Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Moving west, time to get a camera

profile picture
most_mint
Posts: 506 - Karma: 175
So at the end of this summer I will be heading out West to Bozeman and leaving the east coast for a while. I figure that this would be a good time to invest in a camera, not just for skiing, but to capture all the beautiful scenery and share it with friends back home. I ski, climb, slackline, hike, camp, canoe, etc. and want to be able to capture this. Also, I am going to be an Architecture student and think having a nice camera to document projects and buildings for inspiration would be a good plus.

I am really looking for advice on whether or not I should go with a DSLR like the t2i (i know i know...) or a D3200, or since i will really be focusing on photography, if I would be even better of just investing in a compact camera with interchangeable lenses, or a point and shoot since they seem to be upping their game.

Once again, this would be for mostly photos however the ability to shoot video would be a plus, since im sure there will be times when i would love to be able to film various sports.

And because I want to get the most help out of this as possible, here are the "what camera should i buy??" questions!

1) What is your budget? How much money can you spend right away, and do you think you can get more money to invest in the future?
I would like to keep this fairly low for now, around $600. I am hoping that my parents might be willing to pitch in as a graduation/moving away gift, but that a long shot.

2) What experience do you already have with cameras? Have you ever even used one before? Have you helped your friend out with his camera? Have you owned your own?
I dont have a ton of experience with cameras besides my own point and shoot that i have long since outgrown. I am an art student and do a lot of work with photos and the like, so I feel fairly confident making a nice composition and capturing subject, however I have little experience with nice cameras.

2) What gear, if any, do you currently have? (tripod, old camera lenses, mics, etc)
Have a couple of small fairly shitty tripods

4) What are you planning to shoot and how do you want to use your camera? Are you going to use this with the sole purpose of shooting skiing? or do you think you might try other stuff as well (movies, documentaries, short films, etc)
As previously stated, this is not just for skiing. This is for landscape, climbing, slackline, art, architecture, and of course, skiing. It is most likely going to be used for photos first, and some video on the side

5) Do you want a camera that you can hand to your friends, that could or could not have film experience, and let them shoot you? or will you be doing all the filming?
A camera that others could take shots with would be alright, but I am okay with keeping it to myself. I dont want to sacrifice quality so that my friends can get me. (I will also likely be rooming with another photographer..)

6) When filming skiing, how do you tend to shoot? (follow cams, leave it on record on a tripod and hike, film from a tripod, etc)
If i was filming skiing, I would mostly prefer follow cams

7) What computer do you currently have/use to edit (if not currently editing, what would you most likely use)? If you can provide specifics, such as hard drive space, RAM, processor size, that would be great.
Have an HP Envy, windows 8, i5 processor, 8gb ram, 750gb hard drive


7) What program do you currently edit on? How familiar are you with it (1- just learning; 10- I can make tutorials and know the keyboard layout)
adobe premeire pro cs6 and photoshop for the non video..

Thanks!
Apr 9 2013 9:01AM
15 7
profile picture
mlp
Posts: 360 - Karma: 45
If video is not needed look at the canon 20,40D. A great camera for the $
Apr 9 2013 11:35AM
2 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
I'd go with at least a 40d, the screen on my 20d is way too small and crappy quality. I can barely even see the pictures unless I bring it close to my face and zoom in on it. I'd personally just get a gh2 or t2i or something so that I can use it for photos but videos as well if I even need to, but if you know its 100% photos than an older x0d (20,30,40d)
Apr 9 2013 11:44AM
1 5
profile picture
Belzebub
Posts: 451 - Karma: 812
Dont ever recommend panasonic gh2 for mainly photo. It has a crappy layout of buttons, bad menus, outdated sensor+++. The only reason to buy a gh2 is if your photo/video is somewhere around 10/90.


Apr 9 2013 1:34PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
definitely - the GH2 photo quality sucks.

