to attempt to stay under 1200 and still have a range of usability.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Jacob D]

$1200 for the body, zoom, and telephoto? For all of that you're on the low side unless you don't mind spending $1200 for pretty low quality gear. You can get a body and standard zoom for $1200 and rent the telephoto for your trip.

If you're going to lean more heavily towards landscape you might want to consider a full frame camera, even a used one in good condition. I realize this will probably put you over budget but it will open up a lot of doors when it comes to wide angle and ultrawide angle lens selection. On the other hand if you'll mostly shoot sports or wildlife from a distance the crop body will lend itself to those subjects.

You're probably best buying the body and lens separately so you can get the best zoom lens for your needs and get the most bang for your buck. Lot's of lens reviews here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/index.php

 

[kruxy]

Yep, mostly wildlife off the back deck, I don't anticipate going on the trip of a lifetime too frequently!

Hadn't thought of a lens rental, are there places taht will do month long rentals out there?

Is a 70-300 going to be the lens range i am looking for? Looks like maybe a d60 with the 18-55 for a walk around lens and a Nikon 70-300 would be around 1300, that isn't too far out of the budget.

Haven't had anything but a P&S so I may be missing some scenarios where I would want another lens, but if I can get photos of the people on the boat, and the view off of the side, that should meet most of my needs for this trip at least.

 

[TWallace]

You could get a D60 and a 16-85 lens together for around $1100 on B&H. The 16-85 is a fantastic all around lens for Nikon. Just be aware that the D60 (and D40) lacks an autofocus motor in the body, so only lenses with the motor in it will autofocus. Most lenses these days do have a motor, so it's not a huge concern unless you want a 50mm 1.8 lens (the one with the motor in it is way more expensive).

I always recommend trying to buy the body used either through Craigslist or eBay. It's much cheaper that way and leaves you with more money to get a great lens. You can even buy the lens used as well to save some money.

 

[kruxy]

Not sure if i can link it, a google for Brad Templeton's Photography with a click on lens buying link is sort of what I have been going by. Could someone who is knowledgeable do me a favor and check that page out and tell me if he is putting me on the right track?

Thanks for your input both of you.

Would spending a bit more for a d90 body be worth it? I read that the video option in it inflates the price, and I have no interest in that feature. Is there something else it offers that I would be an idiot to not capitalize on?

I am biased towards nikon, but should I be considering a comparable cannon? I like the review on the cannon 50mm prime lens.

Frustrating, I know just enough to know I need to learn more.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

I would rent as well. What are you going to be shooting? Moose...Bears...Eagles...Whales...The telephoto lens I would want for any of those would be about 5 times over your budget without even factoring in a camera or anything else.

Of course you could very well be overwhelmed by such a behemoth and little experience...I don't know tough call. I definitely recommend you get a camera months before this trip so you know how to use it effectively when it comes to crunch time tough. If you are busy trying to get your camera to work and not 100% sure what you are doing, you will miss enjoying the wildlife and scenery and end up with no pictures worth showing off anyway.

 

[kruxy]

We are not going to be making any landings, living on the boat, so the majority of the things I expect to be shooting are landscapes, if there are whales or other macrofauna within sight that will be a bonus. Could be a good zoom lens is all I will really need, not sure as I have never used a camera with removable lenses.

I will be getting the camera 2 or 3 months before the trip, thats whay I am trying to narrow it down now.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Well land scape usually consists of the polar opposite of telephoto. Maybe you should get a nice wide angle lens...but that means you will be hard pressed to take picture of animals. Cameras with removable lenses (DSLRs) specialize in very specific tasks when fitted with specific equipment. I would get yourself a nice wide angle and be done with it. If you want to do landscapes and animals...a "super zoom" point and shoot like the Canon SX10 IS or Nikon P90 may be your only option.

 

[dendronepthya]

If you are a tight budget, I am all for spending money on the lenses rather than the body. While the newer bodies have wonderful features the old bodies lack, the picture output is reasonably close if both are using the same lenses (and you aren't talking about specialized situations like needing a clean ISO 6400). Here are two pictures taken of Acans. Both used a 100mm macro. One camera is a $2700 Canon 5D2 on a $1100 tripod while the other is a Canon 300D "Digital Rebel" (that sells for about $250 used) on a $35 Walmart tripod.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The bottom image was taken with the cheaper equipment based on image quality. The upper image is vastly superior.

