[NA]Cameras[NA]

Let'sgoflying!

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,323
Location
west Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Taylor
I am tasked with helping a young person select a camera. Something I know less than nothing about.

I can't even say this (very) young person would even be able to answer what their needs are except that it has to take good pics, be reliable, and a step up from the average user's Powershot.
There is some dream of being a wildlife photographer and who am I to hinder anyone in such a quest?

So, they are looking at this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-XS-Digital-18-55mm-Black/dp/B001CBKJGG

Which will give you an idea of the price range.
This camera has some ugly one-star reviews but most are 4 and 5 fwtw.
 
I spent hours and hours reading at dpreview.com before settling on a Sony A55 for my first "big boy" digital camera recently. I had to figure out a lot of new-to-me terminology.

I shot a lot of 35mm film over 20 years ago and had good teachers about shutter speeds, and aperture... Depth of Field, focus, all that stuff. Those haven't changed. What's changed is that sensor at the back, how it behaves in various light conditions, and in the case of the Sony, the focus sensor and "translucent mirror" tech instead of a moving mirror.

Reading up on DSLR tech was a dunk in the brain-overload tank.

For wildlife, he'll usually need a much longer lens than 55mm.

I shot some egrets and blue herons recently with both a 70-300mm and a fixed 500mm on a cropped-sensor camera (the A55) which made their effective focal lengths 84mm-450mm and 750mm and only the 500mm lens got me "close enough" to not have to crop later on.

10 MP is plenty for a "starter" DSLR. That camera will do fine.

I don't always agree with them but check out C|Net 's "budget DSLR" Editor's Choices too.

I also looked real hard at the Nikon D3100.

Canon/Nikon are religions. You can always find lenses (even rentals) and people who know them.

I have family members who were lifetime Minolta fans and have some "glass" I can borrow since Sony kept Minolta's lens technology. (That 500mm lens included.) So choosing the "odd-brand" was a little easier for me.

Now I'm shopping for my own long lens. Good ones will cost more than the camera body.

Also type the camera model into YouTube. Lots of reviewers making videos these days. Some of it is even entertaining. ;)
 
for wildlife need a zoom or telephoto lens right? fox at 100yards?
age =13.
 
You need a telephoto lens, but the ones you find on P&S are utter crap and you will be dealing with a lot of camera shake and not enough camera to steady that shake.

The 50 mentioned above is a good start, but something that is at least 100 is better. Higher than that better yet, but getting the whole thing for 500 bucks is going to be a challenge.
 
So far the specs I have honed in on, from your posts are:
-get a camera that will accept a telephoto lens
-100mm telephoto lens might be a good place to start
-get a telephoto lens with zoom

What term is used in these ads to indicate a camera that will accept a telephoto lens?

Thanks for your direction.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I am tasked with helping a young person select a camera. Something I know less than nothing about.

I can't even say this (very) young person would even be able to answer what their needs are except that it has to take good pics, be reliable, and a step up from the average user's Powershot.
There is some dream of being a wildlife photographer and who am I to hinder anyone in such a quest?

So, they are looking at this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-XS-Digital-18-55mm-Black/dp/B001CBKJGG

Which will give you an idea of the price range.
This camera has some ugly one-star reviews but most are 4 and 5 fwtw.
Click to expand...

The problem with being a wildlife photographer is it requires long fast lenses and that is always money 18-55 is not enough lens. Sony makes a couple of lines of interchangeable lens cameras, so does Panasonic that take Leica lenses. Wildlife you're looking at a 400mm lens. I would also look into an older used DSLR that uses a Nikor F mount. I used to use a Fuji S2Pro with regular AE/F mount manual focus lenses. You lose some exposure features as well, but once he gets a feel for exposures he'll make it work just fine. That way he can get the optics package he needs at a lower price than with the latest gear. To set up well with modern gear for wildlife stuff starts at $5000. He can set up with manual exposure and focus for around $700 if he shops very carefully. He can also get long slow lenses for not a lot of money if he has the light to shoot at f/22 on an f/11 lens.
 
To set up well with modern gear for wildlife stuff starts at $5000.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your knowledgeable input but frankly we are going to be looking at a compromise between what we want v what can be done.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I appreciate your knowledgeable input but frankly we are going to be looking at a compromise between what we want v what can be done.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I understand, that's why I was pointing at ways to use used and even obsolete gear to get the job done. Wildlife requires specialized optics, and optics are what are expensive. If you can stay out of the electronics interlinks, his optics costs can come way down. The most chances he's gonna have to make it work is with Nikon F series lenses. Normally they'll have to be AE cut lenses, but I have made that notch with a file on older non AE lenses as well.

Wildlife photography unfortunately is an expensive and difficult pursuit. Hiking in with a 1000mm f/5.6 lens is a chore and a half in and of itself, hauling a 4x5 and 8x10 camera, tripods and their equipment for landscape is even worse. At least now you don't have to haul film as well.
 
Why start with wildlife, start with flowers ie closer.

If he is going to pick at this hobby over the years start with a decent body and whatever lens he can get and start close. Then next year spend a few hundred on a lens. You can spend boatloads on this hobby I can tell you from experience. But find out if he likes it first. Th camera you mentioned first is probably fine for that.
 
Ps using my example above a decent used 30d plus nifty fifty would be a great start. He will have sharp photos out of the box. Ie good results which are encouraging versus starting with a challenge which won't be.
 
Dave: If you can find an original Canon Rebel DSLR -- new or used -- the pricing should be rather low because it's been upgraded numerous times with newer features. It was a champ from the word GO and would be an excellent learning tool. It's best to spend more $$$ on the lens than on the body; so if you can find a Canon Rebel body-only, then shop for the lens. There should be a supply of original Rebel bodies out there because of its initial owners frequently "gotta have the newest incarnation when it appears" factor.

The Sony Alpha A-55 is getting rave reviews, also. One of my Sony Alpha models is the A900 with a Carl Zeiss lens, but we're talking nearly $5000 there. (Had to have it, ya know).

HR
 
Lawreston said:
Dave: If you can find an original Canon Rebel DSLR -- new or used -- the pricing should be rather low because it's been upgraded numerous times with newer features. It was a champ from the word GO and would be an excellent learning tool. It's best to spend more $$$ on the lens than on the body; so if you can find a Canon Rebel body-only, then shop for the lens. There should be a supply of original Rebel bodies out there because of its initial owners frequently "gotta have the newest incarnation when it appears" factor.

The Sony Alpha A-55 is getting rave reviews, also. One of my Sony Alpha models is the A900 with a Carl Zeiss lens, but we're talking nearly $5000 there. (Had to have it, ya know).

HR
Click to expand...

The A-33 isn't bad either, I have that with the 70-400 f/4-5.6, and it does alright. I saw the lens and I liked it for its compactness so I got it and the cheapest body they had to go with it to check it out. I agree, when one is budget limited, always spend on the optics. Digital hasn't changed one thing in photography, if the quality of the light through the lens is no good, the best recording device on earth is going to capture only what it sees. The 70- 400 on the A-33 has the same field of view as a 105-600 on a 135 camera. It is heavy though and requires at least a monopod when shooting in its longer focal lengths.

DSC00288.JPG

DSC00301.JPG

DSC00321.JPG

DSC00411.JPG

DSC00414.JPG
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top