For mostly photo, I would suggest looking into the Nikon D3200 as an entry level camera, then start buying glass. I would get the 50mm 1.8D to start things off, you'll keep it forever. I've seen some good photos come from that kit lens too, much better than the canon entry level kit.
Apr 9 2013 2:06PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
D3200 has no auto focus motor or top LCD screen. I'd go with a d90, or d7000 if you can up your budget a bunch. Its probably worth it, you seem pretty enthusiastic about this and might as well get something you won't outgrow in a couple months.
Apr 9 2013 2:15PM
2 0
profile picture
Jewschoolers
Posts: 1785 - Karma: 1,142
im pretty sure out of all the stupid shit ive seen you post, this is hands down the most idiotic thing you have managed to type. why dont you just not give "advice" unless you know what you are talking about?
Apr 9 2013 3:03PM
3 1
profile picture
Bmo.
Posts: 4907 - Karma: 2,667
.

I wish he would stop posting in M&A
Apr 9 2013 3:39PM
2 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
I meant I'd rather have it for the video capabilities. But I've seen comparisons between them in photos and its not that much worse.
Apr 9 2013 5:59PM
0 1
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
it's not really the image quality that's the problem.
Apr 9 2013 6:05PM
0 0
profile picture
most_mint
Posts: 506 - Karma: 175
As far as the D3200 goes, why is it not more popular? is it the lack of autofocus? I like the price and the other specs of the camera, and seems like its right there with the t2i t3i but for even cheaper.

If i was to get something along those lines (t2i t3i d3200, ect.) what is the best deal? The reality is, I cant drop a lot of money on this so it really comes down to the best deal. Im working all summer but once i move west im going to need that money to last me till next summer, and ive got to buy a whole new ski setup for the west coast. My parents might be willing to help out with the camera but that is still a long shot, its usually up to me to pay for this stuff.

Also, I am okay with something that is entry level but still has the quality, to be honest. I dont see myself having the need to buy high end gear in the future, as photography is going to be a hobby, and a way of documenting my other activites. I would rather have a decent body and a nice lens or two, and work from there. I really just want something better than a point and shoot to capture my travels with.

Saw these photos from L.J.S. and thought they were prime examples of what i would love to be able to capture. Shout out to L.J.S. and hope you dont mind me sharing your shots!
5 day hike in the Rockies -
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Click for larger image
Apr 9 2013 7:24PM
0 0
profile picture
buttrapinpirate
Posts: 497 - Karma: 225
Yep. You summed it up. sadly that's what separates it from nikon's big boy cameras. Amongst many other things obviously, but any time you use AF-D glass and moving subjects, you're going to have a bad time. If you really can, try for a D7000 if you need video. Really. Please do. If you don't you'll wish you had more options as far as AF goes and stuff. I understand a tight budget, but having no AF motor sucks. I know from personal experience.
Apr 9 2013 9:39PM
0 0
profile picture
erikK
Posts: 3245 - Karma: 2,328
I'm going to recommend that you say the hell with video and buy a D80 then. It's nice to have video but it's expensive as hell to get into because of stabilization and audio on top of just a camera + lens which can do fine for just photos.
Apr 9 2013 10:12PM
0 0
profile picture
bigbromskier
Posts: 1175 - Karma: 330
I second this. If you're not going for video a lot than it's really not worth the extra price. I don't shoot much anymore, but when I do I have a D50 from like 7 years ago that still puts out awesome photos. Really not a whole lot has advanced in terms of still images--when you look at the actual photo it won't really matter that much.

I'd recommend the D80 or the D300, both of which I drooled over back when I was more into it and only had the D50. Definitely the 50mm 1.8 and I had a hell of a lot of fun with the Nikon Fisheye before i sold it.

Also, I took the intro to photo class at MSU and it was a really really great experience. Pick up a cheap film camera at the used camera store on north 7th and you're golden!
Apr 9 2013 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
most_mint
Posts: 506 - Karma: 175
Taking some photo classes at MSU is something i will be looking into for sure!

