New camera
- Thread starter jospears
- Start date
Robb in Austin
New member
I'm sure others will chime in but head to your nearest real(not Ritz, Wolf, Best Buy, etc) camera shop and try out everything. See which feels best. Also, if you have a film SLR you might lean that direction. Some old lenses will still be usable.
Also, check some of the other threads here. This subject comes up frequently.
Also, check some of the other threads here. This subject comes up frequently.
CameraMan7410
In Memoriam
if you want a point and shoot, a good one is the canon g9
and if you want a dslr, a good one is the canon xti or xsi.
and if you want a dslr, a good one is the canon xti or xsi.
drparker
Premium Member
You said zoom, but what does that mean? Do you want to take nature shots of far off wildlife, close-ups of things in your tank, shot of jr playing hockey? So tell us what type of pictures do you see yourself taking?
Do you already know about aperture and shutter speed and depth of field? If not do you want to learn or could care less?
Do you already know about aperture and shutter speed and depth of field? If not do you want to learn or could care less?
fattyratrat
New member
i don't want to hijack, and don't think i am, but what is dslr? and if jospears doesnt want to know about aperature, shutter speed, and depth of field, i do. I am in the same boat as jospears is. I am in the market for a camera, and mostly want to take pix of my tank, and wildlife. sorry if this is hijacking.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Nature shots from far off will cost you big bucks and land way out of budget. You can take decant close-ups of your tank with a point and shoot, such as the Canon G9, for about $500. It won't take far off wildlife though. For that your looking at thousands of dollars.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
The least expensive setup I would suggest for both wildlife and tank closeups would be:
Canon Xsi $809.95
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS $549
Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro $469.95
Total $1829.90
Canon Xsi $809.95
Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS $549
Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro $469.95
Total $1829.90
drparker
Premium Member
Fattyratat,
The question around exposure(aperture & shutter) is designed to get a feel a for if a DSLR( digital single lens reflex) camera is the right choice. An SLR is your old standard 35mm film camera with changeable lenses etc.. put the D in front for digital.
They are bigger and heavier than P&S, point & shoot, but have a lot more control and changeable lenses.
For far off nature ok lenses start at his budget, the best lenses cost 10 times that and there is every price in between.
For close-ups the lens is called a macro and good ones are are around $500.
There are some pretty good compromises though. The better "Kit Lenses" have a decent macro mode to let you shot close-ups and they can zoom nature in a little closer but not far off. Think zoo. You can start to learn and practice with this lens while you plan your next lens purchase.
The big questions to ask yourself when deciding between a good P&S and DSLR. Will it be a hobby or not? The P&S is great for easy carrying, so if you only plan to take some shots here and there you'll be more likely to us it. If your the kind of person who will take 500 shots of a barn at dusk just see what settings give the perfect glow then you definitely want a DSLR.
For a hobby that will take time, money and can be very addictive then the DSLR is the way to go.
TitusvileSurfer
New member
Yeah but who wants to buy an obsolete computer? (literally) If your going to spend that kind of money anyway I would not be in the market for an outdated camera. The 55-250 sounds like a good suggestion. I have never used it but have heard good things. The 70-300 and the 55-250 are both very light hungry at f/5.6. The problem with wildlife is that you really need to be there when the sun is coming up or when the sun is going down to see any. That is what makes this lens so popular, enter the 300mm f/2.8 IS. I have a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, and while I get plenty of shutter speed the "zoom" just isn't there for wildlife. Many complain 400mm isn't long enough for birds and other small critters. I can slap on a 2x teleconverter and make my 70-200 f/2.8 a 140-400mm f/5.6 just as you can make the 300mm f/2.8 IS a 600mm f/5.6 IS ect. ect.
If I was a birder (and I may consider it), I would have either a 100-400 IS or 400 prime.
The Sigma 300-800mm wouldn't be bad either, coming in at a meager $6000.
If I was a birder (and I may consider it), I would have either a 100-400 IS or 400 prime.
The "best" is every birder's envy, the Canon 1200mm f/5.6 weighing in at a whopping $89,579
The Sigma 300-800mm wouldn't be bad either, coming in at a meager $6000.
Last edited:
TitusvileSurfer
New member
The 600mm f/4 is much more realistic. There is the new 800mm f/5.6 coming in around $12,000 as well. As for the 1200mm, I think Sports Illustrated owns 2, Oakley sun glasses has 1, Canon owns one...probably 10-12 exist. If not great shots, it sure captures people's fantasy.
I bought a canon xt for 450.00 with a kit lens but I also bought a 55-250 is for 270.00.. total 730. I believe this set is great for me. I know there are newer models but the money I saved I canon buy a good 100mm macro. I not sure if a xsi would ov given me a better picture with the same lens.
Similar threads