 

[BlueCorn]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14772896#post14772896 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
The bottom image was taken with the cheaper equipment based on image quality. The upper image is vastly superior.

Actually the image quality is fine, TS was cheating and looking at the EXIF.

 

[VoidRaven]

I've seen guys with the $3K+ gear take that second shot time and time again. Maybe they PP'd it wrong. Maybe they twitched. Maybe they don't know how to use their really expensive gear properly.

If the poster hadn't said in the post what took what you'd almost be hard pressed to tell the difference. The first photo almost looks a little too over-sharpened...which is something I am frequently guilty of.

Expensive gear dost not a photog make.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Nu-Uh! honest to god I could tell a big difference. I did look at the exif to verify my claims but I knew beforehand.
Now I'm not saying the cheap equipment image is "bad". Many would be perfectly happy with it. I am saying that the image taken by the same photographer with the same set of skills with the superior kit produced a superior result. You can see the difference plain as day.

 

[dendronepthya]

I think there are definitely differences in the two photos, and I like the more expensive rig better however they are close. So far my experience in photography is similar to other hobbies where there is a sharp diminishing return to gear. For about $1000-2000 you can get a system that is better than 90% of what is out there but besting that remaining 10% of the market is going to cost you a fortune.

@ VoidRaven - the 5D shot is a tad over sharpened I agree, but I like the look.

 

[Jacob D]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14761171#post14761171 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by kruxy
Not sure if i can link it, a google for Brad Templeton's Photography with a click on lens buying link is sort of what I have been going by. Could someone who is knowledgeable do me a favor and check that page out and tell me if he is putting me on the right track?

Thanks for your input both of you.

Looks like sound, general, advice to me. Camera and lenses need to be suited to what you want to shoot. To have a 'do everything' setup your best bet *right now* is a good quality zoom that starts really wide and is as fast as possible (f2.8 - f4). Add to that a rented telezoom (say a 100-400mm). Now you have only 2 lenses to worry about and when to use each should be pretty clear cut. If you get some experience by the time you take your trip maybe add a 35mm or 50mm fast (f1.4 - f1.8) prime for indoor, low light shots (buy this lens).

Would spending a bit more for a d90 body be worth it? I read that the video option in it inflates the price, and I have no interest in that feature. Is there something else it offers that I would be an idiot to not capitalize on?

If you don't know how/why it could justify the higher price, then no - not worth it.

I am biased towards nikon, but should I be considering a comparable cannon? I like the review on the cannon 50mm prime lens.

You should go to a store and hold both a Nikon D60 and Canon 40D (for example) and see how they feel, have the person at the store quickly explain the button layout and take some shots around the store. The one that feels better is your brand. Heck try out an Olympus too; they have some interesting new gear out.

 

[jthao]

d60 w/ 18-55 kit lens + 70-300vr

 

[tyoberg]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14772896#post14772896 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by TitusvileSurfer
The bottom image was taken with the cheaper equipment based on image quality. The upper image is vastly superior.

What specifically? Without pulling exif, I don't see anything but a slight difference in contrast and different f/stops.


You could get the D40 and speedlight (plus higher flash synch) for the same cost as the D60. But I don't print anything where you'd need 10megapixels (bigger than 8x10). Smaller RAW files are a lot quicker to process too.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

The bottom image doesn't look fuzzy to you?! That was likely because of the inferior tripod. The superior equipment had to hold still much much longer as well. The 5D is sharp, pulls more dynamic range, and just has that extra something a 5D gives.

Pull your equipment out again and do another side by side but disable exif. Shoot the same subject at the same angle with the same settings. I bet you'll be able to tell a difference.

 

[BlueCorn]

TS - you're blowing it way out of proportion. There are a number of variables that factor into image quality on any given shot. Whether you can see a minute difference or not really isn't relevant. The differences in those two shots are largely the result of post processing. I like the 5D, both old and new, but it's just a tool.

With any modern DSLR the body, while still important, has very little to do with image quality; especially on a 800 x 600 image for the web. Pixel peeping doesn't make for better images.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Yeah you are right