Just because I am really a new to the DSLR thing and dont really understand the specs yet, Why are cameras like the D80 or D300 better than the rebel series from canon that has more impressive megapixel stats and what not? Just curious as to why the t3 t2i and t31 havent been suggested yet, seeing as they are all right around the price I need and have autofocus which the d3200 does not.

And as far as the video goes, i am willing to have no video option if it means better price, but it seems like a lot of the newer cameras have the option to shoot video anyway.

Thanks so far for all the help, +K all around!
Apr 9 2013 10:59PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
The Rebel series is pretty 'meh' for photography. I have 2 t2i's I use for video, but that's all they are used for on my end. I rarely shoot photography with them, and instead use my 5Dc or even my 20D.

You have to hold a button down and turn a knob just to change some simple settings, whereas, on all the bodies above the rebel from Canon or D3xxx/D5xxx lines from Nikon, you get very simple controls that are harder to shoot with on the fly. You also get crappier viewfinders - and that's saying something, seeing as something like a D90 or a 50D don't exactly have outstanding viewfinders to begin with.

Also, I would recommend NOT going with any D3200/D5200 because you miss out on a SHITLOAD of awesome lenses that Nikon's made over the years. The Nikkor "D" lenses become manual lenses on them, and won't autofocus. This sucks, and means that you have to buy all the new Dx lenses that don't have on-lens aperture settings, are no better quality for the most part (unless they have IS - which isn't really necessary in my opinion unless you have something over 80mm). This is why something like a gently used D200/300 or a D90 would be a great option if you went the Nikon route. A lot more lenses available to you.

As far as megapixels go - that whole thing is bullshit. For most people, 8 megapixels or less is about all that's worth using anyways. You only need over 10 or so if you're going to blow something up to proportions that will cover the side of a building. If you're putting it on your facebook, your screen isn't high enough resolution for it to make a lick of difference. Therefore, getting an 18megapixel camera like a t3i over a 10 megapixel 40D won't really do much, and you'll be wasting money.

a t4i or a D3200 will be completely made of plastic, and is more likely to break, or be damaged. A 20/30/40/50D/7D or a D80/D90/D200/D300/D7000 is made very well and in some cases, has weather sealing (like with the 7D or D7000) that makes them much better in the longrun - they're far less likely to be damaged if splashed with water or in our case - snow.

(on this note, you should also probably look into something like a Pentax K20D or a K7 as a comparison. They are weather sealed and made with really high quality stuff, no worse than any comparable Nikon or Canon DSLR that's been put out - plus they give you the ability to use any of the 2 million lenses that have been made for the Pentax mount since 1975 - If you're ever thinking of taking a trip to burning man, these things are practically playa-proof)

Last thing. If you kinda like the idea of using old manual lenses from old film SLR cameras (which you'll probably have to pick up if you take a photo class almost anywhere), then you might also want to look more into Canon. You can use Nikon/Olympus/Pentax/M42/Leica, and almost anything but Minolta and Canon FD (old canon, ironically) with a very simple adapter that costs about 10 bucks on ebay that has a canon lens chip on it which allows the camera to confirm your focus in the viewfinder. You can also just get old nikon or pentax glass if you go with one of those brands (you can't get the chip option in this case), but I personally love having the choice of either throwing my Olympus 50mm F1.4, or my Pentax mount 28mm f2, or my Nikon 80-200 f4 on my Canon without too much of a problem. This option is really popular if you're doing more video stuff in the future, where you need to use manual focus anyways, or if you already have the lenses because you own an old Film SLR.



For 600$, I'd personally go with a Canon 30D (it's basically a 20D with a bigger screen, but the screen is pretty nice) which you can get for around 200 bucks or so used, and a couple lenses with the other 400.

