Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • One standard for the Kewl Klown Kidz and another for daddies who need to be put down.

Topic: Digital camera? (Read 239 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Digital camera?
I'm going to hold off on a VR headset for the next generation to come out.

So, I'm looking at getting a decent entry level digital camera that I'll be able to expand with additional lenses as I get proficient with it. Hah! 

There's a Nikon DX D5200 on the local CL for $375. The reviews seem decent for this camera, but there are some others I was looking at too (Nikon D3100, Canon EOS 700D). 

Any recommendations? I'll mostly be using for wildlife photography, so I'll want to get a good telephoto lens soon, probably. Also for sports (racing) photos, but less of that. I would think the same lens would probably be wanted for that anyway?
  • Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 08:41:21 AM by Worldtraveller

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #1
Welp, pulled the trigger on a Nikon D3300. Looks like a pretty good deal, via Ebay.

Of course, the lens I'm eyeballing costs ~3x as much as the initial camera and 2 lenses that come with it. :D

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #2
Lenses are insane. But cool about the camera.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #3
Yep, good glass is not cheap. My bank balance is glad I didn't get the image stabilised macro, and went for one half the price. I'm still kinda wishing I had. Although it does leave me with money to buy a new ringlight though...

Which lens were you after? Sigma and Tamron both do very good 3rd party lenses that might be more affordable.

ETA If Nikon do a battery grip (they should IIRC) I'd recommend getting it if you're going to use large lenses with it, that light camera will be very front heavy otherwise, and it should make it more comfortable to use. (Plus the two batteries will last longer)
  • Last Edit: December 12, 2017, 11:17:20 AM by DaveGodfrey
Why do I bother?

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #4
I need to find a link to the lenses. I think I might upgrade a bit to a lens that has a built handle with a tripod mount.

The one I'm looking might right now is the  [Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Nikon F ] Amazon has it for under $1k. I'm going to play with the two lenses it came with for a while, probably look at seriously getting a really nice lens come summertime.

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #5
I bought a.converter for all my old Leica  lenses but I never use any of them.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #6
That Tamron is very good, and much more affordable than the Nikon equivalent. A 300m f2.8 equivalent (with the crop from the apsc sensor is very nice indeed, and f2.8 gives you a nice big aperture so you don't lose huge amounts of light if you got a 1.4x/2x converter (and I would for wildlife or sportsball). A 600mm f5.6 would be amazing.

Of course the only problem with that is with wide angles (I have a nice 20mm which I want to use as 20mm, so went for a full frame, as I don't do enough wildlife photography to need crazy long zooms).

The lenses it comes with are cheap and cheerful, but they'll get you used to what the camera can do which is the main thing. I'd say get a 50mm 1.8, but with the crop they're not that useful as an all purpose lens. I'm not sure whether there's a cheap 35mm which would be the equivalent, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't something.
Why do I bother?

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #7
The main thing I'll be using this for is 1) motorcycle racing photos, and 2) wildlife (mostly birds) photos.

So I want a good zoom/magnification, and also a decent AF ability and built in image stabilization. That Tamron seems like it would be good for both for under $500. I saw some really nice $$$$$$ lenses that would be great, but I'm just a hobbyist, not a professional. :D

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #8
On your camera a 200mm lens gives you the same field of view as a 300mm, so with a 2x converter (and good ones are only a couple of hundred if that) that gives you the equivalent of a 600mm lens. However when you use a converter you lose light- a 1.4x loses one stop, so an f2.8 lens only lets in as much light as an f4.0. A 2x converter loses two stops so an f2.8 becomes an f5.6. A fixed 600 f5.6 lens will cost you several thousand. Yes the quality will be better, but they're just not affordable, need a wheelbarrow to move around, and a 105-300 (the equivalent in 35mm terms when you put the Tamron on your camera) is a pretty flexible lens, if perhaps a little too long at the wide end to be ideal for portraits.
Why do I bother?

Re: Digital camera?
Reply #9
Yep, good glass is not cheap. My bank balance is glad I didn't get the image stabilised macro, and went for one half the price. I'm still kinda wishing I had. Although it does leave me with money to buy a new ringlight though...

Image stabilization is the cat's meow.

Quote
ETA If Nikon do a battery grip (they should IIRC) I'd recommend getting it if you're going to use large lenses with it, that light camera will be very front heavy otherwise, and it should make it more comfortable to use. (Plus the two batteries will last longer)

But it's heavier when you're carrying it around.  I'm not sure if it's worth it.