KEH.com prices:

Canon 30D -
Canon EF-S 18-55 ii - $62
Canon EF 50mm f1.8 - $89
Canon EF 28mm f2.8 - $225

That gives you a nice body and 3 really sweet lenses for 575$. You can't do that if you buy a brand new D3200 or t4i. You can use the 18-55 as a walk around lens that gives you a good wide angle field of view at 18mm for nice landscape shots. You can use the 50 f1.8 as a really awesome low light lens that also gives a very nice portrait length (so, photos of peoples faces, and/or headshots from the elbows and up) and you can use the 28mm f2.8 as a really awesome standard zoom lens that works alright in low light as well (a really nice, small, light walk around do-all lens). Once you have this all in order, I don't see any reason why you'd need another camera for a loooooooong time unless you really wanted to get into video for some reason. Those three lenses and the camera could fit in a small camera bag and be taken just about anywhere without much effort, and give you all the most useful focal lengths.

/novel










Apr 10 2013 2:08AM
1 0
profile picture
Balto
Posts: 25985 - Karma: 4,404
Honestly, screw low end DSLR's. If you are wanting to travel with your camera (go hiking, etc), check out a mirror less system. Sony NEX-5 is right in your price range, then you can buy old cheap yet fantastic glass and adapt it. it will give as good of images (lets face it, you are gonna be looking at stuff on a computer, not 10ft tall prints), and be way smaller
Apr 10 2013 2:21AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Ack. I should also give you an idea of what to go with if you went with Nikon and Pentax as well.

Nikon D200 - $275
Nikkor 28 f2.8D - $105
Nikkor 50 f1.8D - $89
Nikkor 18-70 f3.5-f4.5 - 149 (way better than Kit-Zooms, and still affordable)

Total: $618

Pentax K10D - $199
Pentax 18-55 Kit - $49
Pentax 35mm f2.4 - $172
K-Mount Vintage Glass options?

Total 422$+

Apr 10 2013 2:30AM
1 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
The appeal's nice if you're speaking purely from portability, but they lack an optical viewfinder (personally, I like to see exactly what the lens sees before I hit the shutter button). Throwing on vintage glass isn't so easy, as the crop factor doubles the focal length of everything - which is harder to manage than with an older, mid-range DSLR. You really don't want a 100mm lens for landscape photography.

If I was going to go that route, though...

Olympus EP-3 or Panasonic GF3 $150?
Zuiko 17mm f2.8 $150?
Zuiko 14-42mm $50?
Sigma 30 f1.4 $250?

600?



Apr 10 2013 2:46AM
1 0
profile picture
JuliusJ
Posts: 3778 - Karma: 2,106
Personally, I think you should invest and buy what you want from the start (what is reasonably in your budget) rather than making micro upgrades. Buy a decent used body, learn it, and treat it well. Buy a 50mm 1.8 and then start saving for other (used) lenses.
Apr 10 2013 3:17AM
0 0
profile picture
most_mint
Posts: 506 - Karma: 175
10/10. This is incredibly helpful. Im going to do some studying up on these cameras and lenses and see what I can find.

It seems like most people are suggesting a used camera, is there anything to look out for here / where is the place to go to get the most reliable deals?

Once again, thanks to everyone, and DingoSean you killed it. mad helpful!
Apr 10 2013 8:14AM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
The t2i and lower end dslrs are made out of plastic, but that doesn't mean they're not still super durable.
Apr 10 2013 8:44AM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Yeah, but why would you want one if you're not doing video more than 10% of the time? They aren't the greatest for photography in general AND they're made worse. It's a lose-lose.


Sites to look for used gear:

Keh.com (personally, my favourite place for used lenses and film cameras)
Adorama.com (Where I've bought all of my DSLR cameras)
bhphotovideo.com (haven't used them for used gear, but they do have a good used section)




Apr 10 2013 12:30PM
0 0
profile picture
.qzyxya
Posts: 1479 - Karma: -26
Point taken, was just clarifying.
Apr 10 2013 2:30PM
0 0
profile picture
TWoods
Posts: 10014 - Karma: 8,386
Then you aren't looking hard enough. I own a GH2. It's really really poor as a photo camera in comparison to even entry level DSLRs.
Apr 10 2013 2:45PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)